'Democracy is nothing, but counting of heads. It cannot differentiate between good and bad people, as in this system the vote of a devout Muslim equals the vote of a frail Muslim,' [Maulana Abdul Aziz, head of the Lal Masjid] said."-- from this article
Yet Bush and Cheney and Rice keep singing the praises of not one, not two, but three "elections" in Iraq. They apparently think that when, in January 2005, the Shi'a went out and voted as they were instructed to vote by those in the three main parties animated by Shi'a Islam -- SCIRI, Da'wa, and the new force of Moqtata al-Sadr -- voted in all their purple-thumbed majesty, voted as Shi'a Arabs for Shi'a Arabs and Shi'a Arab domination, they were "practicing democracy." They apparently think that the Sunnis, on the other hand, who did not vote in that first election, but then begrudgingly took part in the later two, were less interested in “practicing democracy.”
The Sunnis were no more, and no less, for the "democracy" that the electoral process supposedly represented than were the Shi'a. It is just that knowing they would lose (if they had been more numerous than the Shi'a they would have participated more energetically) they had no desire to take part.
For both sides, Sunni and Shi'a, know that the true spirit that makes modern democracy work, the spirit of political compromise, is lacking in Islam -- a belief-system that worships might (the "strong horse") and encourages aggression, and views the universe in manichean terms: light and dark, manifested as Believer and Infidel, Victor and Vanquished. And that attitude naturally carries over -- how could it not? -- to the attitudes toward others, perhaps even other sects within Islam. The effects of that can and will be seen in Iraq.
Then there was that referendum on that much-ballyhooed newly-written Iraqi constitution. It was not, and those who composed it were not, at all reminiscent of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, though Condoleeza Rice found apparent parallels. It was written, after much delay, in a few weeks (see Ali Allawi's just-published book about the Writing of the Constitution). There were a few local wise men, and a few foreign fools (notably Noah "After Jihad" Feldman, the kind of "expert" on Islam only Roy Mottahedeh and the Times Sunday Magazine editors could take seriously) but it hardly mattered. The Constitution will mean whatever those who inherit Iraq will want it to mean. The rule of law does not exist, if by law we mean manmade law. For the Iraqi Constitution itself makes clear that it is not supreme. In the United States, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, for nothing deemed "unconstitutional" by judges, appointed for life and not elected, can stand. But the Iraqi Constitution says that no law, nor any provisions of the Constitution itself, can stand if they contradict the "law of Islam" -- that is, the Shari'a. What in our country would be thrown out if declared "unconstitutional," in the New Iraq, can be thrown out if declared contrary to the Law of Islam -- that is, contrary to the Shari'a.
The belief in the possibility, even the ease of transplanting "democracy" to Iraq ignores the nature of Islam, and how mere mortals, Believers, are not the sources of political legitimacy. The source of political legitimacy is Islam and only Islam. If the ruler is Muslim, he must be obeyed. Islam encourages submission -- from mental submission to the submission of the Muslim subject to the Muslim ruler -- because Islam is based on the idea of submission of men to Allah, to the expressed will of Allah to be found in the Qur'an, and further interpreted by the Sunna (consisting essentially of what is written down in the Hadith and the Sira).
Bush can't admit or recognize this. Partly it is that the enormity of the error is so great, that at this point neither he, nor Cheney, nor their loyalists, can admit it. There should be an epuration of the so-called "conservative media" of such loyalists. They have done so much damage by sticking with and defending years beyond the time they could plausibly do so, an absurd policy that, far from weakening Islamic supremacism, has only weakened and distracted the Western world from concentrating its efforts on checking the main instruments of Jihad -- the money weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest.
But those who recognize that the mistakes in Iraq were those both about Islam (the failure to identify Islam as the enemy needing to be divided and demoralized), and about Iraq (the failure to recognize in Iraq those fissures that could be exploited, by leaving Iraq once Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed, both sectarian and ethnic), deserve a closer hearing.
The record of all the pundits and commentators can easily be found online. It is all there.
Who was right -- and who was wrong? Look for yourself.
this article; should be worded just a little bit differently! I kind of think those are some pretty harsh words! Even prejudice! aside the head count good and bad thing!
That is messed up! Now they have to rewrite the Constitution again and vote again! More deaths! Do the dhimmicrats do anything but complain and point fingers? Even though all this information out there the dhimmicrats still do not know what islam is about!
The enthusiasms of America's political class for democracy are ... words fail me.
It is the enshrinement and protection of individual rights that makes civilized modern life possible, not democracy.
In a context in which the rights of the individual are protected by law and custom, one can afford to hazard the idiocies of democracy.
Where they are not, the individual is as vulnerable to the tyranny of the many as surely as he would be vulnerable to the tyranny of any king or dictator.
Our politicians should be out there promoting rights and freedom, and accepting that where they fail in this endeavor they have encountered an intransigent enemy that can only be destroyed, not liberated.
This emphasis on out-of-context democracy for its own sake is typical political thinking.
The savages understand the power of the collective and approve of it, at least where their own gang is in the majority -- and our politicos know this and hope to exploit it to give the appearance of victory.
And it works, when the elected officials are half-way decent. Looks like the good guys won.
But then you get the blood cult of the "palistinians" who elect the worst of the murderers into power and wave their guns in the air on election day.
About them our triumphal politicos have less to say.
The mohammedan idiot quoted at the top is right in a sick way. Democracy really is nothing but counting heads.
He finds that objectionable for fear that the mullahs and poobahs might lose a bit of control.
