On the fundamentalist radicals (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by orichter on Tue Oct 02, 2001 at 02:26:25 PM EST
They do not promote democracy. The terrorists do not promote democracy. They would be eliminated by any true democracy. Yes force must be used to get rid of radicals. Then can democracy be built.
We have experienced this often enough in the West, but we have succeeded in many cases - look at Europe today. Though at a terrible loss from WWI and WWII. Most leftists, terrorists do not know what the US fought for. Don't want to know because it would upset their specialised illusory view of the world.
Look at the Balkans to see where it has not yet succeeded. Look at Islamic countries where it has not succeeded.
Until the tribalism is overcome and the national and international thinking is brought about by education, prosperity, ideals which pay heed to rights, this will not happen and may need to be brought about by foreign intervention. (Yes, that is what the West thinks will work.)
Look at the Marshall plan to see how it is done.
The Marshall plan is/was not imperialism by any means. It was a rebuilding and reform plan that worked. This thinking worked in Japan, Germany, Italy, France, etc. They are independent countries not always agreeing with the US. If anything that is not imperialism! The post communist eastern european countries (not the Balkans sadly) have also overcome the communist way of doing things and are now, guess what? Democracies by their own choice, capitalist by their own choice, prosperous, with human rights guarantees, by their own choice! Need I say more?
Something works here.
The communist/terrorist plans did not work, almost every one of the communist countries has become capitalistic. They have done much better on all fronts and most often without a dictatorship or foreign intervention. Communists tried to use foreign intervention themselves to extend their imperialist aims, and to keep their empire when they saw it failing. It ultimately failed because it was an imperialistic dictatorship, based on lack of human rights, based on invalid and outdated economic ideas, based on aggression, repression, and confrontation. All things that the leftists called the West, when in reality this is not the West, was not the West (in fact, they were talking about the communist regimes of the day without realising it, how duped they were, and still are).
As for the West causing terrorism, no I think not. People who were aided by the West in Afghanistan then chose to become terrorists and become what they are today. (They do it for money and power, because they want to rule someone, somewhere.) They have any number of false rationales. Some rationales are bold fictions, that the West caused them to suffer, no it was the Russians in Afghanistan, or later the many internal Afghan warring factions. They were ignored by the West which did not want to get involved in governing Afghanistan. (Yes, that may have been a mistake, maybe the West should have taken over, stamped out the rivalries, and installed a true democracy, and capitalist government of and by the Afghan people (notice I do not use tribal names?)
That the West wants to take over Islam and Arabs, no this is another fiction, the US and Europe do not care to govern the Islamic states or Arab states, instead the West is assuming that they can govern themselves.
That the West is running the governments that are "bad" (whether Islamic or not), no, this is incorrect since the West or the US does not run Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, etc.
Some rationales are religious, but they turn out not to be religious since modern day religions do not crusade (Jihad) against others. At least no Western religion has that power or motivation, the West believes in the separation of state and religion. Communism and Islamic radicals believe that they are and should be the nation-religion combined.
That because the governments in some Islamic countries are not democracies is because of the West is a fiction as well. The governments have been left most often to themselves, notice that when the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the US did not do what an imperialist would have done (massive intervention and suppression of the revolt from overseas, did not the Russians do this when the regime in Afghanistan started to topple?). The West may have allowed someone favorable to the West to take over but with the understanding that they would become more modern, more democratic over time. Did these rulers do this? Some tried, but many remained despotic or did not democratize.
Many did however, modernise. This modernization has caused problems since as the religious fanatics have seen their power over life and country wane they have become more forceful about going back to the old ways, no matter what hardships and chaos this brings back to their countries and people. They pine for the olden days. But those times are best left behind. The people want education, medicine, technology, prosperity, internationalism. What they don't want is religious repression, religous bigotry, religious suppression of human rights, religious propaganda, etc.
Radicals always have to repress and oppress their people because thay are always worse to the people than any democracy. They will always have a rationale for doing this. It is always a false rationale.
[ Parent ]