I guess that whole "liberating Afghanistan" thing didn't turn out too well.

[TK-8252]

Afghan man on trial for his life - his crime? Converting to Christianity of course!

 

So what ever happened to us transforming the Middle East? We have a new Taliban in Afghanistan, an Islamic theocracy on the rise in Iraq, and okay we have a democracy in Palestine, but who did they vote for? Oh yeah, a terrorist organization. And let's not forget about that guy in Iran... what's his name...

 

My point? I don't think the Middle East is ready for democracy and nor do they deserve it. Because if we give them democracy, they vote for things like brutal Islamic theocracies. You get HAMAS running the Palestinian territories. You get governments where people can be executed for converting to a different religion!

 

I think this is a good case for why we can't leave Iraq for a while, and why we shouldn't have left Afghanistan for Iraq. If we leave Iraq too soon, who's to say they won't put in their own Taliban? Will the lives and limbs of Americans, as well as the trillions of dollars spent, have gone to allowing the rise of Islamic theocracy in Iraq as in Afghanistan?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I hope you're joking about the liberation of the Middle East...

 

Reality check just in case:

 

Oil. Even though we could get as much of it as we'd ever need from Alaska, and Canada has a ton of it as well, Bush and his puppeteers friends only deal with the Arabs.

[TK-8252]

I hope you're joking about the liberation of the Middle East...

 

Naturally.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Naturally.

At least I got a chance to see my new signature on the forums then

[rccar328]

So what ever happened to us transforming the Middle East?

I've heard about this, and I think it's horrible...but if you think that anyone could transform the Middle East this fast, you've got another thing coming.

 

This is what disgusts me above all else about people today: an utter lack of patience. Transforming the Middle East is going to take time. It's not as easy as invade, put in a new government, and BAMO!! everyone has changed. Most of the debate I've heard about transformation in the Middle East isn't about "why hasn't it happened yet," it's about "will it be accomplished during my lifetime." The Middle East needs a heck of a lot of work before it's anywhere near being transformed - most notably in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan, just for starters.

 

 

And as for "getting governments where people can be executed for converting to a different religion," those governments exist all over the world, not just in the Middle East. There are many nations in Africa and Southeast Asia where that takes place, as well. But as far as the Middle East goes, the persecution of Christians is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Top 50 nations that persecute Christians

 

Stories of persecuted Christians across the world (more at bottom of page)

 

And as far as "leaving Iraq too soon," President Bush has already pretty much said that the troops will be there at least until he leaves office (in his press conference earlier this week, he responded to a question about when the troops would be withdrawn by saying that decision will be up to the next President.

 

 

And jmac, it'd be an extremely easy thing to get oil from Alaska if the environmentalist wacko lobby would let up on the issue...but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

[TK-8252]

Okay, maybe I'm impatient. But the problem is, these countries [iraq & Afghanistan] have already written their constitutions, and it seems that there's no real way to say "hey Middle East, um... can we get do-overs on those constitutions? We don't like the whole Islamic law part!"

 

Look, if we are going to lose thousands of lives and thousands more limbs, and not to mention our trillions of tax dollars, we sure as hell better get the puppet governments we fought for. We better set up the countries we liberate how we want them, not how they want them. They've already established that they want Islamic law! Meaning that in the country we supposedly liberated, people are still living under the Taliban... just an American-backed Taliban.

[El Sitherino]

It's even funnier since we helped these new guys get into power in Afghanistan.

 

They helped us fight off the Taliban and remaining enemies while we packed up and shipped most of our guys off to Iraq.

 

We better set up the countries we liberate how we want them, not how they want them

Uh, **** that. Their country, their choice.

 

What we need to do is actually do our job in getting rid of the bad guys. Even if they may be our half-ally at the time. Hell, that's exactly what we did wrong last time, and look where we are now.

 

PS: Told you guys we'd be there for at least Five years, but "nooooooo, we're America, we just gotta bomb em and they'll surrender". So much for that.

[TK-8252]

Uh, **** that. Their country, their choice.

 

I know that it should be their choice, but if it was truely their choice, they would be liberating themselves. Then afterwards they could set up the kind of government that suits them.

[Samuel Dravis]

I know that it should be their choice, but if it was truely their choice, they would be liberating themselves. Then afterwards they could set up the kind of government that suits them.

Eh, like the Palestinians? They chose what sort of government 'suits' them. It doesn't exactly suit you though, does it?

 

Their mindset is completely different over there; they take percieved insults to their God as a personal affront, as if any all powerful god couldn't deal with such a laughable insult herself if she felt like it. I think their clerics just like the control they hold over the people. Nonconformity is dangerous for people in power, and I think that's the problem here, not religion per se.

[TK-8252]

Eh, like the Palestinians? They chose what sort of government 'suits' them. It doesn't exactly suit you though, does it?