I, because without explicit protection for human rights, democracy is just another form of tyranny.
Mohammedan regimes that do not endorse individual rights, and are not prepared to fight the preachers over the issue are of damned little use to us.
From Hugh: spot on as usual
"But the Iraqi Constitution says that no law, nor any provisions of the Constitution itself, can stand if they contradict the "law of Islam" -- that is, the Shari'a. What in our country would be thrown out if declared "unconstitutional," in the New Iraq, can be thrown out if declared contrary to the Law of Islam -- that is, contrary to the Shari'a"
True true true.
And we've lost 1,000's of men and 100s of billions of dollars so that remarkable constitution could be implemented.
What a F*&^&*G waste.
Brilliant, Joeblough.
The jury's still out on it.
Better to call it more accurately,
"who is currently right, and who is currently wrong, so far?"
"Assumptions are the mother of all f**kups." is also one of those 2-way streets, so let's avoid writing an epitaph prematurely.
Let's let this play out, then if it fails, Bush will go down (as Bill O'Reilly said) as one of the worst presidents since warren harding, jimmy carter, and james buchannan, and that's saying a lot coming from him...and then, we will all agree on that point.
Not yet.
never has this country seen such blatant attacks on a "wartime President" by the left, and others. it makes me wonder if what is elected after, is what they deserve. be careful what you wish for, for you may just get it.
"'Democracy is nothing, but counting of heads. It cannot differentiate between good and bad people,"
Give me a bad person in a democracy anytime over a good person in an Islamic society. Islam turns Good and Evil upside down. A truly good and moral person doesn't have a chance in the world of islam.
Mohammad set that standard.
Precisely when America needed another Lincoln, God provided America with another Alfred E. Neuman.
Exactly the wrong man, in the right place at the right time.
Very sad that bumbling George W. Bush could be even considered for the position of gardener at the White House, let alone President.
Surely the President of the most powerful nation on earth should be one of the greatest and most well-read intellectuals and a most moral man, rather than simply the son of a previous President?
God must hate the U.S.A. as it currently stands, just as God once loved and blessed it.
C'mon everybody, bush al-saud is such a smart man and such a Patriot!
Repeat after me:
"We all worship the same God"
"It's a religion of peace"
"moderate muslims"
"religion hijacked by extremists"
"No nation building"
And look at the bright side, he's forcefully creating the next muslim terror state in the ME, "palestine," for a group of genocidal, Jew-killing, demons! And on whose land? Why the land G-d gave the Jews, naturally!
Iran and the hitler of our time? No problemo? We'll just give several million iran muslims refugee status and bring them here.
allahu ahkbar!
At times it is Puzzling why the current Administration suffers the criticism here that it does. The division within Islam has never been as pronounced as it is today. Nor would it ever have become so had we just stayed in Afghanistan. In a campaign that was over before we were fully engaged.
We should welcome the process of Democracy in the Middle East. As the power of War passes from the hands of the Dictator to the Hands of the Masses. Then our view of the threats we face take on a whole new meaning. The need to be projected for what they are.
It was the will of the Palestinians in Voting Hamas into power that shed the Yoke of Leftist Dogma. Resulting in the ending of Foreign Aid.
If Saddam was still in power. Saddam would be the focus of a brewing conflict instead of Islam as it truly is showing itself today.
The Leftists hate the Idea of spreading Democracy. They need Dictators in power to justify inaction out of fear of harming an "innocent population". Our support of "Dictators" is just the Axe they use to grind home their message of how criminal American Policy is. What they have a hard time with is the expressed will of the people for conflict or war. The Left has no defence against it.
The President, with the support of the American People. Planted a Tree in Iraq. I suspect the President will tend to that tree for as long as he can. As many who have transplanted Native Trees to foreign soil in the past. The tricks of cultivation were learned over time. The Tree may take hold or it may not. Its Fruit may stay sweet or it may form sour. Right now the Tree still has leaves supported by functioning roots with firmness in both trunk and bark. If the Tree suffers from a Disease, then seek its cure to the betterment of the Tree. But the Tree, left unattended, will surely perish. We need not suffer the fate of the Elm for want of finding the cure.
President Bush is a "Rancher". He will tend his Tree. Demoncrats don't like planting Trees. It gets their hands dirty and breaks their Fingernails.
Let the free will of the people Flourish. Better to know the name your enemy goes by. If it takes a bitter fruit to make that known for certain. Then we will be better off in its knowledge. Just be wary of experts who had no hand in the Trees cultivation telling you why it died.
Although democracy may be hopeless, at least the onus is put on the right party, namely, the Muslims. Here's a good letter from http://www.jpost.com :
No excuse
Sir, - Re "Obama: Israel should help change status quo with PA" (April 25): Instead of nagging Israel, what Obama and others need to do is ask the people who form the majority in the region, the Muslim Arabs, to take the lead for positive change.
In a sense, the US has done that already in Iraq. The Bush administration is looking to the Iraqis to try and make a viable democratic state. While the success of that effort may be in doubt, at least it recognizes that the problems of the region can be solved only by the Muslim majority - and also that those problems go way beyond the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which is but a symptom of the overall pathology.
No religious or ethnic minority is in a position to decisively influence as vast an area as the Mideast. The refusal to require the Muslims to take on what should be their obligation shows how low expectations have sunk; but that is no excuse not to try.
G-d doesn't hate.
Maulana Abdul Aziz misunderstands how democracy works. It is a system in which good people remove bad people from their presence by confining them either to public office or jail, or both.
If God really hates America so much that He is willing to see the triumph of the most hateful philosophy ever known to man, then who needs God?
