'Ordinary' Arabs to retake internet: Wikipedia founder
The Age, Australia -2 hours ago
An explosion in internet usage in the Middle East by "ordinary" people will show the world that the region is just like anywhere else, Wikipedia founder ...

View the article

Ehh, am I the only one that thinks Jimbo is completely unqualified to make any of these statements, and has no factual, historical, or sociological basis for any of it?

How long will it take before the average person in Yemen or Algeria is regularly online? Especially women?

You would not be alone, Somey.

And from what I saw of the small-town West Virginians being interviewed by the media after the Democratic Party primary there, I'd hasten to guess that they are late-comers to the Internet, and at least as far as Barack Obama is concerned, they were not expressing "moderate" views in any way.

Greg

It's an informative comment, though.

The idea is sometimes bandied about by pro-Israeli polemicists that Arab governments are behind anti-Israeli sentiments in their countries, and that if only those countries could become more democratic ("like Israel" tends to be emphasized in these arguments ...), then peace and a rapid blooming of flowers around the world would quickly result.

The truth of the matter, if you bother looking at all into it, is that the populations in Arab countries tend to be far more anti-Israeli than their governments, and a democratic Arab country would likely have a central program of preparing for war with Israel. Iran, which isn't even an Arab country, but which has the most nearly democratic government for a Muslim country in the area, gives an idea of what a popular Arab government's attitude toward Israel would really be.

Anyway, it appears that somewhere along the line, Jimbo had a long drink from a tall, cool glass of the "Democracy will solve the Arab-Israeli problem" kool-aid. This needn't have occurred through a particular subterfuge to bring the sole flounder on board to a particular notion of the pro-Israeli cause: that kool-aid is given away on street corners all across America.

But it provides some context for how he might not have recognized how preposterous it was to appoint Jayjg to ArbCom, as an example.

Turkey, which is far more democratic than Iran, is also far less hostile to Israel.

In Iran, most of the people think women should dress in an Islamic conception of "modestly," and the women are forced to dress in an Islamic conception of "modestly."

In Turkey, most of the people think women should dress in an Islamic conception of "modestly," and the women are forbidden dressing in an Islamic conception of "modestly."

So which is far more democratic, again? There's more.

Travelled much in Turkey, have you? Obviously not.

Well, not as a woman. But see this article:

(excerpt)



Anyway, I've sort of let this stray away from the point, which was guy's intent. Turkey has a varied relationship with the Arabs, to say the least, above and beyond any co-religionist sympathies. It's attitude toward Palestine is probably that it should be Turkish, so little enough sympathy for those who insist it should be Palestinian.

But even Turkey, as it has become more democratic and thus more Islamic, is likely to become a much less reliable ally to Israel. You can read a little about the current Turkish PM's attitudes here.

Well, that's my point. If you had been to Turkey, you would realise that things are not always as they are conveniently summarised in the press or in your post.

A simple (still generalised) observation is that there is Western Turkey, which is also culturally western facing, and there is Eastern Turkey which is more fundamentalist based. Western Turks are suspicious of the east, and the government has policies like insisting that doctors who have qualified go to the east to practice for a while - not popular.

A very simple point to contradict your statement though is to go on the beaches near Bodrum, on the south west Mediterranean coast - the main European resorts are there. On the same beach you will find Turkish women in the skimpiest of swimsuits (not generally topless, that does appear to be discouraged but suitable for flossing ) along side Turkish women swimming in full, specially made, swimming burkas.

The point being no-one is outright forbidden from wearing Islamic dress.

The situation in schools is much the same as in France, where religious symbols are banned - the principle of the State being separated from religion, somewhat like the principle in America, too.

The distinction is important - in Afghanistan, the Taliban would quite happily beat women who simply walked in the street "improperly dressed", so in this context it is helpful not to exaggerate the issue.

The mind boggles. But let's try another argument. In Iran, a group of unelected officials vets all candidates for election and excludes those of whom they do not approve. In Turkey, this does not happen.


