Turkey is actually an example of how democracy is only possible by reducing the influence of Islam (Kemalization)…

Neo-neocon writes that “there are countries in the world” where Islam and democracy coexist. She names Turkey as one example, but the plural form of the noun implies that she knows of other countries beside Turkey in which Islam and democracy coexist. Could she perhaps name these countries?

Yes, Islam and democracy are a not an easy match, but they seem to be a possible one.

Only to the extent that Islam is not actually practiced, in which case it is actually a matter of less Islam making more democracy possible, not a matter of Islam being somewhat compatible with democracy.

Is it really Islam that’s the problem? Or is it a general problem in the third world as a whole? The temptation for coups, dictators, and strongmen is rampant, and by no means confined to Islamic countries.

That said, I agree that Islam represents a strong obstacle. My only point is that it is not an insurmountable one.

Islamic Democracy

The following list indicates those countries which are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and are either generally considered to be democratic or have substantial democratic elements in their system of government. For example, Iran has popular elections, but the candidates are selected by the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts. Furthermore, the political climate in some of these countries has varied greatly in recent years, while in some of the countries there have been accusations of vote-rigging.

Albania (Europe) (70% Muslim)
Algeria (North Africa) (99%)
Bangladesh (South Asia) (83%)
Comoros (South eastern Africa) (98%)
Indonesia (South-East Asia) (88%)
Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia) (75%)
Lebanon (Middle-East) (59.7%)
Nigeria (West Africa) (50%)
Malaysia (South-East Asia) (62%)
Mali (West Africa) (90%)
Morocco (North Africa) (98.7%)
Niger (West Africa) (80%)
Senegal (West Africa) (94%)
Sierra Leone (West Africa) (60%)
Turkey (Europe / Asia) (99.8%)
Yemen (Arabian peninsula - Asia) (+90%)

I guess we can take our pick which one we want Iraq to look like before it’s ok to leave…

It is true that Turkey can be considered both an Islamic country and a democracy.

However, Turkey doesn’t represent an example of Islam and democracy being compatible, as democracy in Turkey is made possible because Islam is being restrained, not because Islam actually allows democracy. (Another question is whether democracy in Turkey is viable in the long term…)

Is it really Islam that’s the problem?

Islam is certainly a big part of the problem - however, that does not necessarily mean there aren’t other problems as well.

That said, I agree that Islam represents a strong obstacle. My only point is that it is not an insurmountable one.

Then how should the obstacle be faced?

So I got curious and looked up the demographics for the muslim populations in the countries listed above. Most are overwhelmingly one or the other (or something else altogether).

Only Lebanon (35% Shia, 21% Sunni) and Yemen (52% Sunni, 48% Shia) have similar splits, so those countries might make relevant yardsticks for measuring Iraqi progress.

Freedom Ratings

The best gauge of how we are doing is not what the critics say, but what we have forced the enemy to do. Terrorists from all over the Mideast are flocking into Iraq? Good! We have drawn them into a war of our choosing, not theirs; if we are at all competent, we can force the choices: our strengths against their weaknesses. And while the price of killing them may seem high, it is cheap compared to any other way of doing it.
The recent attempt of Al Quaeda to establish and expand bases in Africa and to make that continent its center of operations shows that they fear the loss of the Mideast. That is their home, and they will fight for it–but they will not go down with the ship.
They don’t have the resources or the support to be the full apparatus of government; even the Taliban in Afghanistan could only play overlord to the contentious tribes. But they can destroy any other kind of civilization, and they will–unless they are killed.
This justification will matter to history. It should be the one that will matter to us, because it will improve our situation against our enemy–civilization’s enemy–and it will gravely weaken that enemy, both by taking from him something he cannot afford to lose and by bleeding him dearly in his attempt to hold it.

Were it that simple.

I would venture today’s liberals are not are not necessarily hopped up on the idea of violent solutions in general, for instance. (neo’s have their guns with hair triggers on, by comparison)

Many of us did not see a cakewalk. If you create more trouble than you’re solving, what was the point?

Those are just two reasons –and there are probably more, but that’s off the top of my head.

|quote|“TENERIFE, Canary Islands (Feb. 16) - A fast-thinking pilot with passengers in cahoots fooled a hijacker by braking hard upon landing, then accelerating to knock the man down. When he fell, flight attendants threw boiling water in his face, and about 10 people pounced on him, Spanish officials said Friday.|quote|

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/pilot-passengers-overpower-armed/20070216074109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Hopefully, no one will ask why I would have a problem with the above –because I don’t.