So much for God's covenant with Abraham:
"I will bless those that bless you
But I will curse those that curse you
And through you I will bless all the nations" Genesis 12:3.
The idea that democracy prevents war because "democratic nations don't go to war with one another" puts the cart before the horse.
Look at stable Western democracies and you will see that they have one thing in common: their people have moved beyond tribal and familial loyalties and have joined together as a nation.
Europe remained mired in war up until the 20th century, when people finally realized that internecine strife was getting them nowhere.
It was a hallmark of American history. People who came here left behind their old loyalties and joined a new nation dedicated to human freedom.
The Muslim countries will not prosper until they decide that all human life has value and are willing to treat all people equally. That requires moving beyond tribal feuds and attempting to right thousand-year-old wrongs. It also won't happen as long as Sharia remains the supreme law of the land.
What they will get will be DINO - Democrcay in Name Only.
As for leaving Iraq once Saddam's regime had collapsed, what did that mean? If we had left right after the statue came down, we would have been accused of "abandoning" the Iraqis to the Baathists, who would most surely have been resurrected. Uday and Kusay and their dad would be running around Baghdad today.
How was it wrong to leave Afghanistan after driving out the Soviets and also wrong to remain in Iraq after knocking out Saddam? We kept hearing that Iraqis were thoroughly cowed after decades of Baathist rule and were not prepared to govern themselves and would not have been able to protect themselves from the thugs waiting to take over. It seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Might as well put blinders on and turn a deaf ear to all who complain about tyranny. Freedom needs to be won. They have to win it. We can't do it for them.
Maulana Abdul Aziz's comment lacks one important qualification of unique relevance to the Islamic world: "Democracy is nothing, but counting of heads [while still attached to their bodies]".
Hugh said
Not only do the media not go back and look, in retrospect, at the failures and successes (if any) of their pundits and experts, they do not even stop inviting those same pundits back to comment on the events that they so misunderstood and offer their next batch of tragicomically inaccurate predictions. Meanwhile, those with real knowledge about Islam are kept locked up, hidden away in the basement with the proverbial crazy old aunt. Oh well. As long as the dreamers get to keep dreaming their dream about a peaceful, prosperous, modern, pluralistic democracy in Iraq. Yes. That's the important thing.
Hugh
This is another masterpiece of intelligence on this issue. Iraq is a waste and anyone with any understanding military history or strategy would agree.
Keep em' coming...
They are food for the mind.
"(Iraq) has only weakened and distracted the Western world from concentrating its efforts on checking the main instruments of Jihad -- the money weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest."
Correct! I would add one more: Military aggression on weak non-muslim states such as in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. We could check that easy by giving out military weapons and money to those said peoples to fight the good fight.
Who was right -- and who was wrong?
They're all wrong, cuz not one of them will admit the truth.
The proper question, then, is who will be the first to publicly call Islam what it is?
A free nation has a critical need for the highest quality ideas obtainable.
Yet it is a curious fact about American high culture in general (if you can call it that), that we do not require real-world, proveable knowledge from our intellectual class.
If you think about it for a moment, you will notice that this applies to the "pundits", or as R. Emmett Tyrrell characterises them "dealers in second hand ideas", school teachers, gov't policy planners even scientists.
Our school teachers are promoting proven idiocies at the higher levels and at the lower levels cannot even train children to read, write and do arithmetic.
We have "scientists" trumpeting the end of the world based on sketchy evidence that the weather is getting warmer, and calling for the end of industry to cure what they imagine without conclusive proof to be a problem.
We have gov't policy planners promoting policies proven to fail and facilitate poverty, ignorance, bankruptcy, chaos and suffering.
And we have "pundits" in the press flogging every imaginable sort of idiocy about the great questions of the day -- and proven wrong within months, weeks, sometimes even days in the very same publications that they first announced their supposedly expert ideas.
In none of these cases are the dealers in ideas called to account for the shabbiness of the goods they are selling.
A shoe salesman who sold shoes of quality comparable to the education that American children are getting would be out of business in a month.
An engineering company with a track record comparable to most "pundits" in the press would be bankrupted in court for gross negligence and professional malfeasance.
What is it in our culture that inspires us to give these people a free pass ?????????????
Are we so contemptuous of ideas in general that we regard the ideas business as a fool's playground that is beneath our notice and judgement ?
There ought to be a mass uproar about such widespread fraud and negligence.
But there is not.
Why ???
Not sure of the exact source, but this can be found all over the internet:
How Long Do We Have?
"About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:"
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
"Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years."
Food for thought.
flowerknife_us has a point, and it is one that has been made, I think, by Victor Davis Hanson, who has often featured on his site articles that differ not at all with Jihad Watch on Islam's character and history. (See, for example, Bruce Thornton's pieces, which pull no punches when it comes to Islam.)
flowerknife_us makes the point that if democracy -- and, I would add, even a democracy with civil liberties severely limited by sharia -- is established, Iraq becomes responsible for its actions to a much greater extent than if a dictator runs it. Punitive measures can be easier to undertake against a democratic group -- as for example with the cutoff of aid to the Palestinians, and the snubbing of their representatives. Europe never managed this before the recent Palestinian elections that openly elevated a genocidal jihad leadership. Now, after Palestinian elections have brought the current character of the Palestinians fully into the open, we finally find Europe cutting off aid to the Palestinians and beginning to inform Palestinian leaders they are not welcome as official visitors of state.
