Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think I'm missing a negation here.

So we're going to be imperialistic in forcing a democratic system on the nation, and then we're going to ignore it's mostly inevitable result(Ie, Islam party victory). Sounds like a great idea.

Imperialistic in trying to force a democratic system with an inviolable separation of Mosque and State, the latter of which is not at all what the people desire.

With that you are ultimately overriding what many people desire, without it the democracy won't last beyond being a vessel for sharia law.

I think the problem here is that we have conflicting opinions on what is "democratic" and what is not. That is to be expected, of course.

Democracy does not exist in a vacuum. It would be nice if it did, but it does not. I am ultimately not an advocate of pure democracy, I am an advocate of liberal democracy, which is not what has been emerging from the Arab Spring (though Tunisia is partially there).

I can't abide that line of thinking. You can't be all about a nation having self-determination, and then reject it when their self-determination goes in a direction you don't like.

Sure I can. I'm not some neutral arbiter that wants everybody to have their own beliefs. I want everybody to agree with me. So do you. So do all of us. Denying that does no good.

I believe constitutional liberal democracy is the best political system available to people in general and it should be spread as far as it can be spread. I say this because the consequences of lacking such things are severe and have real effects on real people. I would rather have religious people skulking about not having a political voice than passing laws to string up the heretics for the glory of [deity]. It isn't right to override people but it is more right than letting greater oppression and violence occur.

That seriously undermines the very concept of democracy and makes us incredibly hypocritical. It would hardly be the first time, but that's the sort of bullshit that makes the US disliked in so many parts of the world.

Everybody is going to blame the person in charge. If the EU or USSR was the sole superpower everybody would bite their thumb at them while still making economic and political deals where the public couldn't see them. Let them hate us. You can't make them not hate us because we are the ones with the target on our back. Not intervening gets us just as much hate for being "uncaring". Damned if you do and damned if you don't, so we might as well try to advance our interests.

They don't "hate us for our freedom", they hate us because we insist that their freedom look exactly like ours.

Their idea of freedom can't coexist with ours. It's an unfortunate reality but it is the truth. Islamists are all about freedom in that regard. Their freedoms are just things like being able to tell Kurds and Copts to convert or die, and marrying little girls to old men. Western democracies and things like that aren't going to be able to exist in the same world without constant conflict. Somebody has to break.

[RedKing]

I'm going to leave my response at "We're not going to find common ground to agree on in this topic." 

[Owlbread]

I'm going to leave my response at "We're not going to find common ground to agree on in this topic." 

I have done that before but I always feel weak when I do it. I just didn't have the strength to fight every little thing. Don't stop there bro, keep at it.

[Guardian G.I.]

I can't abide that line of thinking. You can't be all about a nation having self-determination, and then reject it when their self-determination goes in a direction you don't like. That seriously undermines the very concept of democracy and makes us incredibly hypocritical. It would hardly be the first time, but that's the sort of bullshit that makes the US disliked in so many parts of the world.

They don't "hate us for our freedom", they hate us because we insist that their freedom look exactly like ours.

Many people in all sufficiently powerful imperialist nations tend to think that their form of government, culture and moral code are the most supreme and they have the right to "civilise" less developed nations.
Russians, for example, have always been trying to culturally assimilate other nations living on the territories conquered by Russia. Nations culturally similar to Russians didn't object, nations culturally different to Russians actively resisted. Today, many Russians wonder, why do the Lithuanians/Latvians/Estonians/Poles/Western Ukrainians/Finns/Kazakhs/Tajiks/Uzbeks/Chechens hate them.
"We've helped them so much: we've built schools, hospitals, roads, factories, we've helped them develop their culture, and they still hate us! What ungrateful bastards they are!"

[10ebbor10]

Freedom isn't freedom if different visions aren't allowed to clash.

Sad thing that the USA seems to be so attracted to it's own brand of freedom, which is basically an excuse to give themselves a carte blanche to meddle in the affairs of other nations, whether they like it or not. It's a dangerous game, which will most likely result in a real war sooner or later. Won't be long before the entire system comes crashing down like a burning wreck.

