I must confess his reasoning is appealing. I hope rather than savage his suggestion we consider it seriously. We do not need to appear to be rejecting a democratically elected government, do we?
We can fund Al Qaeda, too, since it is very popular in many Arab countries, more so than the regimes that rule them.
There's a slight ethical problem, wouldn't you say? Using taxpayer money to fund killers, is immoral.
Yes, we do. We need to reject and be seen to reject a murderous democratically elected government. Hamas, the Third Reich...
"I must confess his reasoning is appealing. I hope rather than savage his suggestion we consider it seriously. We do not need to appear to be rejecting a democratically elected government, do we?"
Take your logical question elsewhere. This is a Bash Buchanan thread.
Pat's reasoning is appealing for sure. We have been supporting elections in an area that is controlled by a series of theocracies that have contolled the lives of these people for hundreds of years. The political structure in these Islamic countries has been established in order to facilitate control by the religious powers.
We have been successful in overturning dictators/political leaders such as Saddam. Essentially, he was a secular leader. However, how much luck have we really had limiting the control and influence of the religious leaders. Almost none. Take Al Sadr in Iraq. This man was leading a revolt! He was directly responsible for loss of American and Iraqi lives at the hands of terrorists. But, in the end, he becomes part of the political process. We couldn't take him out.
I guess my point is that it is very risky to try to spread Democracy on the political front without altering the religious impact. And my friends, we haven't found a way to do that. Don't get me wrong - I think it's great that these people have embraced their God-given right to self-determination. But, if we want these people to not support terrorists, we have to find a way to overcome the impact of these religious leaders.
This is a very hard subject to get your hands on. In the end, I don't know which option is the best to take. Should we just get rid of the bad guys and rely on the hope that the people will make the right decisions, or should we work to change the hearts of the people so that they will get rid of the bad guys on their own.
I don't know which is right. I know that the attack on Iraq was absolutely necessary. We have to have the courage to get rid of killers and butchers like Saddam. But, after that, I don't know what is the best way to help the people set up their political structures.
Any ideas?
You forgot to put /sarcasm at the end. Unless you believe it is acceptable to vote in a party that wants to kill off race of people?
The questions I would ask anyone who regards the Hamas victory as an unacceptable outrage are as follows:
1. What exactly is this Hamas government now in charge of?
2. What does the U.S. government think this Hamas government should now be in charge of?
3. What does the Israeli government think this Hamas government is now in charge of?
4. What do YOU think this Hamas government should now be in charge of?
My basic question is this . . . Is Palestine a legitimate nation in the eyes of any of the parties listed in the questions above? If not, then what exactly does Hamas "govern" -- a quasi-independent state, a protectorate of the U.S. or the U.N., a province of Israel, etc.?
We've rejected and toppled democratically elected governments before. The Nazis of Germany come to mind.