Seriously, it’s like those 3 guys who went mountain climbing in Oregon in December with a minimum of gear, got caught in a snowstorm and ended up dead. Sometimes things just have a lot of negatives going for them. I don’t get paid to figure out an alternative plan — though I would have suggested not going mountain climbing in Oregon in December for starters.

What is lost, in brief retrospectives, are the various political nuances which were in play during 2002, 2003, etc. Examples would include the Bush Admin.’s terrifying fear of OIF being labeled a religious war; and the various actions which were politically possible - and politically impossible, at various moments during the period from 9/11 to the present.

I will always wonder if a Reaganish orator-President could’ve made a larger difference by hammering - as Reagan hammered the Soviet Union at every opportunity - the threat of Islamofascism at every opportunity? Sigh.

I maintain the Coalition has already injected democracy into the front of the region’s consciousness. Even if Iraq goes back to dictatorship, the people of the region are awakened in a way they were not before. Whether or not Iraq reverts to dictatorship, it is obvious (to me) that OIF is a historical watershed. OIF will long be remembered as a significant goad towards the modernization of the region, and, hopefully, towards the reformation of the religion.

(a) Defensive: We were not attacked. Therefore this war is illegal - it is a violation of US law.

(b) humanitarian: Saddam has been indictable since 1980.

(c) legal: The ceasefire exists as a UN Resolution. The UN has made no determination that it has been violated.

You still cannot accept the rule of law (a key concept of “modernity”). Rather you persist in the notion that we are free to start wars at will.

WMD was never a serious concern either - as I said before - and it is a fact - the evidence for WMD was either fabricated; exaggerated; or claims were made about Saddam’s past use of WMD eg. 1982 - which wasn’t evidence that he still had them or would use them(when he did he did it with the tactical support the U.S). If the issue of Iraqi WMD was taken seriously by the MSM and the U.S congress the war would never have happened. The Bush administration pushed this claim - they exaggerated and twisted evidence(rather than ‘lied’)- but there never was a serious threat to the U.S from Saddam. It was know then it is known now.

There was no legal basis for the war. The only body that can authorize war is the Security Council with a specific resolution. The war was/is illegal. None of the reasons above provided evidence that military action was required to nullify the threat. Most significantly none of Iraq’s neighbors identified Saddam Hussein as a threat - not one.

Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves in the world. The United States government has long identified the region as of enormous strategic value and it is official policy that U.S will control the region militarily - and it has had this policy for a long time.

The war hasn’t helped Iraq. The war hasn’t helped the U.S. The war has destabilized the region - and will probably lead to more wars and has already lead to the proliferation of WMD - most likely including nuclear weapons.

All of which lead us closer to the complete destruction of the human species.

Shouldn’t those be the issues most important to all of us?

There seems to be a misunderstanding about why the left would oppose the war for the reasons above. Those of us who were against it predicted(accurately I think) that the war would be an unmitigated humanitarian disaster - both in the short term(in Iraq)and the long term(more war, more military build up). Nobody likes Saddam Hussein - but there isn’t a basis in international law for just removing leaders we don’t like and for good reason(precedents - Hitler cited humanitarian reasons too for his atrocities; he too was ‘liberating’ Eastern Europe) and thats why it doesn’t wash. If different steps had been taken- take your pick - but the fact is that U.S engagement in Iraq whether it was through direct aid or sanctions which crippled the population while leaving him unscathed - was the major reason why he wasn’t removed by Iraqis. Which personally I have no doubt he would have been. It’s ridiculous to ascribe humanitarian motives to the Iraq war without looking a the history of U.S involvement. We supported the devil when it suited us and we removed him when it suited us. Maybe thats the way it should be, but there is no way in hell anybody can say this is a humanitarian process…

A bit like a crooked cop, really….

There is not doubt that the Vietnam war - whether you support it or not - was a grave international crime of the highest order - and yet there was no resolutions requiring the U.S to remove it’s troops from Vietnam not even a condemnation. And yet we’re talking about serious, even evil crimes - when you kill 3-4 million people, mostly civilians in a poor, rural country there isn’t really any other way to classify it.

Even if we had the ‘best intentions’….

Sorry.

