U.S. ambassador, 3 American diplomats killed by protesters in Libya

That is no different than being empowered due to a foreign "democratic" presence. I'll tell you how dictatorships ease religious tensions - they step on them and crush them. Then drink up the guts and send the newbies to the gulags. They usher in a common goal and set out the path to a livelihood to people who have absolutely nothing. Only when people see that progress and some form of stability will they stop doing everything in the name of religion and look at more practical purposes.

Most importantly, you can't cry about America 24/7 because you need them to buy your goods, and they're not in your country marching around with tanks. This leads to internal reflection and a sense of accountability (lacking in the majority of Muslims) - that's how rational thinking is introduced.

Democracy is ideal ONLY in the right circumstances and using it out of context will backfire.

 

I tend to agree that democracy is not the cure all many in this country seem to think it is. Just like tax cut is not the solution to all of life's problems.

 

I don't know about that. I can point you countries with perfect democracy on paper, w/o strong religion influence in politics, have the problems you described, albiet to lesser degrees. We don't need to look far; just look south of the border.

 

I just think if he wants to fight for this country, there are better ways for him to do it than calling people libtards on an internet message boards. I think he should take to the streets, call for revolution and go from there. Instead, he's just a p***y talking trash on a message board.

 

Except that crushing them hasn't worked. Mubarak and other Middle Eastern strong men were brutal towards the Muslim Brotherhood, the Shah of Iran was even more brutal towards the Ayatollah movement yet look at who is in charge of Egypt and Iran these days. Brutality does the most damage to moderate forces and empowers the radicals as those are the most motivated to fight.

The "foreign democratic presences" is largely propaganda by the regime. Propaganda like that though also ends up empowering the radicals as usually moderate groups are the ones who have the most outside support from pro-democracy groups.

Many of these countries don't have manufacturing bases so trade of goods to the US probably isn't high on the list of concerns among protesters in the Middle East.

Democracy is a necessary stepping stone to accountability. If you have no say in your rule you have no accountability. There hasn't been a democratic tradition in the Middle East (and that is more than just voting) and one reason why it seems like so many in the Middle East wallow in victimization.

 

Heroin is a $1Billion industry in Pakistan despite the prices there being 80-100x cheaper than the West. There are numerous documentaries on it and anyone who has visited Karachi can tell you how ridiculous it is.

If you want to read about it

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/6120/heroin-use-in-pakistan-deep-and-deadly/
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/19/w...lus-heroin-addicts.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (old article but little has changed)

Completely irrelevant to what I was saying?

 

True there are no quick solutions and democracy just in having a vote isn't going to change things. What needs to be done is to build a civil society and the feeling that you have an actual say in society is critical towards it.

I don't know how things will turn out in the Middle East and to answer ATW's question from an earlier post I am not totally optimistic about the region. As I have said before I think the Arab Spring is a critical juncture for the Middle East and the nascent democracies of it could lead to civil societies. It also could lead to a rentrenchment of hardline religious regimes. It is too early to say but I think if the region is ever to develop this is a necessary step.

 

Canada closed its Iranian embassy on Friday. what did they know?

Meanwhile, Obama attended no intel briefings in the last week.

 

Actually Mahahatir in Malaysia placed a lot of emphasis on Islam while building the country. He advocated a modern brand of Islam that embraced economic development over social tradition.

 

Glad to see you've reentered the intel fray after coming unglued and losing your cool yesterday.

This is the kind of strategorical acumen that caused the terrorists to carbomb your apartment that one time!

 

Exactly. He was progressive enough to see how tradition was holding back the working and lower classes and the practical applications they needed to prioritize. No one is saying you can't have religion in your life to prosper. But given the context to people with absolutely nothing, they have to know belief alone doesn't make you walk on water.

So in regards to your previous post, you can always take the worst dictators and say nothing works with them. You can stereotype dictatorship using Stalin and Mussolini and point to failure. But it's far more reasonable to place absolute power in a modern day dictator with a progressive mindset towards prosperity then give it to a bunch of suffering people who have no idea what's good for them. You have a modern day dictatorship in the UAE that was smart enough to not expect oil money to come in forever and turn it's major city into an international tourism and financial hub.

These situations are completely different to balkan states like Serbia with people and resources primed to embrace recently introduced democratic ideals.

 

Except that Mahatir did emphasize Islam, just a different brand than the Ayatollahs or Taliban emphasize.

Keep in mind though that Mahatir wasn't a dictator and power wasn't anywhere near that of Saddam and Qadafi. Malaysia is a federal system with a Constitution that actually has some teeth in it. He steered the country in certain ways. The problem with successful dictatorships is that you are dependent on the capabilities and whims of the dictator. For every UAE you get a Saddam, a Mubarak and an Al Assad.

Again this is a stepping stone. If people are going to embrace democratic ideals they need to be exposed to them. YOu don't get exposure to democracy under a dictatorship.

 

Even the UAE has its significant human rights issues, as we all know. Not to mention freedom of speech, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

 

Oh yeah, they were so ready they burst into genocidal outbursts shortly afterwards.

Your persona usually doesn't deserve any attention, but that's a glaring f**k up you might want to address before people start questioning your contrast of a state that tried to wipe out quite a sizable chunk of people with the current situation.

The transition to democracy is never pretty. Thanks for bringing up a poignant example.

 

True and I don't consider themselves a successful dictatorship. Just following Ronny's argument.

 

Probably nothing, Harper was probably just feeling the hate from Quebec electing a government to get away from his ass, so he needed to play show politics. Wag the Dog, I believe, is a good reference.

 

Oh really? There were genocidal outburts after Serbia was formed in 2006? 7 years after the ICT started prosecuting crimes against humanity for the Kosovo War?

Lol, what an absolute scrub. I guess that's why we have you photocopying papers and stapling, not out in the trenches. If you'd like to randomly take another one of my sentences out of context to hop in an argument and feel like a big boy, feel free. Whatever you do, MAKE SURE to arrange my highlighters from brightest to darkest this time.

 

Don't even play. Serbia was a political entity long before 2006. Sure, it may have operated within the confines of a "Yugoslavia", but for all intents and purposes, your arguments that the Serbian people adapted well to the introduction of multi-party democracy shows a---certain degree of ignorance.

 

I personally don't believe you should be disallowed from posting what you like, no matter how offensive it is. I'm just saying that people should use their judgment and consider the unintended consequences of their actions, because it can backfire and endanger innocent people. That people shouldn't be offended by it may be true, but its also beside the point. To willfully ignore this with the attitude "Well, that's on them" is unethical to me.