WR ISNOT a crystal ball.

... except women in school, university, or the civil service.

I'm kind of old fashioned this way, but I expect when I am having a conversation with someone that he or she will not ignore my half of it.

Well, here in the US, we had a group of unelected officials decide a Presidential Election in 2000, so what was your complaint about Iran again?

Really, the Iranian mullahs are in quite a similar position to the US Supreme Court, albeit they are no doubt more active. The US Supreme Court has the authority to declare anything it likes unconstitutional, just as the mullahs can declare anything "counter to Islam."

And, unlike in Turkey, the group of unelected officials who control things behind the scenes' only power comes from moral authority, or the belief of the people that they should have the power that they have. We don't like this in the West, particularly because, unlike most unelected officials in control of a country, they don't answer to us, but also because it is not a system that we are comfortable with, the US Supreme Court's position notwithstanding. But, that is how it is.

In Turkey, of course, the military controls everything they feel they need to control, including who gets to run for or hold an office. In recent years, they have been able to maintain their control through fear of a coup rather than through a coup itself, but it is still largely a military dictatorship. And of course, moral authority has nothing to do with the generals' power.

...which is not the same as saying 'the women are forbidden dressing in an Islamic conception of "modestly."' which is an unqualified statement, so I hardly think I was making an unreasonable observation about your blanket assertion.

the trouble with arguments about the effect of democracy on a nation is that to make democracy work, you have the presumption of an educated and informed electorate. If the electorate are suppressed and indoctrinated (e.g. not just Islamic principles, but the unthinking God-like status of Free Trade and Freedom without ever defining what such a thing might be - them Kentucky Mountains are certainly enjoying the results of freedom) then we cannot really know what is the true Will of the People. Turkey, historically, has tried to push the indoctrination in one direction, Iran another, each being aware of other forces seeking to interfere. I'm not sure how you can define which is the more democratic with the different effects of oppression or disinformation or propaganda of the different countries.

Put another way, would an "ordinary Arab" really think when purged of any ideology, Eastern or Western, and allowed the freedom to arrive at their own personal conclusions without threat? Well, I suspect much the same as in the West - and I don't think that is a good thing: gotta get that latest iPod upgrade and damn Global Warming.

So you think the average Egyptian, left to his own, would support his country's current alignment with the US and cooperation with Israel? Have you traveled much in Egypt?

Heh. No. And yes. Um, you know what I mean.

The sole flounder of the polarized view knocking a place where our media creates the polarized view that often isn't true. So yeah, unqualified. Or distinctly disqualified, is more like it.
Yep. And please, do donate to my project to teach developing country people to work for free at paypal.com
Ever the diplomat, Jimbo.

In time, people will come to see Jimbo as a soothsayer, and not the soporific ass ignoring basic facts and causing a basket of problems for thousands.

Erm, well that is a leap. Who the fuck wants to be aligned with the US apart from Tony Blair (who he?).

Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass.

That's amazing. Here I was thinking that Lewis Carroll died in 1898, yet here he is posting on WR! And yes, he did write a book on the theory of elections.

You've been inhaling too much of your wig powder again, guy.

Was that a snuff fantasy?

I think Jimbo has a point in this. That would solve the Arab-Israeli problem anyhow (not the Israeli way, of course).

Certainly most Arab governments are corrupt fascist Islamist regimes that basically subsist with massive Western support. They are just called "moderates" because they are paid by Western agencies to keep democracy, human rights and internet out of the agenda.

But for how long? Not much more, I foresee.

Bite you tongue on your use of the world "solve." Any aim to destroy a country which has hundreds of nuclear weapons, is not what I class as a "solution". It's more of a problem. Israel is there to stay; deal with it. If the average hoi poloi of the average "Arab country" doesn't get this, perhaps it's just as well there's no democracy yet in these countries.

