Saddam APOLOGIZES for invading Kuwait?!

[Mr. President]

If you go to Koto Panjang in West Sumatra or Solo in Central Java, or to any institution run by the Partai Amanat SeMalaysia, you can hear stuff like that. I pray that he is a DL but I fear that he isn't.

[Mr. President]

Sorry, no offense intended. It's a sort of a thing that goes on here. You're entitled to your views, of course, even if I don't agree with everything you say. (I usually hang out up in the Alpha Centauri region, which might explain my strange behavior. Plus it's a little too late. )

What game are your city styles for? I might take a look sometime.

[Alireza1354]

Originally posted by Mr. President
If you go to Koto Panjang in West Sumatra or Solo in Central Java, or to any institution run by the Partai Amanat SeMalaysia, you can hear stuff like that. I pray that he is a DL but I fear that he isn't.

1 MAJOR difference between me and them, american. I hate it to be confronted every time with your selective perception of things.

I am totally AGAINST theocracy and totally AGAINST the misuse of religion!

I believe Islam has been corrupted and should be cleansed of dogmatic twistst and teachings and freed out of the hands of fundamentalists who keep it hostage!

Fundamentalists are our greatest enemies, you only come 2nd place

[Alireza1354]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Sorry, no offense intended. It's a sort of a thing that goes on here. You're entitled to your views, of course, even if I don't agree with everything you say. (I usually hang out up in the Alpha Centauri region, which might explain my strange behavior. Plus it's a little too late. )

What game are your city styles for? I might take a look sometime.

They are for Civ3 and PTW


Alpha Centauri??

I love that game!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Ataturk's political movement emphasized the need for Turkey to adopt modern western ways in order to survive from it very inception. Among his first acts was to throw out Sharia law. He also banned ... the fez ...

Some things never go out of style.

[Arrian]

I am totally AGAINST theocracy and totally AGAINST the misuse of religion!

I believe Islam has been corrupted and should be cleansed of dogmatic twistst and teachings and freed out of the hands of fundamentalists who keep it hostage!

Fundamentalists are our greatest enemies, you only come 2nd place

Awwwww, we don't get first prize?

On a more serious note, I think you're absolutely correct about who your most dangerous enemies are. There will always be fundamentalists - with any religion. The key is preventing them from having any real power. In the US and even more so in the rest of "The West" our fundamentalists are generally loud and annoying, but rarely capable of making policy (there are certainly exceptions, and I wish they had even less influence than they do). As someone who doesn't believe in any of the major religions, fundamentalists everywhere frustrate me.

Personally, I think you exaggerate the degree to which "the West" is responsible for problems in Muslim countries. It's not that my government, or the governments of Britain or France haven't done anything wrong - they have - it's just that they aren't all-powerful boogiemen that you can blame everything on (well you can, but that doesn't mean you're right). Just as people in "the West" may have their worldviews shaped or influenced by Western propoganda, so has your worldview been shaped or influenced by propoganda. It sure is useful to your #1 enemies (the fundamentalists and the dictators) to focus people's despair and hatred on "the West" because then it doesn't get aimed at them. They "kill two birds with one stone" as the saying goes.

-Arrian

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alireza1354


You dont know anything about Libya.

Libya promotes secularism and socialism and thereby opening the door to structural reform!

In Libya there are elections too!

You would rather want Libya than Saoudi Arabia! But noooo

Saudi Arabia is your favorite cause those ****** fundamentalists very well
protect your intertests while torpedising every muslim effort for equality, secularism and democracy!

Qaddafi is a HEROE

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Qaddafi come to power as a result of a coup. Does anyone ever get to run against Qaddafi, I mean, without his express approval? Does opposition that has a serious chance of winning against him simply dissapear or get thrown into jail? Does he permit dissent? Are elections always suspiciously one sided? Is the rest of his government anything but a rubber stamp of his will? Does he censor the press? Is his term of power limited, or is he essentially going to be a "President for Life"? All of these traits are those of a dictatorship.

