Posted on 02/07/2005 7:40:39 AM PST by worldclass
In the Arab Middle East, there is no memory of democracy. There is an unbroken history of despotism and domination – by Ottoman Turks, then by Western imperial powers. To understand what kind of nations liberated Middle East peoples will construct, consider the most powerful currents running in the region.
What other forces has our invasion unleashed? One surely is the popular desire for freedom and democracy. But darker forces also roil the region. One is a virulent hatred of Israel and its American patron. From Morocco to Pakistan, Osama is as admired as Bush is hated.
Today, both Bush and bin Laden believe in revolutionary change in the Islamic world. Bush believes democracy will arise as the despots depart. Bin Laden believes Islamism inherits the estate.
Both cannot be right.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
bttt
Re-creating the Middle East is not. Better to simmply take the oil fields. We get the oil. The Arabs have less money to spend on terror.
So in other words you think (and I use the word loosely) you think the way we should operate is by becoming an empire?
Nope...I don't want to take the countries.....just the major oil-producing areas....and keep the Arabs out of those areas. The only reason we care about the Middle East is their oil. And the only reason the Arabs can threaten the U.S. and Israel is oil money. So let's be direct. Trying to install democracies to that region, a region dominated by Islam, will not work.
Alternatively, totally pull back from the region. Bush's approach will fail. The totalitarian leaders in that region will be there longer than Bush or the U.S.
"Nope...I don't want to take the countries.....just the major oil-producing areas....and keep the Arabs out of those areas."
And just how do you purpose doing this? Sounds to me like you want an endless war.
"Trying to install democracies to that region, a region dominated by Islam, will not work."
I recall the same kind of thing being said after WWII about Gremany and Japan. You might want to take a look at the last elections in Malaysia and Indonesia (two nations that have a couple of Muslims in them last time I checked) the fundimentalist parties in both countries got their asses handed to them.
"Alternatively, totally pull back from the region."
something that might of escaped your ttention is it's now the 21st century not the 18th and the world is a very small interconneted place and getting more so every day. Raising the drawbridge is not an option anymore, not that it ever was.
"Taking out Saddam and WMD projects was a worthy objective. Re-creating the Middle East is not. Better to simmply take the oil fields. We get the oil. The Arabs have less money to spend on terror."
If you want to start WWIII, that would be a good way to do it.
If you think we're seeing opposition from our "alies" in the UN now, just think about what would happen if we took the oil fields of another country by force.
What we are seeing from the UN and Europe is them being upset because we've shown that we don't need them in order to look after our own interests. They're basically pouting because they didn't get their way, but there's really not a big direct impact on them.
Invade another country and take the resources we want? That's something that the other nations of the world can't just sit by and watch. If they do, they didn't learn their lessons from the past.
Even if they did sit back and stick with their policy of appeasment and this time attempt to appeas us, those Oil fields wouldn't be very productive.
There would be constant terrorist attacks. What we are facing now is mainly foreign insurgents. Occupy the country, and we'd face a true popular uprising.
We'd be pushing Arab nations to rise up against us. We'd be stoking the fires that the terrorists have been stoking for years. Their goal has been to get Muslims to rise up against infadels all over the world. Well, we'd give them a heck of a good reason by taking oil fields.
We'd basically be telling the world that we'll take what we want.
That's the route that leads to a major war, and we'd be the aggressors.
We didn't invade Iraq to get their oil. Doing so would have been extremely foolish.
Now just stop that making sense! That sort of thing will get you in trouble.
Buchanon looks at the various end results, through an entirely facil premise of a national memory for democracy. This ignores human nature and the effect of free access to capital.
Opressive forms of government are more often than not the successful results of the restriction access to capital by a closed society. A successful "democracy" is always based upon free access to buy and sell private property in a stable environment, free from discrimination, religious or otherwise. Where free access to capital is available, competing interests play out their conflicts through the political process, rather than using the political process to preserve their position.
So Pat - It's the econmoy stupid!
I think most realize that as the historical trend but you can not portray the dutiful political party groupie and voice that opinion or agree with anyone else who does.
I'm with you there. It's our oil anyway, without our technology, innovation and way of life--that oil would be worth less than the sand that covers it.