[XXSockXX]

I believe constitutional liberal democracy is the best political system available to people in general and it should be spread as far as it can be spread. I say this because the consequences of lacking such things are severe and have real effects on real people. I would rather have religious people skulking about not having a political voice than passing laws to string up the heretics for the glory of [deity]. It isn't right to override people but it is more right than letting greater oppression and violence occur.

That seriously undermines the very concept of democracy and makes us incredibly hypocritical. It would hardly be the first time, but that's the sort of bullshit that makes the US disliked in so many parts of the world.

Everybody is going to blame the person in charge. If the EU or USSR was the sole superpower everybody would bite their thumb at them while still making economic and political deals where the public couldn't see them. Let them hate us. You can't make them not hate us because we are the ones with the target on our back. Not intervening gets us just as much hate for being "uncaring". Damned if you do and damned if you don't, so we might as well try to advance our interests.

They don't "hate us for our freedom", they hate us because we insist that their freedom look exactly like ours.

Their idea of freedom can't coexist with ours. It's an unfortunate reality but it is the truth. Islamists are all about freedom in that regard. Their freedoms are just things like being able to tell Kurds and Copts to convert or die, and marrying little girls to old men. Western democracies and things like that aren't going to be able to exist in the same world without constant conflict. Somebody has to break.

You seem to forget that establishing democracy takes time, as in several decades at least. Compare the middle east to eastern Europe, which partially is still not quite there, despite being much better prepared structurally.

Cultural differences are important in these conflicts, but before you go all Clash of Cultures, have a look at something like youth bulge theory.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Freedom isn't freedom if different visions aren't allowed to clash.

Freedom isn't freedom when old men can sweep it all away by saying "[deity] wills it" and pointing to a passage in [holy text] that does indeed say that [deity] wills it. "It" of course being all sorts of horrors and atrocities that people who lived many centuries ago would have approved of. It's happening in Egypt and it is going to keep happening because most Westerners do not realize the reality of the situation and blindly support "democracy" without thinking about the consequences that this could have in other countries. Freedom is not the wolves voting that they should eat the sheep.

There have to be barriers like the one between religion and the state, or people will fucking rip each other to shreds to get whatever approval they believe those actions will get them, be it from their state, or their family, or yes, their deity. The world improved substantially after Christianity was broken of its control habit, and the same thing is going to have to happen to Islam before any progress can be made.

[10ebbor10]

Freedom isn't freedom when Corporate lawyers can sweep it all away by saying "[Corporations] wills it" and pointing to a Voluntary government grabt for [Insert Party Here] that does indeed imply that [Corporation] wills it.

Freedom isn't freedom when Shady operatives can sweep it all away by saying "[Law] wills it" and pointing to a Anti terrorist agreement that is horribly worded.

Freedom isn't freedom when Imperialistic nations can sweep it all away by saying "WE want it" and pointing to a massively overblown defense budget.

You're not helping by intervening. Only thing you do is increasing polarization and radicalisation, and one day you'll find out some skyscrapers went missing. For 50 years straight, the Turkish government has been strongly Secular. First free elections, what happens: The AKP wins a devastating victory. That's an entire generation growing up in a forced secular environement, and very little to show for it but a small westernized elite. (Which, btw, organized and controlled that government in the first place).

There have to be barriers like the one between religion and the state, or people will fucking rip each other to shreds to get whatever approval they believe those actions will get them, be it from their state, or their family, or yes, their deity. The world improved substantially after Christianity was broken of its control habit, and the same thing is going to have to happen to Islam before any progress can be made.

Ow, we're on the blaming religion for all bad things that happened track again*. I Won't disagree that separation of church and state is a good thing, ((Because well, you can only have one state(=1 religion), and thus religious discrimination is inherent in the system)) but blaming religion for bad things is the easy way out, and Denial doesn't solve problems.

I'm going to leave my response at "We're not going to find common ground to agree on in this topic." 

*Conveniently ignoring that the basis of Western civilization, and therefore your argument, are fundamentally** Christian values.
**As in, the values are based on Christian values, not that the values are values of Fundamental Christians.

One last note: When have these interventions actually worked, and not worsened the problem.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would say that you are the one in denial. Corporations and intelligence agencies aren't good and should be kept from intervening the structure of law, but they also lack the fanatical mass support that religion invokes in the general population.