Out of curiosity, which middle east rulers do you consider to be tools of the west?

We didn't create the House of Saud. It is actually older than the US. They have clung to power for over 3 centuries and so far have had no serious internal opposition.

We didn't create the states of Kuwait, Quatar, Bahrain, Oman or Yemen. The Brits may have had some role in the survival of these regimes through the early 20th century, but each of these countries started with its own native dynasty. Furthermore it is rather hypocritical of you to lay the blame of Britain's actions on our doorsteps. In the post-war era the US had a lot to do with the gradual retraction of the British empire.

You have no room to blame us for the regimes in place in Egypt, Syria, or Iraq either. Each of these countries started out in the late 1940s and early 1950s as opposed to the United States. The leadership of each of these countries has a direct linkage through a line of succession to leaders of that era who unabashedly associated themselves with the Soviet Union. Do not be so cynical as to suggest that we had a hand in the infiltration of socialism into these countries as a means to prevent the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In the 1950s Islamic fundamentalism was pretty much dormant as a political force. In this era the two camps of the First and Second worlds were facing off across a line of nuclear confrontation. The challenge of preventing the expansion of the communist camp while avoiding nuclear holocaust was the preminent task of western diplomacy. Keeping Islamic fundamentalism down wasn't even considered. In fact, when Islamic fundamentalism began to make its presence known in the 1970s many western diplomats hailed it as a possible solution to the threat of Soviet expanion in the middle east.

Finally you blame us for not doing more to foster the growth of democracy in the middle east. The problem with that accusation is that there really hasn't appeared to be a visible movement to support. In the late 1970s new President Jimmy Carter used diplomacy to encourage the Shah of Iran to evacuate Iran in favor of a democratic regime. The US moved rapidly to give its support to the new Iranian government, and what happened? Out of the blue a theocratic dictator, the Ayatollah Kohmeini, moved in to squash Iranian democracy. Am I justified in labelling Kohmeini as a dictator? He rounded up the opposition party leaders and put them in jail, he put the press under censorship, he established revolutionary kangaroo courts, he restricted the civil rights of minority groups in Iran. Yep, I'm justified.

If you would have the west support democracy in the middle east give me some credible names to support.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alireza1354



1 MAJOR difference between me and them, american. I hate it to be confronted every time with your selective perception of things.

I am totally AGAINST theocracy and totally AGAINST the misuse of religion!

I believe Islam has been corrupted and should be cleansed of dogmatic twistst and teachings and freed out of the hands of fundamentalists who keep it hostage!

Fundamentalists are our greatest enemies, you only come 2nd place

So what do you suggest we do to further the development of modern secular democracy in the middle east? Please don't suggest getting rid of Israel. While that might be pertinent to the security of the Palestinians, the existance of Israel really is not a sufficient excuse for the state of politics elsewhere in the middle east.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Alireza1354

That was what the british deserved. You know how many Libyans got killed by british "security forces"?

He has never supported terorists, only freedom fighters like IRA, ETA ,PLO, ANC and PFLP.

The fact he isnt voted out of office is because he rules well and should stay on power to guide his people to modernity. Even now, most tasks are down by the government and Qaddaffi mostly only has a symbolic meaning.

Thanks for brightening up my day with your humour.



Of course, its even more humourous if you're not a DL.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm... DL or not? Due to sheer volume of the posts, I'm thinking not, actually. That's more effort than I expect from a DL.

-Arrian

You must not have been here for CivNation.

[Ned]

You know, I am rather surprised at Alireza's point of view. I would have thought that pro-democracy Muslim's would be pro-west, as they are in Iran and Iraq. I clearly am under the wrong impression.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
I would have thought that pro-democracy Muslim's would be pro-west, as they are in Iran and Iraq. I clearly am under the wrong impression.

