GWOT is back and back in a big way

[CanadianEh]

On a side note....my views on Church and civil authority clashes in the time frame of Medieval Europe probably clash with yours since I take the view that the Church was never fully in control of all its organs until modern times and that it was the civil authorities who caused much of the chaos using their local bishop as a figure head to legitimize their power plays.

I believe that the church in medieval times was the cause of Europe denying technology especially when Copernicus discovered that the Sun was in the middle of the Solar System which really had the church up in arms. There are many circumstances that show the church dictated state law up until the 20th century in some cases.

Secularism will hit the Islamic world when these so called moderate Muslim's rise up and take power away from these radical clerics and their minions who for the better part of 70 years (since the founding of Saudi Arabia in 1932) have been allowed increasingly free reign on the system. Part of the problem is inherent in Islam itself. In Christianity, specifically in the Bible we can quote Christ himself laying the ground work for what became separation of church and state. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's." is probably one of the most powerful reasoning for this separation. Thus, using passages like this, Christian Europe was able to make the transition easier to a more secular civil authority.
By contrast Islam is a total system of control. Sharia is far more comprehensive than anything the Catholic Church could rival with its Cannon Law. Using Sharia, and passages in the Koran itself, it is far easier to construct a world of fused civil and religious power where religious leaders actively constrain and check civil authority. It is much harder to separate mosque and state simply because Islam is far more of a comprehensive system. Further, because of the lack of a higher religious authority (a caliph or body of respected Muslim scholars) to steady the ship and make a more forceful case for rejection of radical Islam we are seeing imams, trained in shoddy madrassa's, most of them run by radical Islamic groups or supported as such.
Ultimately it will take the fall of Saudi Arabia (fount of radical Islam and its most potent strain Wahhabism) along with major adjustments to how Islamic law should be interpreted and implemented.

Secularism can easily hit the Islamic world and it's really not as hard as you make it out to be. In a secular state Masque law would not dictate state law, which is pretty easy to achive and you would not need to overthrow Sudi Arabia to do so maybe the overthrow of the government but not the complete upheaval of the country.

I should surely hope you condemn this! If not.....why I'd have to report you to the FBI or something haha. Anyways, we are witnessing the collapse of the modern ME political system and the best we can do is try and ameliorate the conditions and let them sort themselves out. The Arabs are their own worst enemies

Haha I'm not American, Canada has its own intelligence agency believe it or not! So are you ultimately saying you support backing out of the Middle East?

[Afrocentric]

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have failed because the U.S. decided to cut and run w/o putting in place an inclusive form of government that is able to enforce the rule of law. The ME would probably function better if some places were broken up, like Iraq, let Kurdistan be its own country and maybe we should allow the Shia and Sunni to run two separate countries as well since they can't seem to work together. As for ISIS...fuck them, they need to be blown up if they can't act like reasonable adults when it comes to diplomacy.

You can't just slaughter your way to into getting what you want, it doesn't work.

[PaleRider]

If I didn't know better Pale I'd say that you regard Arabs to be entirely backwards as an ethnic group,

Arab/Islamic culture has provided much to the world and I hope to see in my lifetime an Arab world filled with the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic cities of yesteryear. HOWEVER, just because Arab culture was once something, doesn't mean we should be blind to its current state. The Arab world of scientific and technological progress is not the world we see now. Cairo, Alexandria, Baghdad. These aren't glamorous cities of literature, art, and science, or even centres of learning and tolerance any more. 50+ yeats of failed national socialist policies, of corrupt and oppressive dictators and the unchecked rise of radical Islam (which is propelled even more when these oppressive systems collapse) have all conspired to stunt and even retard the Arab World.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have failed because the U.S. decided to cut and run w/o putting in place an inclusive form of government that is able to enforce the rule of law. The ME would probably function better if some places were broken up, like Iraq, let Kurdistan be its own country and maybe we should allow the Shia and Sunni to run two separate countries as well since they can't seem to work together. As for ISIS...fuck them, they need to be blown up if they can't act like reasonable adults when it comes to diplomacy.

You can't just slaughter your way to into getting what you want, it doesn't work.

Yes you are right about Iraq, which is why we aren't following the same track in Afghanistan. In any event, a Kurdish Republic does need to be formed, and a loose Confederation established in Iraq.

[Reddy]

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have failed because the U.S. decided to cut and run w/o putting in place an inclusive form of government that is able to enforce the rule of law. The ME would probably function better if some places were broken up, like Iraq, let Kurdistan be its own country and maybe we should allow the Shia and Sunni to run two separate countries as well since they can't seem to work together. As for ISIS...fuck them, they need to be blown up if they can't act like reasonable adults when it comes to diplomacy.

You can't just slaughter your way to into getting what you want, it doesn't work.

Yes you are right about Iraq, which is why we aren't following the same track in Afghanistan. In any event, a Kurdish Republic does need to be formed, and a loose Confederation established in Iraq.

I doubt that either of you are truly serious about this Kurdish statehood thing. It would likely cause a regional war much worse than the breakup of Yugoslavia. The one thing Iraq needs right now in the short term at least is stability and a dictator (in the sense of a strong executive President)

As for ISIS...fuck them, they need to be blown up if they can't act like reasonable adults when it comes to diplomacy.