Of course, not all lefties, whatever their other faults, are naive and gullible — some of them understand very well that, in the absence of an international justice system, they can make any claims they like, or think will advance their own nefarious agendas, just as though they personally were some sort of international judge and jury. It’s just one of they ways they use to herd the sheep.

Actually, it should be the threat of Islam, not the silly term “Islamofascism”. There is no “Islamofascism” as distinct from Islam.

I do not know what the situation is in the Russian Federation but in the US the prime law document is the US Constitution. This document says, among other things, that the rule of law shall exist within the US (and nobody is above the law) and that treaties entered into by the US are US law. One such treaty is known as the UN Charter. Another is Kellogg-Briand. Under both these treaties the invasion of Iraq was a crime under US law.

Your notion that treaties are “only gentleman’s” agreements may have been true in 19th century Europe but the Major Wars Crimes trial ended that interpretation. Counts one and two of the indictment came from Kellogg-Briand.

A perfect example of leftwing fantasy substituting for the real world. This particular troll has been touting this lunacy for a while now, but never manages to say why charges have never been laid, or why he can’t even find a single prosecutor anywhere willing to convene a grand jury. Of course, in their own little bubble, “charges”, “grand juries”, etc. are unnecessary nuisances anyway — they believe they’ve already rendered a verdict. That’s just how the “rule of law” works in Looking-Glass lefty world.

As has been point out there is no such thing as International Law, but there was a basis in the UN Charter — that member states are mandated to act immediately in cases where a state is committing genocide, committing aggression against neighboring nations, harboring internationally wanted criminals, and fooling around with non-proliferation treaties. If Security Council member ignore their duty then is that right?

Other crimes of Saddam’s regime — shooting at coalition aircraft on an almost daily basis — the oil-for-food scandal that was rendering poor Iraqis disconnected from the bureaucrats of the regime without proper nutrition and medical care.

A state in this condition is spiraling to the pits of an abyss, like Rwanda. There are people that stand on the side lines and giggle – and people that say, NO MORE!

Well I’m not just “saying” it, Sally - I’m basing it on the events of the U.S war on Vietnam(and Laos, Cambodia). The deliberate targeting of civilians - actually the specific charge with regard to the Vietnam war would be both “aggression”(the unprovoked, unwarranted military assault on a sovereign state), and “international terrorism”(the deliberate targeting of a civilian population).

When I say “there is no other way to classify it” I’m talking about those two undeniable facts - however you view U.S involvement in Indochina and whether intervention was warranted.

Under international law - and as I say with excellent reason - there is no acceptable motivation for military action beyond self defense from an imminent attack.

Thats what I’m talking about…

I provided two examples of what I’m saying - you’re implying that I’m making it up. Look Sally - the two examples I provided are fact. The U.S did do these things - that’s not disputed.

Are you saying it didn’t happen?

Or are you saying it didn’t happen ‘the way I’m saying it’?

Now try to keep it calm there tiger - just trying to get to the bottom of things…

Exactly. That’s why to claim that it’s “the only body capable” of “authorizing war” is a bit, well, frankly,
STUPID. Yet you keep bringing it up, why?

As a matter of fact, there is - intervention in order to help one’s ally in case of aggression against it. This is the basis of all military alliances, multy-lateral or bilateral, and also the basis of international security in 20 century. (NATO, Warshav Pact and so on.) Some other reasons already were metioned in UN Chapter - humanitarian intervention to stop or prevent genocide and other dire situations. Impotence of international institutions to implement its own declared goals clearly shows that this vacuum of power and law should be addressed by the only superpower that now exists - US. I prefer it be done legally correctly, if possible, and if not possible, to be done anyway. Laws are not all etched on stone, they are created by precedents, and world leading nations should create such precedents.

No. They’re NOT fact.

The U.S did do these things - that’s not disputed.

Yes. It IS disputed. By me, among many others.

I don’t know where you’re getting this sort of misinformation from, TC, but it’s wrong, plain and simple. It’s one thing to parrot things like this in a left-wing echo chamber where no one is going to think twice (or even once) about the most ridiculous nonsense as long as it’s anti-American — but to come on a blog like this and make these sorts of absurd generalizations as though they were actual “examples” of anything other than lefty fantasies is to make yourself look like just a simpleton or a troll or both. But let’s make the assumption that you’re not a troll at least and really are just “trying to get to the bottom of things” — here’s a clue and a start: look at your own use of the term “warranted” in the this comment.