It's a mixed bag. I wouldn't let raving lunatic DL's color your opinion though.

[Arrian]

You must not have been here for CivNation

Guilty as charged. I was not, in fact, here for CivNation.

-Arrian

[Alireza1354]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


So what do you suggest we do to further the development of modern secular democracy in the middle east? Please don't suggest getting rid of Israel. While that might be pertinent to the security of the Palestinians, the existance of Israel really is not a sufficient excuse for the state of politics elsewhere in the middle east.

That is true!

I totally agree!

Israel is a result of various factors. One of them is our weakness, but after all, I dont think Israel is such a bad thing! Quite the opposite!

Israel will be assimilated in the sea of muslims of the islamic world, its a question of time. Then we will be able to profit from their technological and financial stance, and we can give them manpower and a very large scope of geopolitical and social powerprojection. If things clear up, we may even give them security, like we used to do the last 1000 years while the west was killing or isolating the jews wherever they found them.

Dont forget, the problem between Israel (Isaac) and the Arabs (Ishmael) is a familyproblem.

NO strangers will be able to solve it, and NO strangers will.

We will solve it ourselves.

[Alireza1354]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Qaddafi come to power as a result of a coup. Does anyone ever get to run against Qaddafi, I mean, without his express approval? Does opposition that has a serious chance of winning against him simply dissapear or get thrown into jail? Does he permit dissent? Are elections always suspiciously one sided? Is the rest of his government anything but a rubber stamp of his will? Does he censor the press? Is his term of power limited, or is he essentially going to be a "President for Life"? All of these traits are those of a dictatorship.

Out of curiosity, which middle east rulers do you consider to be tools of the west?

We didn't create the House of Saud. It is actually older than the US. They have clung to power for over 3 centuries and so far have had no serious internal opposition.

We didn't create the states of Kuwait, Quatar, Bahrain, Oman or Yemen. The Brits may have had some role in the survival of these regimes through the early 20th century, but each of these countries started with its own native dynasty. Furthermore it is rather hypocritical of you to lay the blame of Britain's actions on our doorsteps. In the post-war era the US had a lot to do with the gradual retraction of the British empire.

You have no room to blame us for the regimes in place in Egypt, Syria, or Iraq either. Each of these countries started out in the late 1940s and early 1950s as opposed to the United States. The leadership of each of these countries has a direct linkage through a line of succession to leaders of that era who unabashedly associated themselves with the Soviet Union. Do not be so cynical as to suggest that we had a hand in the infiltration of socialism into these countries as a means to prevent the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In the 1950s Islamic fundamentalism was pretty much dormant as a political force. In this era the two camps of the First and Second worlds were facing off across a line of nuclear confrontation. The challenge of preventing the expansion of the communist camp while avoiding nuclear holocaust was the preminent task of western diplomacy. Keeping Islamic fundamentalism down wasn't even considered. In fact, when Islamic fundamentalism began to make its presence known in the 1970s many western diplomats hailed it as a possible solution to the threat of Soviet expanion in the middle east.

Finally you blame us for not doing more to foster the growth of democracy in the middle east. The problem with that accusation is that there really hasn't appeared to be a visible movement to support. In the late 1970s new President Jimmy Carter used diplomacy to encourage the Shah of Iran to evacuate Iran in favor of a democratic regime. The US moved rapidly to give its support to the new Iranian government, and what happened? Out of the blue a theocratic dictator, the Ayatollah Kohmeini, moved in to squash Iranian democracy. Am I justified in labelling Kohmeini as a dictator? He rounded up the opposition party leaders and put them in jail, he put the press under censorship, he established revolutionary kangaroo courts, he restricted the civil rights of minority groups in Iran. Yep, I'm justified.

If you would have the west support democracy in the middle east give me some credible names to support.

I am sorry but your view is distorted beyond repair.

If you deny that the gulfstates have been created by western powers (British) , then my words with you are finished.

Bye!