Furthermore, if we withdraw immediately from Iraq, without having put that country in the hands of a stable and somewhat responsible government -- I'm not talking about a Jeffersonian liberal democracy -- Americans, despite Hugh's and Robert's protestations that we would have no reason to feel guilty about the tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths that could result from civil and regional war, will in too many cases feel responsible, and consequently there could be irresistable pressures to admit to the U.S., during the course of a decade, tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees. That infusion of Muslims to the U.S. would over time strengthen Muslim intimidation of media and populace in the U.S., and strengthen the as yet relatively weak machinations to bring sharia here, and would thus become a significant wound to American democracy and civil liberties. But if a stable quasi-democracy subject to the sharia we here abhor is established in Iraq, and civil war avoided, refugee numbers will be small. And the people of Iraq are more likely to be held responsible for their own problems and refugees if we have established a government that, by the Middle East's standards, is more open and democratic than most.
If all I have said here is true, is that sufficient to remove the justification for Hugh's policy of immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Perhaps not. The world is infinitely complex, and therefore choosing between competing policy proposals must often be, at best, only an educated guessing game.
A couple of additional downsides to immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq include these:
1. World opinion would interpret it as defeat for the U.S. and victory for Islam and the jihadists. This would give a huge morale boost worldwide to jihadists, who would believe they had defeated the greatest power on earth. Jihadist ambitions, initiatives, and funding would increase.
2. A civil or regional war could lead to skyrocketing oil prices and economic chaos, which could in turn lead to world war. However, if world war did not eventuate from skyrocketing oil prices, such prices could actually be, on the whole, a good thing, if they compel the West to energy independence.
traeh - "and consequently there could be irresistable pressures to admit to the U.S., during the course of a decade, tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees."
Now you are sounding like Al Gore with his global warming.
There is also something very disjoint about your thinking that over there Muslims could somehow build a stable and somewhat responsible government, yet over here they would be a wound to American democracy and civil liberties.
How can it be both?
feralcat9 said:
Am I exaggerating about the possible influx of Muslim refugees to the U.S.? Maybe. But just a few weeks ago there was this article on Jihad Watch: www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015296.php.
The article explains that President Bush already intends to admit 7000 Iraqi refugees to the U.S. I hope that plan has been quashed. Do you know if it has?
In any event, if President Bush is making a proposal to take in 7000 even now, imagine what he, or a later Democratic President might do, if there is an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and as a result, completely unchecked civil war opens up there, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths over a period of years, perhaps including the entrance into the conflict of surrounding states? What will President Bush, or President Obama, or whoever, suggest about taking refugees into the U.S. then?
If there is a humanitarian disaster in Iraq following on quick U.S. withdrawal, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die over the course of the following decade, I don't see how one can ignore the fact that in the U.S. a large part of the populace thinks Islam is harmless. And many others are simply afraid of trouble from PC lawsuits or social ostracizing for criticizing Islam or in any way discriminating against it. Thus many Democrats and Republicans, together with many other people either afraid or else practicing a misinformed and misguided kind of compassion -- could bring about a large influx of Muslim refugees. Why not? We admit Muslims to the U.S. now, don't we? Why should not the number of those admitted increase dramatically if there is a humanitarian disaster in Iraq upon quick U.S. withdrawal?
I'm not saying influxes of refugees to the U.S. will necessarily happen, or even if they do, that Hugh's policy of "get out of Iraq now" is definitely wrong. I don't pretend to know. I'm merely trying to look at all sides of the issue.
feralcat9 said:
How can it be both?
Thanks for an excellent question. The answer is simple. A "stable and somewhat responsible government" can include governments that are far, very far, from meeting American standards of stability, democracy, and civil liberties. I don't want more Muslims to come to the U.S., because I don't want their lousy standards of civil liberties, democracy and stability here in the U.S. At the same time I do think there are bad and less bad types of Islam-influenced governments, as far as global strategic non-Muslim interests are concerned. I say if we endeavor to establish the less-bad type of government in Iraq, it might save us from a huge refugee influx to the U.S. Hugh and Robert and all the rest of us jihad watchers might not be able to do anything to stop such an influx if we leave Iraq and unchecked bloody civil war unfolds in Iraq.
The other problem with an immediate withdrawal is that world opinion will interpret that as an American defeat and a jihadist victory. Jihadists, worldwide, will then get a huge boost in morale, because they will believe themselves to have defeated the greatest power on earth. Jihadists will then be inspired to take on more ambitious initiatives and will receive increased funding.
Traeh,
Why should we care one iota how others will interpret a withdrawal from Iraq. We withdraw (if we do) for our own reasons. Others will draw whatever conclusion they want.
What if we stayed for ten years? The day after we leave you'll have people saying we "fled". For proof they'll point to the fact that we are still in Europe and South Korea but we could only stay in Iraq for ten years!
To heck with what the rest of the world thinks!
feralcat9:
I asked you
Here's what might be a partial answer: Americans might -- might -- refuse refugees from Iraq to avoid admitting terrorists, of whom there are obviously a very large number in Iraq.
But I'm not sure we can even count on that, once a completely unchecked civil war opens up and the images of wailing and wounded women and children start flooding to American television screens.
PMK said:
But you are quite mistaken to think that, in a very concrete strategic sense, it doesn't matter to non-Muslim interests what world opinion is. For example: Jihadists' morale around the world would increase, because they, and most of world opinion, regardless of what you and I think, would interpret immediate withdrawal as jihad victory over the greatest power on earth. That would arguably lead to more jihadist recruitment, bigger financing for jihad, and more ambitious jihadist plans. What others think has real military and strategic significance. Or else why do totalitarian governments always invest so much energy in controlling what people think?