Take up the White Man’s burden
The savage wars of peace
Fill full the mouth of famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

If not, it is understandable why we have so much Sloth and Folly here.

But the US does. The evidence for this, for example, is President Truman’s signature on the UN Charter. Other evidence is the vote in the Senate in order to ratify this treaty. There were no votes against and no abstentions.

We should remember that the US was one of the inventors and chief promoters of international law.

…when it looked like the “international community” might actually abide by the UN Charter. Unfortunately, that has proven not to be the case. As TC says, “the UN is irrelevant.”

I had the 19th century in mind when I was making the original statement.

I should point out that the perception overseas is that it is the US which is the main non abider of international law. And, from an objective point of view, it is hard to think of another country which has attacked other countries as many times as we have since WWII.

When we are talking of the UN Charter we are, of course, talking of US law. And we are not in the habit of making our observance of US law contingent upon the observance of law by other countries. For instance, we do not decide to abandon our prohibition against burglary simply because country Y takes a more, and deplorably, relaxed attitude towards that crime.

And a question: how many times has the UN Charter been invoked in US legal cases? How many times has it been determinative? Ever? Never? Yes, I think it’s the latter. In which case, maybe that should tell you something about the status of the UN Charter in US law.

Instead of blathering insults Sally why don’t you tell me what exactly is wrong with the facts that I’ve offered.

Are you missing the part where I said that you may disagree with U.S motives and that they were good or whatever - but it is simply impossible to say that they didn’t target the civilian population of Vietnam. Impossible.

It is also impossible to claim - under the very structured international legal system that the U.S was under threat in any way.

Your knowledge of the UN international law, and American history is next to nil, Sally. Sorry.

It’s got nothing to do with ‘left’ or ‘right’ or lefist blah-de-blah, anti-American whatever. It’s a legal issue based on fact.

Sally - You really are an idiot.

I’m really sorry - but you are.

Sorry….

I guess there’s not a sorrier person than TC…

Oh yeah? Watch this: the US didn’t target the civilian population of Vietnam. Hey, the impossible is easier than you think!

Say goodnight, TC.

As for the more substantive part of your comments, about the US targeting civilians in Vietnam–it is actually extremely possible to say that was not official US policy at all.

If you read more than just the cursory surface information about Vietnam you will learn that South Vietnamese civilians were terrorized by the North Vietnamese and Vietcong, and villages were taken over against people’s will. Just as in the current wars in the Middle East, the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong hid behind civilians, coerced them, used them, and pretended to be them. In doing so, they hid behind the cover of being civilians themselves when they were not.

Except for rare and terrible aberrations like My Lai, the US tried to avoid killing civilians. But the absolute truth is that it was incredibly difficult to tell who was a civilian, and the distinction was purposely made difficult–by the enemy, for propaganda purposes.

A while back I linked to a fascinating and lengthy article that was a report on My Lai. But when I tried to go to the article again right now and give you the URL, I discovered it had been taken offline. However, I have a quote I’d taken from the article earlier, even though I can’t provide a working link at present. Here it is:

The Viet Cong conducted a guerrilla war that can best be described as “clutching the people to their breast.” They disguised themselves as civilians, hid amongst civilians, often fortified villages (with noncombatants being the vast majority of the population), and even used civilians of all ages and both sexes (little children, women, and old men, included) for logistical support, intelligence, and to plant mines and booby traps. There was widespread belief among American soldiers that the Viet Cong would use the type of civilians mentioned above to throw grenades. An expert on the Vietnamese army remarked that “the Vietnamese communists erased entirely the line between military and civilian by ruling out the notion of noncombatant.”

No - again impossible to claim, Neo.

And I am sorry - for you. Your understanding of the war, it’s history; your inability to seperate official government propaganda from fact make it difficult for you to comprehend reality - but I do understand.

The fact is when you carpet bomb a country - which is what happened in Vietnam - and when you have a policy of razing villages and killing people because you can’t seperate friend from foe - then you are the enemy.

Your assessment of the what happened during the war regarding the North and South is skewed too by offical government line - which contradicts the reality of South Vietnam - while disregarding what would have happened with out the criminal intervention of the U.S.A - the reunification of the country.

But I’ve clearly touched a nerve - keep that wall up people, it’s the only thing you have.