 

No, HAMAS doesn't suit me either just as Islamic law doesn't. But the Palestinians have the right to vote in HAMAS if they want to. I don't approve of their choice, but that's their vote and only their vote. We spent all of our resources on Iraq short of a draft, and I don't think that thousands of Americans lost their lives and limbs so that Iraq could become an Islamic theocracy, and we didn't kick out the Taliban only to put in another one.

[Samuel Dravis]

Actually, I think Hamas being elected might be a good thing. It will force them to turn to other ways of dealing with their problems than terrorism if they want to be considered legitimate.

 

I agree with you, the Afghans shouldn't be doing this. I tend to think we expect a lot from them though - they don't have any sort of tradition of government by the people, they don't have the largest literacy rate (36%); they're just plain susceptible to influence by the 'elite', which probably includes all of the clerics involved in this. Many also don't have any great love of America due to Iraq, and democracy is connected with America in many people's minds.

 

Here's another article from the BBC.

 

What really needs to happen is that the UN be given permanent troops and an actual ability to use them without being vetoed by the permanent security council members, US included. They'd be able to deal with sort of human rights violation. Of course, that's never going to happen, but it'd be nice.

[toms]

...and I don't think that thousands of Americans lost their lives and limbs so that Iraq could become an Islamic theocracy, and we didn't kick out the Taliban only to put in another one.

 

Well i don't want to say i told you so, but almost anyone who knew anything about the region said BEFORE the US invaded iraq that the most likely outcome would be an islamic theocracy.

And since the taliban were basically supported by the population of afganistan its not that surprising that the population would revert to an islamic theocracy mentality there either.

 

IF the USA's aim was some form of crusade to spread its vision of western democracy then it was a very bad idea from the start, and they picked totally the wrong targets.

 

And as i assume you are writing fromt he US, a county that still exectues mentaly ill people (something that not even afganistan thinks is acceptable) you probably should be careful about trying to tell other people which of their laws are right or wrong.

[TK-8252]

And as i assume you are writing fromt he US, a county that still exectues mentaly ill people (something that not even afganistan thinks is acceptable) you probably should be careful about trying to tell other people which of their laws are right or wrong.

 

I think we all can agree that it's wrong to execute people who change religions.

[toms]

From your point of view. From theirs it isn't. How come your point of view is right and theirs is wrong?

 

If you go to another country you are expected to abide by its laws and customs.

[TK-8252]

From your point of view. From theirs it isn't. How come your point of view is right and theirs is wrong?

 

They also believe it's right to kill a woman who is the victim of rape.

 

So just because it's their point of view it's okay??

[Samuel Dravis]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article353833.ece

 

He's being freed.

[toms]

They also believe it's right to kill a woman who is the victim of rape.

 

So just because it's their point of view it's okay??

 

Well, i don't think its right. But who is to say that I am right and they are wrong?

 

Unfortunately there is no universal view on what is right or wrong. Different cultures and religions have radically different views on what is good and evil... heck, even within cultures there are radical disagreements about what is good or bad (check the abortion threads for an example).

 

Our personal views on morality are lagely down to our environment, I'm sure that if we had been born and raised in the middle east we might have totally opposite views on some things to the views we hold now. Who is to say which is the right viewpoint? Maybe there isn't one.

 

A society's laws are usually based on the consensus of it's citizen's moral views... which is why in the west we used to hold exactly the same views about blasphemy and rape victims as the muslim world holds now. Back then the vast majority of western citizens were devout christians and the laws of society reflected the moral consensus that came from that.

 

(The bible after all does say that rape victims should be executed and blashpemers punished)

 

But as the west has become more pragmatic and secular we have moved away from that moral position and now hold a different one.. one which I am sure we would claim to be better... but then I am sure if we were on the other side we would claim the exact same thing.

 

It should be pretty clear by now that you can't just impose a new belief system on a culture.. if they want to change then they have to change from within.

 

If we go and start invading countries to impose our values on them then it will be a disaster like the end of the british empire (which was created with the best of intentions) and it won't be sustainable or real.

 

The only guy to sucessfully throw out the influence of the religions in that area was Saddam, and he had to use extreme tactics to manage it. We can't do that. And it was clear from the start to everyone that an oppressed people who'd had their religion denied to them were likely to embrace it all the more strongly once they were given the freedom of choice to do so. And in afganistan the taliban, now vilified, were a popularly supported faction that rose up to liberate the country... so did anyone expect that once they were overthrown the people would opt for something totally different?

 

I think one major lesson we can take from this is that we are very lucky to have a seperation of state and religion in the west... but we can't start imposing that on others simply by claiming that our views are superior and its for their own good....

[TK-8252]

If we go and start invading countries to impose our values on them then it will be a disaster like the end of the british empire (which was created with the best of intentions) and it won't be sustainable or real.

 

Then we never should have invaded Afghanistan. Because what we did was impose our values of democracy and tolerance of Western civilization on their government, unlike what the values of the Taliban were.

 

Even though it seems we've failed, what with this situation with the Christian man...

[rccar328]

Even though it seems we've failed, what with this situation with the Christian man...