Another very real result of immediate withdrawal would be that, although you and I would be against bringing Muslim refugees into the U.S., many others in the U.S. and the world might think it our obligation to bring in Muslim refugees, and you and I might not be able to stop them from thinking so and acting on it. If that happened, then it wouldn't matter what you think, never mind what others think. Others' thoughts can have a very real effect of a Muslim influx to the United States.
You say, why should we give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, but the problem is that, even if you and I don't give a damn what they think, many others in the U.S. do give a damn, and will be influenced.
So for these and many other reasons, you greatly underrate the power of public opinion. Ortega y Gasset, often considered a conservative thinker, held that public opinion is what rules the world.
PMK said:
Well, actually, our debate here is probably moot, because if the current "surge" strategy doesn't succeed fairly soon in some fairly unambiguous way, it seems likely withdrawal is inevitable, doesn't it? So the difference between us, then, is that you want to withdraw now (I guess), whereas I'm suggesting it might be better to wait a few more months until the surge and the new counterinsurgency strategy has definitively failed or looks to succeed. If it doesn't fail, I am suggesting, for the reasons in my posts above, it might -- might -- be better for us geopolitically, and allow us to establish a stable government that will not flood us with
Muslim refugees in the U.S. and will avoid a perhaps uncontrollable increase global instability due to regional war in the Middle East.
PMK, in addition to my above post, I would ask you, if it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, then why do so many governments, including our own, spend so much money on psy-ops research? Or, for that matter, why does this website, Jihad Watch, even need to exist, if what people think doesn't matter? Why do you or I bother to write comments here, if it doesn't matter what other people think?
Sharia and democracy are incompatible. Period. When you try to put the two together you end up with a weird Pushme-Pullyou in which the sharia end is destined to prevail.
Sharia and liberal democracy (the kind with full civil liberties) are incompatible. But Sharia and democracy seem to be compatible.
That's why mere democracy ain't enough -- because it doesn't necessarily include civil liberties, democracy can be compatible with a dictatorial culture.
Sharia law is "Allah's" law; democracy is man's law. Hence the basic incompatibility.
True, scaramouche.
I was thinking of Iraq, Turkey, and Indonesia, in all of which are elements of sharia, yet also democracy, albeit not liberal democracy. But you seem to be right that it's an unstable amalgam, a pushmepullyou deal where sharia always threatens to take over.
Hugh advocates disentanglement of our involvement with the Muslims in Iraq at the same time he is advocating our intervention on behalf of Muslims in Darfur. And what happens when American blood and treasure start to define our presence in Darfur? No doubt, he will again advocate withdrawal, again leaving those we came to help at the mercy of their fanatical enemies.
Traeh,
We care what the world thinks, but we can't be ruled by it. Public opinion is fickle. We try to make our leaders know what we think because they are our representatives in Congress and they speak for us to the world.
We care what others think and we try to educate others and ourselves (I've learned a lot since finding JW) but the best interests of Iraq are not necessarily the best interests of America.
If American withdrawal from Iraq will result in new terrorism being directed at people around the world then those people are just going to have to find a way to deal with it. They could have helped us but chose to sit on their hands. Too bad...for them.
You said "Others' thoughts can have a very real effect of a Muslim influx to the United States." I say they don't have to. Americans will not be blackmailed into bringing in people who have shown they want to do us harm. We tried that with Somali "refugees" and now they are trying to undermine our society. If the rest of the world is so worried about the plight of Muslims then the rest of the world can help them.
Iraq has been creating refugees ever since 1980, about the time Saddam declared war on Iran. There are what - twenty two? - Muslim countries. There is only one US. We're already being flooded with Mexicans. There's no room for the universal ummah.
We did the world's bidding in Iraq during the 1990s and were screwed by the UN. Never again.
Who is warning about the dire consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq? The very same countries that have tried to destroy us and our mission there: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, EU countries (too many to list), Russia.
The Sunnis were exploding car bombs from right after Saddam fell and they're begging us to stay? SCREW THEM!
The Shi'a have the power and they refused to rein in the militias that were attacking American forces. SCREW THEM! We were told Allawi couldn't do anything because he had to maintain his support among the Shi'a. Read between the lines: the Shi'a don't want us there. They wanted us to leave (down with the US, an end to occupation, kill the occupiers, etc.). They should have been careful what they wished for.
They wouldn't support our efforts in Iraq and now they're going to complain when we leave? I say again: to heck with them!
BTW, I supported going in and I want to see the surge work, but when I see Iraqi Arabs and Saudi Muslims and Europeans saying we can't leave NOW, it just makes my blood boil. They have no right to any say in US policy. The people of Iraq have been complaining about how life was better under Saddam. It's just too bad we can't turn back the clock and bring him and his sons back. They all deserve each other.
The smartest thing this president could do is to announce that when our troops leave Iraq we won't be coming back and Iraqis should find someone else to liberate them the next time. Fool me once....
Traeh,
Now that I've calmed down, I'll just say: if you want the US to take the lead in fighting those who would destroy civilization and disrupt law and order, then you can't expect us to listen to world opinion. Do you want the US held hostage to world opinion?
In Iraq, we're fighting people who live in the civilian community and who don't wear uniforms and who have friends and neighbors who know exactly what they're doing. Those friends and neighbors keep silent. But when one of THEM is killed the others rant and rave about the evil US attacking civilians. THEY are the reason we should leave. THEY are not worth the sacrifices our men and women are making. THEY are not worth the $100 billion a month that we are spending. We'll soon be broke. What do you expect us to do then?
