quote:I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension.
Good show. Okay liberals, you heard the man: you don't know what's good for ya. Don't bother, it's not something you can comprehend. Just sit back and let these guys do all the work for you.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension. The same reason the former Soviet block sought to establish communist regemes in troubled South American nations applies in this situation. Iraq was a convenient foothold to establish freedom in a part of the world that is brainwashed by an Islamic religious rule. It will take generations to undo the sharia mindset just as it took generations of liberal indoctrination in our schools to produce our current administration. Why aren't the your precious femenists decrying the middle east? How can you trash the "religious right" and turn your backs on Sharia law. You speak of protecting the constitution but would deny those very freedoms to the most oppressed in our world. Democracy is the answer. Truly democratic nations do not wage war on other democratic nations or enslave and indocrinate their people through religion. The point of the Iraq war was to spread freedom and democracy for a future ally in the region. We transformed through war, Japan into a trusted ally and peaceful nation. I would argue the fanatics of that place and time were much more dedicated than the Muslims of today. Their emperor was god.
Umm... Where to start?
Okay, their Emperor is STILL revered as their Celestial Sovereign aka "God" although their concept of God differs from ours, that is why MacArthur in his one act of Sanity insisted he remain in power and accept the Japanese request "we will surrender unconditionally but we wish to keep the Emperor".
Next, Japan is far from peaceful, there is still a very vocal minority that speaks for a large subset of the new generation of far more internationally assertive generation of Japanese students and politicians that increasingly wish to see Japan returned to Great Power status, as of now they spend what? 1% of their GDP on defence? If they spent as much comparitively as the USA, China or the former Sovet Union (upwards of 6%) they would have the worlds most powerful military on a per capita basis a fact that is not lost on them. Right now (or previously) their constitution and US troop presence has been whats keeping them a in a "for now" sense from pursuing their goals but that has been changing, they raised the armed forces to a Ministerial position by recreating the Ministry of Defence. They have been lobbying heavily to have a seat on the expanded Security Council. The restriction placed on their constitution seems to be in the minds of an increasing subset of japanese minds an overreaction.
Next, why is getting rid of Sharia Law bad? Why is it the perogative of the USA to spread "peace, freedom, and democracy" to them? If I recall isolationism has been George Washington's wish and testiment for like the first 2/3's of US policy history? Also what gives the US to "moral" right to violate unilaterally the sacred sovereignty of another nation-state or is might makes right all that matters to you? The USA has a massive amount of blood on its hand from all the facsist states it set up in the America's and abroad so forgive the rest of the world for being wary of the international equivalent of a pederast.
The point of the Iraq war was "they had WMD's, Saddam is bad Oooh Oil" in that order. That you should think that the idea of invading a sovereign if albeit troublesome nation just so you have a base to further spread "democracy" to other nations of the region speaks entirely of hypocracy and moral repugnancy.
Yes many middle east countries have bad governments, but you cannot ever force democracy on a region if the roots of democracy do not already exist, Japan was a semi functional and democratic constitunal monarchy from 1860's to 1920's before the right wingers took control in the wake of a financial crisis (from their overlylarge military budget hmm sounds familiar), if I remember correctly, Jordan, Syria, Israel, I geuss technically Palistine and to a degree Iran and Turkey are all "democracies" without entering in on grey areas like the caucasus.
Leaving Saudi Arabia (US ally and fervent supporter of Sharia law everywhere) as the remaining undemocratic state. Funny that.*
*I do not know of the situations of Oman, Yemen, and lebenon and I am iffy about Syria, but im fairly certain without looking at wikipedia that Jordan is a Constitutional monarchy, and the political system of Iran was shown to be while wierd has checks and balances which is afterall the point of democracy so close enough. pakistan doesnt count.
And anyways whats wrong with Sharia aside from Human rights violations? Many religious christian groups in the states are similar in outlook and beliefs.
IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension.
Your point: The war may have been illegal and falsely premised, yet countries should invade other countries when convenient for political reasons. Liberals can't possibly understand "ends justify the means" governance.
quote:Why aren't the your precious femenists [sic] decrying the middle east?
Uh. . . most of them are. Not "decrying the Middle East" but fighting against the most oppressive extremes of Islam: female circumcision (really just mutilation), different legal treatment of men and women and oppressive rituals designed to denigrate women. I mean, they're about as effective as any charity or special interest group working to change things across the world (read: not very) but that's not a problem with feminism itself.
quote:You speak of protecting the constitution but would deny those very freedoms to the most oppressed in our world. Democracy is the answer.
And what do we do when these new "democracies" follow our example and break the law whenever they damn well please?
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension.
Good show. Okay liberals, you heard the man: you don't know what's good for ya. Don't bother, it's not something you can comprehend. Just sit back and let these guys do all the work for you.
*pat pat*
Well that's a load off my mind. I was expending precious mental RAM space trying to wrap my noggin' around that one.
Now I can go hug some trees with all my free time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Why aren't the your precious femenists decrying the middle east? How can you trash the "religious right" and turn your backs on Sharia law. You speak of protecting the constitution but would deny those very freedoms to the most oppressed in our world. Democracy is the answer. Truly democratic nations do not wage war on other democratic nations or enslave and indocrinate their people through religion.
Iraq did not practice Sharia law. It is the Shi'ite majority (suppressed under Hussein) that want Sharia law.
Before the first Gulf War, women were pretty well off in Iraq. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property.
We have not made it better for women.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Iraq did not practice Sharia law. It is the Shi'ite majority (suppressed under Hussein) that want Sharia law.
Before the first Gulf War, women were pretty well off in Iraq. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property.
We have not made it better for women.
Iraq did indeed grant equal rights to men and women. But under Saddam Hussein he said he supported women in public and to the press of the world, but the truth is far from his stated position. The actual conditions for women was far more complex than you make it seem. This is a link that you might find useful Women in Post-Saddam IraqPosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. Most things are more complicated than can be expressed in a forum post. Life is generally bad for people under a dictator and when life is bad in general, life is usually worse for women (and the poor).
But, contrary to malanthrop's post,(the simplicity of which did not seem to trouble you) the Ba'athists ended Sharia law in Iraq. Hussein's government was secular. After the first Gulf War, amid anti-Western sentiment, Hussein became or pretended to become a more devout Muslim.
Again, the US has not done the women of Iraq any favours with either invasion.
posted
To be honest, I stopped reading malanthrop's post after the first sentence. The first sentence was more than I could take... I had to take my dog to the vet for what we are hoping is only a pulled muscle. I will read your link after a bit, I just wanted you to know that I do read your posts and ones like malanthrop's I skip over.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