Key word: seems. Change doesn't happen overnight...and while it's true that we may never 'change the face of the Middle East,' we've only begun to try.

[TK-8252]

Key word: seems. Change doesn't happen overnight...and while it's true that we may never 'change the face of the Middle East,' we've only begun to try.

 

But we allowed the constitutions of both Afghanistan and Iraq to establish Islamic law. This means that in order for the countries to become moderate, their constitutions would have to undergo major changes.

 

We never should have allowed Sharia law to work its way into the constitutions that we approved of. Because there's no way that the countries would accept Western values such as not becoming terrorists, not flying planes into buildings, and not sending out letters with anthrax in them, as long as they're ruled by Sharia law.

 

Just look at Saudi Arabia: supposedly the Saudis are our allies, and yet their Sharia-ruled government encourages the extremism that leads to its citizens becoming terrorists.

 

 

I think the point here is that if you're going to invade a country to impose your values upon them, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, then impose them. Supposedly we established a democracy in Afghanistan, and yet it's pretty hard to have democracy when you can't even choose your own damn religion without getting beheaded.

[toms]

Key word: seems. Change doesn't happen overnight...and while it's true that we may never 'change the face of the Middle East,' we've only begun to try.

 

Indeed. It definately didn't happen in the west overnight. Infact it still hasn't happened that much in some parts of the west after hundreds of years.

 

But whether we should be on some crusade to spread our superior values to the poor savages is another matter. A majority of the problems in the region can be attributed to the well meaning british empire building that was intended to bring enlightenment and the benefits of "modern" life to all the poor people in india, africa and the middle east. In many ways those regions still haven't recovered from all that help.

 

We never should have allowed Sharia law to work its way into the constitutions that we approved of. Because there's no way that the countries would accept Western values such as not becoming terrorists, not flying planes into buildings, and not sending out letters with anthrax in them, as long as they're ruled by Sharia law.

 

Yeah, cos those brought up under western values would never become terrorists (IRA, Tim McVey, ETA, Tokyo Subway Gassers, etc..) or send anthrax through the post (have any muslims ever done that or just westerners?).

 

Unless the populations become more secular and less devout in their religions then any cosmetic changes we make to governments or constitutions will have no real affect at all.

There are many countries with "progressive" governments who have outlawed traditional practices - but the local population simply continues to practice life as they belive it should be practiced, no matter what the central government tries to do.

 

I'm thinking of places like india where despite laws outlawing child marriages, female circumcision, stoning of raped women, etc.. the remote areas of the country still happily go about life exactly as they always have, ignoring these strange foriegn ideas that the remote government keeps trying to impose on them.

You could give Iraq and Afganistan the most modern western constitutions known to man, and it would still have very little effect on how people actually lived their lives (unless you enforced the rules like saddam). They need to decide that they want to make changes themselves - otherwise its all a pointless exercise.

 

PS/ Raped women seem to get a raw deal in all religions - god(s) must be pretty vindictive.

[rccar328]

Indeed. It definately didn't happen in the west overnight. Infact it still hasn't happened that much in some parts of the west after hundreds of years.

 

But whether we should be on some crusade to spread our superior values to the poor savages is another matter. A majority of the problems in the region can be attributed to the well meaning british empire building that was intended to bring enlightenment and the benefits of "modern" life to all the poor people in india, africa and the middle east. In many ways those regions still haven't recovered from all that help.

Well, when those poor savages have the power to cripple more than half of the world's economies, it's probably a good thing to step in, at least until new technology can render the poor savages irrelevant.

[toms]

So it IS all about oil??

 

I didn't think afganistan had much oil, just heroin, and the iraqi oil was probably more accessible under the oil for food programme (where we could control the price) than it will be now when the new iraqi regime joins opec.

 

-

 

After thinking about it for a bit - my personal opinion is that the international community SHOULD step in where slaughter, genocide and famine are occuring - but shouldn't step in for issues of attempting to cahnge people's views, governments or constitutions. They need to change those themselves or no change will matter.

 

My heart would feel happier if we did things that way, and my naieve optimism would hope that if we were seen to be more humanitarian and even-handed then maybe less people would want to blow us up. Its not like all this regime change is making less people try and blow us up.

[rccar328]

So it IS all about oil??

I don't think it's all about oil...but oil is definitely a contributing factor.

 

After all, without oil, the Middle East would be irrelevant to global politics.

 

Afghanistan has some oil, they just didn't build up as powerful an oil empire as other Middle Eastern nations. They did have the Taliban & head Al-Qaida members, though.

[rccar328]

I think the problem is that the administration is trying to fight the War on Terror with sensitivity toward Muslims, rather than doing it the right way (and John Kerry, during the presidential campaign, said that he wanted to fight a "more sensitive" War on Terror). After WWII, we didn't pussyfoot around the issue with Japan - we dethroned the Emperor and gave them a constitution. I think that's what we should be doing here...but we won't, because the Left would have a cow if we actually did war the way it was meant to be done.