So I’ll leave it alone. Promise….

LOL!! You are a riot, Sally.

ps Is it possible for me to claim the earth is flat?

I like your style, Sally - you’ve really motivated me to be all that I can be….

Well it’s not a blanket assertion - it’s an observable fact. And seeing as you think it’s not I will procede to demonstrate that it is -with sources if that’s what it takes Sally.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6105

If you serious in what you say above, Sally - than read this for a start. If I were to also provide evidence in the form of U.S claims that the idea was to literally destroy Vietnam ‘in order to save it’ - would that convince you the U.S willingly and purposefully targeted civilians?

If I were to provide evidence that the U.S carpet bombed rural areas, villages in South and North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos - dropping more tonnes of bombs on indochina then were dropped during the entire second world war - would that convince you?

If I were to provide evidence that these crimes were official U.S policy in Vietnam -would that convince you?

If it wouldn’t - than I would be wasting your time.

So let me know….

If any of the claims in this brief essay strike you as odd, or you need further sources to verify any of the claims - just let me know….

And I apologize for calling you an ‘idiot’, Sally.

I didn’t understand what you meant…

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,6350517.story

If your serious…

Here is another one.

The real problem wrt targeting civilians was a lot more casual. For instance the Free Fire Zones. They were not called “Indian Country” for nothing.

So your right, it was the oil. Just not how you meant it. This is the problem of secondary sources with agendas. I know because I have personally gone through it on a local basis. An “accurate” quote that meant the exact opposite of what I said.

Unfortunately, if we look at your sources, it’s quickly evident that two of them are so severely biased ideologically as to be pretty much worthless in anything like a neutral forum. I’m sure your leftwing friends accept them as gospel, but most people would realize that their virulently anti-American standpoint contaminates and renders doubtful any substantive claims regarding American bad behavior.

The LA Times study, on the other hand — though it comes from an MSM source known to be biased toward the liberal left — is sufficiently neutral and fact-based that it needs to be taken seriously. It claims that there were indeed widespread abuses by American troops during the Vietnam war, and possibly that these were inadequately handled by authorities at the time and later. I don’t see any indication that neo’s point regarding the deliberate mixing and hiding of enemy troops with the civilian population was taken into account, and I’d certainly want to consider multiple sources before coming to a conclusion about this — but it is at least prima facie evidence that the level of abuse was higher than has generally been accepted.

But under any circumstances this is a far cry from saying that American forces deliberately targeted civilians as a matter of policy. In fact, it presents evidence exactly to the contrary — that the US considered such targeting abuse, and did in fact prosecute and punish many of the people involved, even if inadequately. People who seize on such reports and analysis not as means to improve America but rather as clubs with which to beat it are people for whom this country really is the enemy.

“In other words, the prospect of prosecution by an ICT may sometimes exacerbate the risks of humanitarian atrocities. Finally, prosecution by an ICT may also exacerbate conflicts though a political opportunism effect in which local politicians will have an incentive to free-ride off ICT efforts and turn a blind eye to the kinds of institutional reforms that are more likely to prevent future atrocities.”

complete link at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=931567

Be careful what you wish for.

“Fred Branfman, then Director of Project Air War, exposed U.S. bombing of civilians in Indochina as it was occurring after interviewing thousands of refugees in Laos. He is currently a Santa Barbara-based writer.”

You may consider the sources as left-wing and so unworthy of consideration, but I would look at just who is saying what.

Futhermore, the content of these essays is well documented and sourced.

You might not like the angle being looked at - is this bias? -but as I say it contains what I believe are well founded assertions about the Vietnam war - including the charge of international terrorism.

Nobody would claim that Osama bin Laden was trying to cripple the economy and the military establishment of America on 9/11 and that the 3000 Americans who died were unitentional victims(despite the fact that he could argue as such). No - we quite correctly claim that when you fly fully fueled aircraft into a highly populated area you are intentionally targeting and killing civilians.

When you drop massive tonnage of bombs on highly populated areas as we did in Vietnam - you and intentionally targeting and killing civilians (which was how the vast majority of civilians deaths occurred in Vietnam). Saying you weren’t - like saying the use of agent orange was used only as a defoiliant when it was known to cause enormous human damage - isn’t going to change that very observable fact.

Reckless disregard for human life?

Whatever you say - it fits quite clearly into what we call ‘terrorism’.