I don't know how many times I've read how someone wants to bring George Bush before the ICC, like they did Pinochet. What American president should do anything for anyone in the world with that kind of threat hanging over his head? A single mistake will get someone branded a war criminal. There's only one reason we should do anything around the world: it's in our own best interest.
PMK said:
What I said above about world public opinion was concerned with how best to secure the strategic interests of the U.S. and the West. You seem to have gotten the impression that because I say one should consider world public opinion as a real force in affairs, a force that must be dealt with, that I'm also saying one must agree with that opinion or particularly respect it, or allow it to dictate one's actions. So let me be clear: I don't think one should agree with or respect or be dictated to by world public opinion or conventional wisdom. I merely say that world opinion is a huge and important force, because the more one can get people to agree with one's perspective, and the better one understands the opinions of others, the easier it will be for one to secure one's interests. And no potential tool (including knowledge of people's opinions) that can help free societies' win victory should be neglected. Sometimes one absolutely must act contrary to world public opinion, but that is very different from not giving a damn what public opinion is. One must give a damn, if only to learn how best to challenge the conventional wisdom and how to act most effectively in one's own best interests. Because we are not gods and do not have infinite resources, we must, where it is possible to do so without going against our own interests, enlist the cooperation of others, and that means, among other things, knowing their opinions. Even if they refuse to cooperate, we must know their opinions as one important means of countering their opposition. I suspect all this is obvious to you, but somehow you got an impression I was saying something else.
In other words, PMK, world public opinion is rather like currents to a swimmer. To swim effectively, whether against or with the current, the swimmer must understand that current. You sometimes sound as if you are saying "ignore the current," when what I think you really mean is, "we must swim against the current." Those are two very different statements. I would agree that swimming against the current, nowadays, is often the right thing. But I would not agree with ignoring the current. If you don't know how the currents work and their timing and patterns in different locations, how will you be able to swim effectively against them? Won't a swimmer who knows complicated currents most intimately be best prepared to swim against them or through them?
Too many people forget that American Democracy developed in an isolated environment. Free from interference from the outside world. We built a Democracy from scratch while conducting an on-going clash of Civilizations.
The Demoncrats will open the flood gates to Arab immigration because of the Failure of George Bushes War. The same war they Voted for under essentially the Clinton Administrations goal of removing Saddam. Now the same Demoncrats have declared the spread of Democracy DOA. Refusing to fund the War they voted for. In an effort to keep themselves from having to deal with the problem. Because according to them, It is all simply going to solve itself. I would bet the Demoncrats would feign surprise at the reality of the Blood Bath that would result as a consequence.
Let us not overlook the effects Dragging an Army back home with the World Championing our loss would have. Your going to tell your Armed Forces they lost a war where they could hardly ever fire their Weapon. A direct result of the political pressure the bearer's of the bad news created? Some kind of support. Compounding the Disgrace by handing over the problem to the American Judicial system that already failed miserably up to 9/11. While the Demoncrats disarmed law enforcement of what it needs to do their job to protect a Population who, apparently, are willing to some degree, to sit quietly and get shot.
As for Immigration, the whole issue is lost with the Hispanic aspect. Muslim Immigration is a LOST subject in the Media. Open Borders is Open Borders is Open Borders.
The Multicultural Fantasy that we have a Moral obligation to Poison Ourselves for Past transgressions will be the end of us.
There was a time in the past 1200 years where Islam could do the Hack and Stab on each other and nobody cared. It didn't necessarily effect the conduct of the rest of the Worlds business. At least to the degree it does today.
The whole world runs on OIL. To think that will end anytime soon is foolish.
Deal with Iran. The Leadership, The Revolutionary Guard. Cut off their Gas. and turn out their lights and their major Military Infrastructure. Accept nothing less that the Surrender by what ever leadership is left. Tell their youngsters that we have done all we can for the sins of their elders. Not to mention they are on their own. All the trouble makers Iran supports will wither on the vine. Or be subject to direct Israeli intervention on terms far more favorable to Israel.
Deal with the fast Jihad and use it to grind away at the slow. Plant a Tree, Help it grow. Kill the Disease that prevents it from taking root.
You can't really believe in Democracy and not wish it's blessings on others. It is the collective will of the people that makes it work. It is never perfect but it can grow, It breeds a level of Civility and Accommodation, It provides a base for life's improvement.
Given the actions of the Demoncrats over the last several years. Just how deep could you say are their Roots for even our own Democracy?
It would not surprise me in the least to see the President be inconveniently engaged with Iran. Requiring the Demoncrats to Fund the Military or be seen as Traitors. When their wish is to hide under the Vale of plausible deniability.
The US needs an Iraq stable enough to look after it's internal affairs so that we can concentrate on the real problem. Being Iran.
Now I am off on a chore, but will check back later.
traeh - "I asked you
Why should not the number of [Muslim refugees] admitted [to the U.S.] increase dramatically if there is a humanitarian disaster in Iraq upon quick U.S. withdrawal?"
Well we have somehow resisted bringing in millions of starving Africans. I think that you have gotten well beyond "worst case scenario" with your hundreds of thousands of Iraqis coming here.
PMK said:
I agree completely.
PMK said:
If that means, "you can't expect us to do whatever world opinion demands," then I agree with you completely. But if you literally mean we can't be expected to listen to world opinion, in the sense of listening to find out what it is, then I can't go along with you.
