You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is this George Bush's Democracy in Afghanistan, Death sentence to christian convert??
- Thread starter mahram
- Start date
I strongly agree. Like the notion of a Palestinian state, democracy in the fundamentalist Islamic world will be a failed experiment.
Short solution: Covertly execute any mullah's or Imam's who advance terrorist measures.
Short solution: Covertly execute any mullah's or Imam's who advance terrorist measures.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I think you understand very well what I mean. It was pure folly to put in a government that promptly established sharia law. I still don't understand why we waste American soldiers' lives to install muslim governments.
I realize this happened during Bush's "religion of peace" phase, but he has to take the blame. What a payback to the Christian voters who were his strongest supporters, establishing a muslim government that uses the force of government to persecute Christians.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I think you understand very well what I mean. It was pure folly to put in a government that promptly established sharia law. I still don't understand why we waste American soldiers' lives to install muslim governments.
No, I didn't understand what you meant. I guess you weren't "accepting" that this is the kind of thing you can expect from Muslim populations. So you're shocked that an Islamic regime was installed. But that, my friend, is democracy in action. You seem to think it's just some fundie elites than insisted on it, and if instead the US had handed the Afghans some Denmark-like liberal regime the masses would have been just as pleased.
I realize this happened during Bush's "religion of peace" phase, but he has to take the blame.
But then you say this, and I have to think that perhaps you do understand that the problem is Islam, afterall.
But if the problem is Islam, it's not Bush's "religion of peace phase" that you need to worry about it, it's the whole idea of trying to "spread democracy" to Islamic countries. Because democracy will simply mean more Islamic regimes.
The real solution is to install friendly hardliners, and if they are usurped by populist Islamic regimes, like the Taliban, we just go there kill a few people, install a new hardliner, and get out. That way, we could get away with one short, "police action" level, war every, what, five years or so. Not too enticing, but isn't it better than being bogged down year after painful year trying to make silk purses.
Of course, that would require a complete rejection of the liberal-neocon ideal that all other people can be just like us and that they want to be just like us, so defeating that misguided mindset would be the first order of action. Quite a tall order, too, given the unwillingness of its advocates to even consider the possiblity they might be wrong.
Quote from spect8or:
No, I didn't understand what you meant. I guess you weren't "accepting" that this is the kind of thing you can expect from Muslim populations. So you're shocked that an Islamic regime was installed. But that, my friend, is democracy in action. You seem to think it's just some fundie elites than insisted on it, and if instead the US had handed the Afghans some Denmark-like liberal regime the masses would have been just as pleased.
But then you say this, and I have to think that perhaps you do understand that the problem is Islam, afterall.
But if the problem is Islam, it's not Bush's "religion of peace phase" that you need to worry about it, it's the whole idea of trying to "spread democracy" to Islamic countries. Because democracy will simply mean more Islamic regimes.
The real solution is to install friendly hardliners, and if they are usurped by populist Islamic regimes, like the Taliban, we just go there kill a few people, install a new hardliner, and get out. That way, we could get away with one short, "police action" level, war every, what, five years or so. Not too enticing, but isn't it better than being bogged down year after painful year trying to make silk purses.
Of course, that would require a complete rejection of the liberal-neocon ideal that all other people can be just like us and that they want to be just like us, so defeating that misguided mindset would be the first order of action. Quite a tall order, too, given the unwillingness of its advocates to even consider the possiblity they might be wrong.
I guess I am being obtuse. I agree with you. I thought the deomcracy initiative was risky for exactly the reason you cite. If we were determined to have democracy, then we should have insisted on strict limitations on religious intereference. Certainly, establishing sharia law in the country's constitution was an act of pure idiocy.
I also don't buy the notion that Afghanistan is an independent country, it has an independent judiciary, etc etc. If they decided to invite al qaeda back in, I think we would not hesitate to act. If they decided to build nuclear weapons, I think we would find reasons to limit their indenpndence. But merely executing Christians, our State Department doesn't want to rock the boat over that.
Fine. Let them pay the price by losing control of congress.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Certainly, establishing sharia law in the country's constitution was an act of pure idiocy.
Slaves were permitted to be imported until 1808 in US Constitution, and:
Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.
Many slaves were 'owned' by bible christians.
!
We already do that. In fact we did that with the Shah in Iran. We did that in Iraq too. But he started keeping all the oil revenue for himself so we had to get rid of him.
The result is an even more excessive virulent form of Antiamericanism among the general population.
Quote from spect8or:
The real solution is to install friendly hardliners, and if they are usurped by populist Islamic regimes, like the Taliban, we just go there kill a few people, install a new hardliner, and get out. That way, we could get away with one short, "police action" level, war every, what, five years or so. Not too enticing, but isn't it better than being bogged down year after painful year trying to make silk purses.
The result is an even more excessive virulent form of Antiamericanism among the general population.
Quote from spect8or:
The real solution is to install friendly hardliners, and if they are usurped by populist Islamic regimes, like the Taliban, we just go there kill a few people, install a new hardliner, and get out. That way, we could get away with one short, "police action" level, war every, what, five years or so. Not too enticing, but isn't it better than being bogged down year after painful year trying to make silk purses.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
Slavery is still advocated in North America by some Reconstructionist Christians and a few racist fringe groups within the Christian Identity movement. Several of whom post here regularly.
Quote from JohnnyK:
Slaves were permitted to be imported until 1808 in US Constitution, and:
Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.
Many slaves were 'owned' by bible christians.
!
Slavery is still advocated in North America by some Reconstructionist Christians and a few racist fringe groups within the Christian Identity movement. Several of whom post here regularly.
Quote from JohnnyK:
Slaves were permitted to be imported until 1808 in US Constitution, and:
Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.
Many slaves were 'owned' by bible christians.
!
Quote from JohnnyK:
Slaves were permitted to be imported until 1808 in US Constitution, and:
Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.
Many slaves were 'owned' by bible christians.
!
What does that have to do with Afghanistan? Do you think executing Christians is a good policy for our government to endorse?