The Rejected Realms

HEM wrote:

16 Jun 2014, 17:25

We need to step away, and let the region figure itself out.

Maybe that should've been done before, not after decades of redrawing borders, supporting factions, sending agents, weapons and soliders, etc.
Situations like the current one in Iraq are matters of international relevance, where the peace and security of many is at risk.

I oppose full-scale military intervention - it's not even a realistic option - but it's obvious that the US holds a major responsibility here (as it contributed to cause this mess; and is a world power which should either play a huge role in international security issues, or stop pretending it does so while only caring for its own interests - which are at stake here too, anyway). It cannot simply turn its back and pretend things will 'sort themselves out'.

You claim not to be isolationist, but essentially haven't explored any possibilities (even non-military ones) beyond 'leave other countries alone' and 'let's focus on our borders' and don't seem to consider ISIS advances in Iraq relevant to the United States.

Christian Democrats wrote:We did it to Italy, Germany

I have my objections to the role of the United States in Europe during the Cold War, actually, but I will keep them for another discussion.

You claim not to be isolationist, but essentially haven't explored any possibilities (even non-military ones) beyond 'leave other countries alone' and 'let's focus on our borders' and don't seem to consider ISIS advances in Iraq relevant to the United States.

I'm all for sending aid to rebuild the country we tore to pieces, but no military intervention. I am happy to send people to mediate disputes, to help build consensus, or plan a government. I'm not for hiding under the covers, but at this point I absolutely don't think we have any earthly idea what Iraq needs.

Christian Democrats wrote:

16 Jun 2014, 21:32

We did it to Italy, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Grenada.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and sorta disagree with you there.

Bruce Cumings wrote:Gwangju convinced a new generation of young [Koreans] that the democratic movement had developed not with the support of Washington, as an older generation of more conservative Koreans thought, but in the face of daily American support for any dictator who could quell the democratic aspirations of the Korean people.

Christian Democrats wrote:

16 Jun 2014, 21:32

Those pro-Western "pharaohs" are certainly better than the other two options: Islamists or Arab socialists.

Wait, what's wrong with Arabs who are socialists? Isn't that a marked improvement over the Islamist Movement or dictators? Do you have a problem with Socialists, Arabs, or both? Or could it be that you don't actually know what "Arab Socialism" actually is and are, in fact, referring to Ba'athism.

On a side note, saying that Arab Socialism is Socialism is a bit like saying jazz is music, and punk rock is music, and therefore punk rock music is a form of jazz.

South Korean democratization was a gradual process, preceded by economic development. This is the pattern according to which most liberal democracies evolve: first comes economic progression, and second comes political progression.

I suggest you read up on Arab socialism: an ideology that combines pan-Arabism (an ethnocentric, anti-Semitic, anti-Western movement) and revolutionary socialism (as opposed to democratic socialism). Ba'athism is a particular brand of Arab socialism. Nasserism and Gaddafism are other good examples of brands of Arab socialism.

You're side stepping the fact that US policy at the time was to throw its support behind the strongest candidate at the time in South Korea and most, if not all of those candidates until the 90's, were not democratic. We were more concerned about the military stability of the nation than the democratic wants of its people. That's not all together wrong, I would have rather seen the King of Afghanistan return than Hamid Karzai screw the pouch for everyone, however, it doesn't lend well to the assertion that America is in the business of "exporting democracy".

And you're aware that Arab Socialism is pretty much vastly better than a military dictatorship, right? So they want to unite the Arab World into one nation? It will never work, but they are welcome to try. That's vastly better than a corrupt dictatorship, in fact, if it were to actually occur, it might even stabilize the region. Not so great for Israel geopolitical, but they fought off, no, dominated during an eight nation surprise attack during the Yom Kippur War, so I think they'll be fine.

In fact, Arab dictatorships is partly the reason we're in the mess we're in. The Arab Spring won quick victories, but Syria was not one of them and the resulting civil war has given a foothold for ISIS, which was nearly dead in Iraq. Combine that, back in Iraq, with the non-secular agenda of Nouri al-Maliki, who needs a special place in the halls of Retardation. He did everything in his power to reverse the gains the US made with the Iraqi Sunnis and have forced them, once again, into thinking that siding with ISIS is a better alternative than his government.

So, I would rather have a wave of Arab Socialism in the Arab World than Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadist crawling out the demon hole.

Evil Wolf wrote:

23 Jun 2014, 22:54

I would rather have a wave of Arab Socialism in the Arab World than Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadist crawling out the demon hole.

The oil sheikhs are preferable to the Nassers, Gaddafis, Husseins, and Assads of the region.

If not democracy, it is best for the Middle East and North Africa to follow the path of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc.

Islamism and Arab socialism should be resisted for human rights reasons and for economic reasons.

There's this small thing called self-determination

(Islamism can be opposed on self-defence grounds.)

Guy wrote:(Islamism can be opposed on self-defence grounds.)

If you were a real world country you would be Israel.