It's going to be WWIII

[Defiant]

Tripledoc,
Let me clarify my definition of freedom and maybe it is closer to the definition of liberty. This is what I mean,
CHOICE,
For example, if a woman wants an education, go get it.
If she wants to vote, go do it.
If she wants to wear a business suite and not a black smock, go ahead.
Now these are very obvious to you and I, but have a women violate even the simplest and more obvious freedoms of choice and she may get stoned, or whatever.
If she wants to choose to wear a black smock, fine, but it is her choice.
Things like you should be able to try out for the olympics and if you try your best and not succeed, you shouldn't have your kneecaps ripped off.
You shouldn't have to worry about your little girl turning of age and wondering if the "now dead" blunder twins will rape her, just because they can with no consequence.
Their own laws, once achieved, will dictate just how far their freedoms, or liberty can go, but at least they decide from a majority not a super minority.

As for current prosperity in the ME, I saw on the news(can't remember which, but MTg might be able to back this up), that the entire GNP of the ME doesn't equal Spain's.

If you have a few controlling everything, money, press, power, the area is likely to become a despot for fantaticals like OBL. These guys haven't been able to get out of the caves for 5000 years, they need a little help.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Charles, would you consider Roman persecutions of Christians attempts at forced conversions?

Well it they where Greek Orth or Prot yes it force conversion it the threat of force is used. But lately the Roman Church outgrew this force conversion thing of they.

The Muslum control India for afew hundred year, it they where like the Christian of Europe middle age forceing people
to Islam by the sword India Would today be mostly Muslum instead of Mostly Hindic today. There is now proof that the Slave who enter America from Africa where mostly Muslum and traditson Africa spirit workshipper that where forcely convert to Christian religion.

[CharlesBHoff]

Islan have many different sect that get alone with each other
petty well as they do share alot of religious belief in common.
While the Roman church was trying to ram down every body throat that the Pope is the absolute boss of the Christian belief. The Greek and Russia Oth church doesnot the recognite the pope as being the absolute boss as either do the prot recognite the pope as being the absolute boss of Christian either.

There is no absolute authority figure in Islam at all, the leadership is than collectivist leadership.

[Az]

I like the east asian values threadjack much better than the original issue. I think drake is very right in saying that there ARE east asian values who that a world culure ( if one would ever exist) should embrace. However, in most areas, western values are better.

[Ned]

Charles, I think you missed my point or perhaps you are not even aware of what I was talking about. Did you know that the Roman Empire persecuted Christians for nearly 300 years?

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem with most of the anti-war posters is that they offer no VIABLE alternatives. Their solutions are eithier based on the assumption that the enemy has the same underlying belief system that we have (which they don't) or they are based on ideas that have been tried and have failed to achieve results.

Viability is a difficult argument to make when one is conditioned to prefer force to solving a situation.

While it is true that they have different values, they have to learn that force will not achieve their goals, it will not get them what they want. They need to be given a better direction than war.

The US has faced a crossroads, of either turning the cheek, or seeking vengeance on those who have tried to injure the US. They have yet to be satisfied on the vengeance front, and have now resorted to the empire building policies of Britain developed more than a century and a half ago.

Stable democracies have two sources, internal rebellion, or close contact with the democratic tradition through the process of an empire. Neither is foolproof, but you still see many traces of British colonialism on the map today.

Are the Americans going to be as committed to an Empire as the British, or will they end up like Belgium? That's the choice they face now, to truly rebuild and sustain their colonies until they are ready to stand on their own. It took more than a century in the case of India.

If I could turn the clock back and decline the invitation of the terrorists, I would, but sadly that choice is no longer open to us. The US has now assumed responsibility for two countries, and their success will be gaged on how well these countries do once the Americans leave.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Defiant
If she wants to vote, go do it.

Woman Suffrage in the Muslim world.

1920: Albania
1921: Azerbaijan
1924: Tajikistan
1924: Kazakstan
1927: Turkmenistan
1930: Turkey
1945: Indonesia
1946: Palestine,
1948: Israel, Iraq
1949: Bosnia and Herzegovina
1949: Syria
1952: Lebanon
1956: Egypt, Somalia
1956: Pakistan
1957: Malaysia
1962: Algeria
1963: Morocco, Iran
1964: Sudan
1965: Afghanistan
1970: Yemen
1972: Bangladesh
1973: Bahrain
1974: Jordan
1980: Iraq (reinstated)

As can be seen there is no positive co-relation between Islam and baring women from voting.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
While it is true that they have different values, they have to learn that force will not achieve their goals, it will not get them what they want. They need to be given a better direction than war.

God does this sound familiar. This is almost an exactly what LBJ said during Vietnam. His strategy was to stay there, pile up the NVA dead by the millions, until the good Chairman learned that force was never going to work to achieve his goals.

Saddam knows what actually happened in Vietnam and is attempting a repeat.

Ditto OBL. His view, consistent with that of Chairman Ho, is that he will eventually prevail so long as he continues to fight and not lose the war, even though he may lose every battle.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, what would you prefer?

Leaving Iraq now?

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Woman Suffrage in the Muslim world.

1920: Albania
1921: Azerbaijan
1924: Tajikistan
1924: Kazakstan
1927: Turkmenistan
1930: Turkey
1945: Indonesia
1946: Palestine,
1948: Israel, Iraq
1949: Bosnia and Herzegovina
1949: Syria
1952: Lebanon
1956: Egypt, Somalia
1956: Pakistan
1957: Malaysia
1962: Algeria
1963: Morocco, Iran
1964: Sudan
1965: Afghanistan
1970: Yemen
1972: Bangladesh
1973: Bahrain
1974: Jordan
1980: Iraq (reinstated)

As can be seen there is no positive co-relation between Islam and baring women from voting.

Except most of those countries are heavy into Islam. And doesn't the book of Islam, Koran(sp), advocate woman sufferage?

[Zevico]

Tripledoc:
Israel is not really part of the "Muslim world" but more accurately of the West. Palestine did not have elections as it did not have any rulership aside from the british mandate. Most of the other countries you have mentioned are dictatorships. Iran had a revolution in the 70's and I am not sure if suffrage still applies there (it is Fundamentalist and all...):
Yemen, Afghanistan (was mostly), YBangledesh, Bahrain, Jordan, (Iraq previously). Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, the stan countries.....etc

[Az]

I really liked the way you placed parts of USSR and Yugoslavia, Tripledoc.

[Az]

Also, the countries you mentioned are/were secular/emphasized natioonalism.

Any claim that islam hasn't got anything with opressing women is rediculous.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, what would you prefer?

Leaving Iraq now?

I prefer Nixon's strategy.

[Ned]

And, Ben, MtG and I disagree on this. But if you note MtG's posts over time, he seems to be a yellow-dog Democrat. I think his opposition to Vietnamization II is based in his dislike of Richard Nixon.