But I'm sure you intended the former meaning, and the debate between us seems to have hinged on confusion around that -- either my confusion, yours, or both. No matter. I believe we are clear now.
feralcat9:
I hope you are right that I'm beyond the worst case scenario with my concerns about large numbers of Iraqi refugees. But as I said, President Bush was recently promoting the entrance of 7,000 Iraqis, so couldn't that number easily be increased tenfold or more, over a period of years, if there is a humanitarian disaster in Iraq upon immediate U.S. withdrawal? Even that tenfold increase would be 70,000. Maybe you think that 70,000 would be a pittance, fairly easily absorbed into the U.S. population, a relatively small threat likely to do the U.S. far less damage than we would do to the totalitarian Camp of Islam by suddenly withdrawing from Iraq. Maybe you are right. But one should at least consider the risks of any policy, including the risks that a quick U.S. withdrawal will mean that the U.S. will end up taking in lots of Muslim refugees, and perhaps neither you, nor I, nor Hugh, nor those who agree with us, will be able to stop it.
Your Africa analogy might be relevant here, since it shows there are sometimes very sharp limits to American compassion. Those limits might well kick in if Americans are faced with admitting Iraqi refugees many of whom could easily be terrorists. But the "you broke it, you fix it" rule that many in the U.S. would insist on, a rule that would presumably apply to Iraq in the case of a sudden withdrawal, does not apply to Africa.
But I hope you are right.
For the most part, American foreign Policy is swimming against the Current of World Opinion. It needs to get out of the water and back in its Boat. where moving against the current is far more effective.
The Europeans don't like what were doing because of the real potential that their own Country's can melt from within.
We really owe Europe Nothing because they were instrumental in keeping Turkey, A NATO Allie, from letting US deploy from there. A 40,000 strong all combined arms, integrated front line Division fully deployed in or around January. 3 Months prior to our actual intervention in Iraq. Combined with the direct support of the Kurds.
It would have been an entirely different affair had Turkey resisted European false hope and took our 60 Billion that no one was squacking about. But who were the ones supporting the European View? Kerry and The Demoncrats. Sounds like a 50"s Band Guaranteed to play off key. Another wonderful policy the Demoncrats had to ensure that any Victory would be short.
Now we have NATO in Afghanistan where the vast majority refuse, as a matter of Policy, to shoot anyone.
The only aspect of World Opinion that seems to matter, is what holds true for the Demoncrats. Their "wisdom" in all this has always been a Recipe for Failure. Europe, as it is today, is no example of what we should follow.
If burning 10,000 Automobiles in France is seen only as a bunch of discontent Youts. Then what can anyone expect of them as they become older? It is not the type of City Life one would think would be welcome here. Unless your a Demoncrat.
traeh "But the "you broke it, you fix it" rule that many in the U.S. would insist on, a rule that would presumably apply to Iraq in the case of a sudden withdrawal, does not apply to Africa.
That's Powell's rule, not many other peoples. In any case, we are leaving sooner or later, so why get more troops killed, just to delay what will happen, whatever that turns out to be.
But I hope you are right."
We had all better hope so!
P.S. If we feel so badly about the Iraqis who had close ties to us that we leave behind, we can always "grubstake" them to go to Jordan or Syria.
I have enormous respect for the U.S.A. and the sacrifices they have made over the years in the cause of human liberty and dignity.
They bailed Europe out of trouble in WWI and later played an huge part in saving Europe again in WW2 as well as defeating the Japanese in the Pacific, with some help from its allies.
All this at enormous cost in the lives of their young men and much treasure and other resources.
Now, again, they are selflessly spending enormous treasure and sacrificing thousands of young lives to bring Iraq the freedom and democracy the U.S.A. enjoys.
I'd like to apologize for my earlier remark about President Bush.
Whistling Dixie is quite correct, God doesn't hate.
It is just so depressing to see such enormous good will and sacrifice being, in my opinion, so badly led through ignorance of the true nature of Islam.
Democracy is the means to an end, not an end in itself.
True freedom of conscience, personal liberty and individual justice are impossible under Sharia law which has been enshrined in the Iraq constitution by the victorious coalition.
Also, Iraq is one small part of the Ummah.
The rest of the Ummah, Nation Islam, will never allow the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq or Afghanistan except if it is imposed through a continuous "troop surge".
Can the U.S.A. and its allies afford to stay there indefinitely?
Bloodshed and violence will reign until Islam dominates and the kuffar are driven out.
Of course in the case of Iraq, the violence will continue between Sunni and Shiite, even after the infidel is gone.
Nobody in charge seems to 'get it' regarding Islam. Very frustrating.
God hates Anerica...is that both of them or just one?
In addition to the 7,000 Iraqis entering the U.S., there's also been an agreement between Australia and the United States. Australia will send it's "boat people" (these are frequently Middle Easterners) to the United States and the U.S. will send Australia its Cuban "boat people." This exchange has been agreed upon, in part, because the White House wants to express its appreciation for Australia's support of the War in Iraq.
I do feel that a grave threat exists in terms of immigration (currently rampant and unchecked), with or without some major humanitarian disaster in Iraq (say, a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq leads to civil war.)
I think the U.S. should shelve its plans for "democratizing" Iraq (and get out as soon as possible. And, "yes," you are correct, Hugh.) But, it's all about the timing (and, the time is not right). (I fear that if the Democrats/dhimmis have their way, there will be a rout -- which would be very dangerous for the U.S. -- that is, the dhimmocrats would get out of Iraq for all the wrong reasons...and thus strengthen, not weaken the forces of islam.