But all of this hardly matters anyway. We all know what's going to happen with Syria. The loyalists and Islamists are going to fall into a quagmire of Somalia-style fighting, any factions the West could work with are going to be lined up and shot by both sides, the Kurds are going to try their best to break away, Lebanon will probably get dragged into it, and there isn't going to be any intervention in the sense that either of us have proposed it.

*Conveniently ignoring that the basis of Western civilization, and therefore your argument, are fundamentally** Christian values.
**As in, the values are based on Christian values, not that the values are values of Fundamental Christians.

Because as we all know, Christianity has a monopoly on all good values and any Christians who contravene that are simply not True Christians. The whole Judeo-Christian values schtick is a fabrication by modern fundamentalists and has nothing to do with modern Western civilization. Western civilization exists as it does in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

One last note: When have these interventions actually worked, and not worsened the problem.

No intervention as I have proposed it has ever been done. Such things have basically been poisoned forever between the CIA's staggering incompetence in overthrowing a genuine democracy in Iran and the murder of Christopher Stevens in post-revolution Libya.

[XXSockXX]

But all of this hardly matters anyway. We all know what's going to happen with Syria. The loyalists and Islamists are going to fall into a quagmire of Somalia-style fighting, any factions the West could work with are going to be lined up and shot by both sides, the Kurds are going to try their best to break away, Lebanon will probably get dragged into it, and there isn't going to be any intervention in the sense that either of us have proposed it.

You are making a lot of very strong assumptions. Ignoring multicausality and complexity of problems does not lead to a full picture.
And the problem remains, we have no idea what's going to happen. I'm certainly not an optimist, but predicting that everything will always end catastophically seems unfounded.

[10ebbor10]

Then what's so different of your invasion plan. Seems like a generic Afghanistan to me. We march in and stay there till they get democratic, or we run out of bodybags.

[SalmonGod]

The problem here, MSH, is you're pitting your own egocentrism against theirs.  Egocentrism is the problem, not religion.  It's right here.

Sure I can. I'm not some neutral arbiter that wants everybody to have their own beliefs. I want everybody to agree with me. So do you. So do all of us. Denying that does no good.

Your reality will always be a never-ending cycle of bitter conflict as long as you see things this way.  If you're stubborn and never allow yourself to be even potentially wrong, then you can't expect the other side to be any different.  When you go on the attack, whether physically or otherwise, the other side will put up defenses that make them unreceptive to change.  The only choice your stance gives you is to dominate anyone who disagrees with you, and that's an grim endeavor that can only end when everyone significantly different is dead.

The alternative is humility.  When you offer to be wrong once in a while, the other will be more likely to do the same.  When you force your ways on others, you ensure that they will never willingly adopt them.  When you stop doing so, you at least leave the potential for passive absorption or different ideas when interaction occurs and honest consideration in an exchange of ideas.  Yeah, bad things will happen.  It's hard to accept when other people do things that you believe are wrong.  But if effecting change is your true purpose, then you have to think about how your actions reflect on the beliefs that you hold from the perspective of those you wish to influence.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But all of this hardly matters anyway. We all know what's going to happen with Syria. The loyalists and Islamists are going to fall into a quagmire of Somalia-style fighting, any factions the West could work with are going to be lined up and shot by both sides, the Kurds are going to try their best to break away, Lebanon will probably get dragged into it, and there isn't going to be any intervention in the sense that either of us have proposed it.

You are making a lot of very strong assumptions. Ignoring multicausality and complexity of problems does not lead to a full picture.
And the problem remains, we have no idea what's going to happen. I'm certainly not an optimist, but predicting that everything will always end catastophically seems unfounded.

It's not much of an assumption. Obama doesn't want to get himself in any more trouble with the current scandals, and as most Americans both don't want intervention and don't really care either he's not likely to bring it to the table. Nobody else in NATO has the pull to make it happen. Thus no intervention.

The Kurds are already functionally breakaway and fighting is already occurring in Lebanon. We've been over how al-Nusra has become a major force for Islamists.

Then what's so different of your invasion plan. Seems like a generic Afghanistan to me. We march in and stay there till they get democratic, or we run out of bodybags.

