I dont think you realize there are problems with freedoms and equality which have contributed to this number. Sadr and his Islamic ilk (Maliki) are not interested in expanding freedoms.
There is a high cost for those who speak out against the government.Fair enough. But I know from translations that many of these publications are openly critical of the government and PM Maliki. That's probably not the case with the Iranian publications.
nrc.nl - International - Features - Free speech behind armoured doors in Iraq
And i have stated repeatedly why it most certainly is not. It benefited Iraqis yet the costs of the war and the rise in certain extremist factions has only eroded there quality of life further. There is nothing about the Iraqi state of being in terms of society and politics and even economics that one would dare aspire too. That is the sad truth.I am not merely trying to score points. I am asserting the recognition that what the US did was valuable and helpful to Iraq and the region. We acted appropriately. It is a model for the region.
It says nothing about the situation in Iraq, i am afraid. The driving force behind this growth is probably Kirkuk anyway.I know Iraq is quiet in the news. Perhaps you are unaware of economic developments in Iraq brought about by a stable government and rule of law. Regionally, they are more aware of such developments.
Thank you for addressing my statements.You really are unbelievably uninformed about Iraq.
"If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
> Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <
* Radical Islam is mostly made up of frustration and people who have surrendered any hope in mankind and now rely upon divine intervention to lift them out of miserable failure.
* Modernist Islam is mostly made up of those who maintain hope and see the democracy of their neighbors or global "brothers" as the means to reach civilizational prosperity and success.
America's role in this world hase been clear over its history. Even for the most selfish and and self centered of America, the spread of democracy and freedom is very much about our personal security and prosperity.
"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión
"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn
So he began this courtship of the religious right 20 years ago, and by voting "present" whenever possible after being elected?You can call that "christian privilege." In other words, the ongoing pandering and accomodation that the religious right expects to see from anyone who wants to get elected in this country.
If he wanted to pander to the religious right, why wouldn't he have run as a Republican? It would have saved him a life of hypocrisy.
But we have to accept that after decades and decades (even centuries for some of their societies), that they may choose a bumpy path. Like the French, maybe they will slaughter out polityical loyalitsts that disagree with them. But one thing is sure. They will not take 70 years to figure it out.
I try to see things from a tactical vantage point. And there has been nothing tactical about any of our Cold War behaviors, in regards to dictators, pharaohs, and twisted regimes, when it comes to our long term security. Israeli ambassadors to the UN and Republicans and Democrats are beginning to find their common voice and speak on behalf of Mubarak, because they fear change. European leaders are as absolutely useless as usual and waiting around to declare their "neutrality" on the issue if it comes down to responsibility. And they all fear "instability." Well, after 30 years of Mubarak, the entire Middle East faces a grave change. How "stable" has Mubarak been to our long term security? What if Egypt began experimenting with democracy 25 years ago? Where would we be today? People whine about Hamas. Well, maybe their first steps was to elect the immediate rhetoric. Maybe their next elections will be better and better and better. Maybe Iraq's future will show greater and greater improvement so that one day our business deals are no longer tied to Cold War dictators and twisted regimes, but legitimate democracies who prefer our business from the bottom up. In the end, this means that we see less religious rhetoric being legitimized by their zealots and far less impoverished, ashamed, and futureless youth willing to die for "God." Takes you back to 9/11, doesn't it? But do we really think this region is going to elect a Napoleon? With all of our stubborn and impotent fear about instability, we deny ourselves the perspective that even the almighty French elected in an emporer that went on to devistate all of Europe and North Africa before they fancied themselves as the inventor of democracy.
My point is that until we accept that democracy isn't just for white people in Europe and America (with black people along for the ride) and get away from our smug, self righteous, and racist attitudes towards the rest of the world, we will conitnue to put off the inevitable. And since the Middle East has been voicing for modernization and democracy since the beginning of European colonialism (which totally screwed up this region), we only encourage the transition to be worse and worse the longer we deny it. Either we take the hits now or our children take worse ones later.
Last edited by MSgt; 02-02-11 at 04:52 PM.