I used to agree with this but now I think the battle of hearts and minds is the more important one. Destroy,by means of counter propaganda, the romantic myth of ISIS which appeals to a good number of young Muslims.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have failed because the U.S. decided to cut and run w/o putting in place an inclusive form of government that is able to enforce the rule of law

I strongly believe that liberal democracy in the western model cannot function in an economically underdeveloped third world country. If a country has no sizable middle class, you have a better chance of jumping to the moon than maintaining a liberal democracy in it for a calendar year. You cannot impose liberal democracy, it builds itself from the ground up.

Any serious attempt at an 'inclusive government' in Afghanistan would mean co-opting the Taliban who control 40% of the country's territory, according to some official estimates. I think Afghanistan is going to end up like Vietnam, a year after foreign forces leave, the Taliban will take over the entire country which IMO, might not necessarily be such a bad thing since they would likely provide greater stability - the one thing Afghans actually need.

[Afrocentric]

Well if our version of Liberal Democracy isn't best, what is? Do we allow an Authoritarian rule for a short period until the country is ready for democracy OR do we not allow democracy at all? A case can be made that some countries shouldn't even embrace it at all.

[Reddy]

Well if our version of Liberal Democracy isn't best, what is? Do we allow an Authoritarian rule for a short period until the country is ready for democracy OR do we not allow democracy at all? A case can be made that some countries shouldn't even embrace it at all.

We don't get to 'allow' anything and we stop nation building in general because it doesn't work. We have never actually created a lasting democracy from the top down. Countries have to find their own way into the light and that is linked to economic development.

Authoritarianism is not ideal but yes, in some cases it's much better than liberal democracy. Liberal democracy rests on the presumption that the average voter is intelligent, informed and interested enough to make the best choice for himself and his country. This certainly is hardly ever true (especially in a poor country), people vote for all sorts of reasons, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with politics

[SelucianCrusader]

We don't get to 'allow' anything and we stop nation building in general because it doesn't work. We have never actually created a lasting democracy from the top down. Countries have to find their own way into the light and that is linked to economic development.

Quite so. Makes me think of Taiwan (Free China) - the west saved them, and eventually they became a liberal democracy by themselves. It's not guaranteed that this will always happen though, just look at Iran.

[Zongxian]

We don't get to 'allow' anything and we stop nation building in general because it doesn't work. We have never actually created a lasting democracy from the top down. Countries have to find their own way into the light and that is linked to economic development.

Quite so. Makes me think of Taiwan (Free China) - the west saved them, and eventually they became a liberal democracy by themselves. It's not guaranteed that this will always happen though, just look at Iran.

I think Taiwan is a great example of how democracy can emerge naturally. Especially so since it came peacefully and with support of the dictator, who willingly embraced opposition.

Even Korea, though it was a democratization filled with many protests and violence, also shows a path to democracy that occurred without force by outside parties.

Ultimately, those countries that naturally democratize end up having better stability and also better relations with the US and other Western nations. (other examples could be Indonesia, though I'd say they're still fine-tining their democracy)

[CanadianEh]

Well if our version of Liberal Democracy isn't best, what is? Do we allow an Authoritarian rule for a short period until the country is ready for democracy OR do we not allow democracy at all? A case can be made that some countries shouldn't even embrace it at all.

We don't get to 'allow' anything and we stop nation building in general because it doesn't work. We have never actually created a lasting democracy from the top down. Countries have to find their own way into the light and that is linked to economic development.

Authoritarianism is not ideal but yes, in some cases it's much better than liberal democracy. Liberal democracy rests on the presumption that the average voter is intelligent, informed and interested enough to make the best choice for himself and his country. This certainly is hardly ever true (especially in a poor country), people vote for all sorts of reasons, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with politics

Oh yea because a dictator is better than a leader elected by the people? What Democracy has tought us is that people who are not informed don't vote because they don't have a clew people who actually care about their country come out to vote. That's why the Republicans do so good in the US since the lower class rarely votes unless they are motivated because a lot of them don't have the time, when they are working 2-3 jobs.

[Reddy]

Oh yea because a dictator is better than a leader elected by the people?

I don't think you understand my points here or maybe it's because I'm not very articulate. In a majoritarian democracy the majority earns the right to do away with the rights of the minority. This is often the thing which causes civil strife in immature democracies. We saw this with Morsi (who I actually once supported, naively believing at the time that democracy in the Middle East was a good thing) in Egypt and the Copts and other religious minorities. With Mubarak on the other hand, religious minorities felt secure and he kept the MB under a tight leash. A dictator on the other hand has to keep a lot more people reasonably satisfied because his regime is usually not based on a strongly defined support base or a coalition of ethnic or class voters as those of democrats are. No dictator could survive with the kind of approval ratings Bush had at the end of his second term.

Another thing is the structure of the society. In Africa here, we have community based societies where the rights of the community triumph those of the individual, in western countries clearly it is the opposite while in Asia, I'm not so sure but I suspect it's also strongly community based. Liberal democracy is designed for societies where the rights of the individual are most important. When a country industrialises, it shifts to individual based societies as family bonds fray. Only at that point, can it be become a liberal democracy.

What Democracy has tought us is that people who are not informed don't vote because they don't have a clew people who actually care about their country come out to vote. That's why the Republicans do so good in the US since the lower class rarely votes unless they are motivated because a lot of them don't have the time, when they are working 2-3 jobs.

Uninformed people vote all the time and I reject your apparent presumption that working class people are generally uninformed. And also working class voters vote everywhere else since general election days are usually public holidays or on the weekend in many countries .On the other hand a lot of uninformed people do vote, the whole idea of uninformed is open to interpretation. for example, I think someone who believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago, or still believes in the Laffer curve is uninformed.