Not a full invasion plan. The basic outline is that we bolster any viable pro-West groups, along with a limited military involvement against loyalist groups and hostile Islamist groups. With this influence we try to make sure the resulting government is strictly secular once the loyalists are out of the picture and secular democrats are seen as the most victorious faction. At this point it is best that we end open involvement and operate through Syrian democrats and intellectuals to control the resulting government and govern competently using any aid we can provide. Launch exposure campaigns against any crazy actions the Islamists take (they'll almost certainly provide the actions without provocation if they don't have total control).

The Syrian Kurdistan should be at least autonomous if not fully breakaway in order to reduce tensions. At the very least there needs to be a boarder between them to prevent unregulated travel.

Yeah, bad things will happen.  It's hard to accept when other people do things that you believe are wrong.  But if effecting change is your true purpose, then you have to think about how your actions reflect on the beliefs that you hold from the perspective of those you wish to influence.

I bet you wouldn't be so passive if this was about a more domestic issue. "Let the intelligence agencies and corporations have their way, they'll come around"? Are you seriously arguing that religious fundamentalists are just going to let it drop and spontaneously agree with human rights after....how long, exactly? Because I know they never really stopped in the US, they just had no avenue for their will to be enforced, as it should be.

Screw humility. If you aren't willing to stand up for what you want you will be trampled by those with a stronger will, and if there's anything good to say about religious fundamentalists it is that they have a very strong will.

[misko27]

Well you know, Intervention seemed to work in Libya, and the rebels are asking literally, specifically for that. Word for word. They don't want troops, they want a no fly zone, airstrikes, and weapons.

But all of this hardly matters anyway. We all know what's going to happen with Syria. The loyalists and Islamists are going to fall into a quagmire of Somalia-style fighting, any factions the West could work with are going to be lined up and shot by both sides, the Kurds are going to try their best to break away, Lebanon will probably get dragged into it, and there isn't going to be any intervention in the sense that either of us have proposed it.

You are making a lot of very strong assumptions. Ignoring multicausality and complexity of problems does not lead to a full picture.
And the problem remains, we have no idea what's going to happen. I'm certainly not an optimist, but predicting that everything will always end catastophically seems unfounded.

Well he isn't exactly saying everything. And as of right now, there aren't likely alternatives.

The whole Judeo-Christian values schtick is a fabrication by modern fundamentalists and has nothing to do with modern Western civilization. Western civilization exists as it does in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

The argument could be made that Europe would have ceased to exist without Christianity following the Collapse of the Romans. Sure, it'd come back eventually, but we would be farther behind then we are.

[10ebbor10]

give its utmost best to the nation based on the rule of law, human rights, democracy, rights, and the belief in God, His Prophet and a state based on Islam".[15]

So much for Western intervention resulting is secularization. Basically, exactly the same as has been happening in Egypt

The reason you don't hear anything about this is that the French got what they wanted, being profitable oil deals.

Then what's so different of your invasion plan. Seems like a generic Afghanistan to me. We march in and stay there till they get democratic, or we run out of bodybags.

Not a full invasion plan. The basic outline is that we bolster any viable pro-West groups, along with a limited military involvement against loyalist groups and hostile Islamist groups. With this influence we try to make sure the resulting government is strictly secular once the loyalists are out of the picture and secular democrats are seen as the most victorious faction. At this point it is best that we end open involvement and operate through Syrian democrats and intellectuals to control the resulting government and govern competently using any aid we can provide. Launch exposure campaigns against any crazy actions the Islamists take (they'll almost certainly provide the actions without provocation if they don't have total control).

So, puppet government. I thought you wanted the dictators away, not support them. Because well, that's exactly what the West tried to do with supporting Kadaffi and co. Only this time with "rigged" elections*.

*Well, not exactly rigged. But you're going to have to ban any Islamist groups.

I bet you wouldn't be so passive if this was about a more domestic issue. "Let the intelligence agencies and corporations have their way, they'll come around"? Are you seriously arguing that religious fundamentalists are just going to let it drop and spontaneously agree with human rights after....how long, exactly? Because I know they never really stopped in the US, they just had no avenue for their will to be enforced, as it should be.

Violence provokes violence. Yes, leave the groups alone. Focus on the actual problems, maybe attempt to talk with the more moderate factions. The Fundamentalist groups are only held together by the threat of a mutual enemy. Remove the enemy, and they will eventually collapse(or at least decline in popularity).