"And just how do you purpose doing this? Sounds to me like you want an endless war"
How are they going to make war with no oil money? Camels can only do so much. My way is much shorter. The current way is endless.
"I recall the same kind of thing being said after WWII about Gremany and Japan. You might want to take a look at the last elections in Malaysia and Indonesia (two nations that have a couple of Muslims in them last time I checked) the fundimentalist parties in both countries got their asses handed to them. "
I lived in Malaysia and have made several trip to Indonesia (as well as the rest of S.E. Asia). First, there are no Shiites or Wahaabis (sp?) there. Second, there are Muslim insurgencies in Indonesia and the Philippines. Third, the Saudis are using the tsunami to send aid and their brand of Islam. Fourth, Malaysia practices a brand of affirmative action for the Malays which pacifies them in part.
As for Germany and Japan, how long did we stay there? Do we want to stay in Iraq as long?
"something that might of escaped your ttention is it's now the 21st century not the 18th and the world is a very small interconneted place and getting more so every day. Raising the drawbridge is not an option anymore, not that it ever was."
I am sure the Brits said the same when they established their empire. Afterall, they were quite interested in trade everywhere. But my guess is we could pull back quite a bit and watch what happens. As long as we remain strong at home, no one will take us on.
"If you think we're seeing opposition from our "alies" in the UN now, just think about what would happen if we took the oil fields of another country by force. "
Do I care what the UN thinks? Get rid of them. But that is for another thread.
As for our "allies", if they are willing to deal with Saddam, Iran and North Korea, I think they will get over it and deal with us in the Middle East.
Which leaves us all with our fingers crossed that the Iraqi people will realize that the means to peace and prosperity is a Constitution that protects the rights of all citizens, and that their government doesn't oppress minority groups due to past problems.
The Constitution is another important milestone for Iraqi progress. There's a lot that can go wrong still. However, extreme pessimism solves nothing and simply leads to inaction and appeasement, which have never been viable long term solutions to problems.
But, what if those who own and operate government decide that protecting "the home land" is not politically profitable to them?
In whose perspective?
"But, what if those who own and operate government decide that protecting "the home land" is not politically profitable to them?"
Ah, that gets into other issues, illegal immigration among them. We have so many issues on the homefront while we look to make the world safe for democracy.
Well, if those who are supposed to protect "the homefront" choose not to do so in favor of expanding their influence, what should we do?
See my tagline. I, for one, am tired of voting in Republicans (sometimes confused with conservatives) who won't implement conservative policies. And protection of the border for me is of primary concern. Taking the war to the terrorists overseas has its merits. But we can't leave it at that as we allow millions to cross into the country and then offer them amnesy or whatever they want to call it.
What to do about it? Find another party. And if you live along the border, take matters into your own hands.
What they really need is access to capital - a functional constitution ensuring a representative government form will follow. Look at what has been in place in Iraq since the discovery of oil. It has been a monarchy under the Shah and basicly Stalinism/facism under Saddam. Both forms are very good at restricting access to caiptal - profits from oil production. Communism is also very good at restricting access to capital - thus look at Chavez in Venezuela. Buchanan incorrectly chalks this up to a national "memory." The form of government is really a function of the management of access to capital and has little to do with how populations interact in politics.
To set the conditions where a republic will prosper you must 1) Ensure a stable currency; 2) Permit private ownership of real and private property; 3) Provide an efficient means to resolve ownership and contractual disputes 4) Permit access to financial resources - loans from banks, issuance of stock, etc.; 5) Provide a tax structure that is not confiscatory.
Once all of the financial resources are no longer in the hands of a few, political power coalesces around competing interests, which makes a representative form more likely to "take root." No longer is there only one interest group - i.e. the how Saddam will distribute oil profits lobby, which supresses any other interest of any kind whatsoever by attacking its profitability.
See, the whole thing with the "take root" thing is that somebody is claimimg credit, illegitimately in my opinion, for the introduction of a representative form of government. A republic cannot exist in the absence of free access to capital - so nobody really creates a republic. It creates itself when there is private property and freedom.
Look at it this way, at the begginning of the 20th century only like %5 of the world's population could vote in elections. Its somewhere around %50+ now. I would say that is progress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.