Oh, and I read another newspaper article about a Muslim Liberal wannabe Member of Parliament. And, Yes, it gets worse. This individual apparently was arrested and charged (with a number of offenses) including endangerment of life, by firing off a shotgun in a nightclub, etc. This, in addition to writing extremist statements and Letters to the Editor to the local newspaper (one of the reasons why I seldom bother reading the "letters to the editor" -- all nut jobs...and this wannabe Member of Parliament among other things, accused Israelis of "raping," enslavement of Pals, etc. A liar, yet, of course, in statements maintained that his overriding interest was in restoring "honesty and integrity" to politics (as i gag). Oh, and yet worse, the candidate also -- hang on here -- has a Ph.D -- ah yes, from, of course, a "university" in the United Kingdom. I think the UK "universities" should probably be boycotted...they produce far too many Muslim flakes and dishonour the honesty and integrity of universities.
Traeh,
You understood me perfectly.
We cannot be ruled by world opinion. At the same time, when something needs to be done, we can't LISTEN to world opinion either. By that I mean we can't let world opinion cow us into not doing what needs to be done. Popularity is not the be all and end all of our existence as a nation.
Everyone wants us to go through the UN, but the UN is filled with dictatorships and authoritarian governments that neither share our interests nor have any stake in our survival. And why should they? They have their own interests. The two are rarely compatible.
People who are not under threat and have no intention of helping us resolve that threat have no business deciding how we are to respond to it, unless you think it would be just fine if the US withdrew from all world affairs and closed its borders to all migrants of any kind and said to heck with the world. (Isn't that the logical response to the world opinion that the US poses "the greatest threat to world peace"? If George Bush is more dangerous than bin Laden, then Europeans should have cut off all contact with the US or else united to bring us down.)
Becoming the new Albania is not something we should do, but we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We're selfish for not going into Darfur but imperialistic for going into Iraq. You can't have it both ways.
American military was instrumental in providing the initial aid for tsunami victims but the survey Robert has in another section talks about how the Muslim attitude is that the US must be destroyed. Careful what you wish for.
An example of what happens when leaders, even of democracies, cave to public opinion is Britain in the thirties. Neville Chamberlain responded to public opinion when he made an agreement with a dictator and returned home to his still war-weary people and promised them "peace in our time". Giving in to Hitler's demands was the popular thing to do but it didn't make England any safer. In fact, it wasn't long before London was bombed.
Good one...reminds me of 2 immortal and irrefutable quotes:
"Test of a true leader: making decisions that aren't always going to be palatable to your troops."
(many versions, but this one came from OCS Quantico)
"Consensus is the negation of leadership."
Margaret Thatcher
(she got a good laugh over our affectionate reference to her: "Ol'Lady Iron Balls")
By the way...some interesting item, even the NY slimes had to begrudgingly admit...finally:
GOOD NEWS IN ANBAR
By Ed Morrissey
Just as the Democrats have raised the white flag on Iraq, the New York Times reports that the surge strategy has started paying off in Anbar. Shops have reopened, people have moved back, and everyone's challenging the insurgents except Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (via Memeorandum):
Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.
“Many people are challenging the insurgents,” said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.”
Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.
At the same time, American and Iraqi forces have been conducting sweeps of insurgent strongholds, particularly in and around Ramadi, leaving behind a network of police stations and military garrisons, a strategy that is also being used in Baghdad, Iraq’s capital, as part of its new security plan.
Life has not yet returned to normal, nor even close to it. Infrastructure still has yet to be rebuilt, and the loyalty of America's new allies still remains uncertain. What does appear certain is that this former stronghold of Ba'athist resentment no longer wants to exist in a cycle of oppression, liberation, and destruction. They want to end the fighting by eliminating the insurgents.
The question will be whether they stick with that in the face of an imminent American withdrawal. It has taken four years for Anbar to understand that Sunni domination in Iraq has ended and will not return, neither in the guise of Saddam Hussein nor in a military junta ruled by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the chief Ba'athist dead-ender. Now that they have finally pulled together with the US to oppose the increasingly lunatic al-Qaeda terrorists, we have lost the will to fight the insurgents ourselves -- or at least Congress has.
Government buildings and hotels are being rebuilt in Ramadi. Even the New York Times reports that violence has swiftly fallen in the region. Last summer, Ramadi had 25 terrorist attacks a day, and now it has dropped to four -- still too many, but with the expanded police force holding territory for the first time since the liberation, the momentum has clearly shifted. American troops have turned to civil-affairs work, trying to kick-start the rebuilding effort that will secure some semblance of peace among the Sunnis.
The growing security forces rely on the Americans to assist them in getting the terrorists that everyone wants driven out of Iraq. Without us, they would have to sue for terms with the AQI lunatics that would have them divided and fighting amongst themselves. If we leave now, we will destroy all of the work we have done to reach this point -- when even the Times acknowledges that we have finally begun to set the stage for success in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq. Sunday, April 29, 2007
Like I said...jury's still out on this one.
Fareed Zakaria's Future of Freedom is an excellent antidote to anyone thinking in blinkered terms about the value of democracy. It can only take root under certain conditions, which are debated, but a strong case can be made for a minimum level of GDP per capita ($US3000 to $US6000) and a healthy civil society, including a separation of religion and state, which Islam forbids. Iraq will never be ready for democracy in this context unless it first deals with the problem of Islam. The 'civil' struggle between Sunnis and Shias, which predates the American invasion, not only impedes economic stability; it is part of a culture in which constitutional liberties are institutionally stifled.