Nonsense. You were just going on about how Iran was the closest to being an Arab democracy. Okay, if that's true, so where's the human rights, internet and so on, there? "Democratic" Iran in 2008 censors its internet to a larger extent than any country in the world, save China. As for human rights in Iran, they seem to be able to kill and torture as well as the Shah. Perhaps worse: in 1983 they hanged 9 women, including a 16 year-old for teaching the Baha'i religion, which is one of the world's most tolerant, non-disruptive, and peaceful. That's crass. Even the Shah never was that bad.

And now they're busy building nuclear weapons, too. For use on whom-- Israel? That's intelligent of them. What do they think is going to happen to them and their people, if they keep that up?

A pox on the bastards that rule Iran. The Iranian people would be better off with an essentially benign regency like, say, Qatar's. Governments like Qatar may treat foreign national workers like indentured servants, but it's far from torture and death, of which there's still a lot in Iran. And it's better than what the workers would get if they stayed home, so they come of their own free will and when they go home, they try to go back. That tells you something. There is some censorship in Qatar, but not a great deal by comparison with the really repressive governments. And Qutar's people aren't going to end up in a mushroom cloud. All in all, a better deal. If "democracy" means you can vote for only one Islamic party, and the price is that you end up dead also, what's the point of it?

If you want to know what the international press thinks of freedom (as in, its own) take a look at the reporters without borders report. This is not a whitewash of the US-- the U.S. came in 44th out of 167 countries (North Korea being last). We've slipped 20 places due to the last Iraq war, mostly. But as you look at the list, you see the West is the most free place to be (Scandinavia leading). As are the places with the most Western influence. That's the opinion of the people who report on the world for a living. If it doesn't jibe with your view of what Arabs (or Persian Islamists) would do with democracy, that's too bad. I advise you to re-orient your thinking to reality.

Milton, you're just wrong. You are repeating the mantra of most of the "news media" of America, and most of the politicians, but it is just a flat-out lie.

The truth, as far as the very highest level of US intelligence goes, is that "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program;" "We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years;" and "We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007" (this from a report issued in November 2007).

You can look for yourself: NIE report on Iran's Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

Now, if you want to believe that FoxNews (or CNN, or the New York Times) knows better than the sum total of the US intelligence community what's going on in Iran, or if you want to believe that President Bush has access to supernatural insight that allows him to understand the truth better than the sum total of the intelligence agencies whose task it is to keep him informed (he certainly thinks so, although experience in Iraq might somewhat cast doubt on that notion among more thoughtful people), there's probably no helping you.

But, just as a mild concession to common sense, I would hope that you would give at least some small consideration to facts before repeating what you hear in the news, and before you go cheering a carpet-bombing campaign in Iran.

Why on earth should anyone believe a secret intelligence report that's there on the Internet for anyone to see? As Daniel Brandt has said, there's lots of good stuff that's not on the Internet.

As much as I respect this forum and it participant's views on social media, internet culture and a wide range of related matters we are as incapable of meaningful discussion of "Arabs" and/or "Muslims" as Wikipedia. It is not just that I might disagree with what is said. When Mr. Wales talks about "Ordinary Arabs" he is just some fool on the internet talking rubbish. When we reply to the content of what he says we are no better whatsoever.

We should shine some of the productive insights we have gained from examining Wikipedia in our own direction and perhaps check our own vanity.

Especially when it disagrees with what you want people to believe, eh guy?

I had hoped it would be obvious that when I mentioned "a mild concession to common sense" and "some small consideration to facts," I had no expectation that these matters would interest you. I think I fairly thoroughly addressed your situation with my paragraph that ended, "there's probably no helping you."

And as far as I'm concerned, you can return to your ouija board and your crystal ball, and we can carry on as if we never had this discussion.

That is extremely offensive. Obviously, I do not engage in such activities.

Ehm... are you talking of the Soviet Union maybe?

Israel cannot nuke the occupied territories without damaging itself very badly. All that needs to happen is that the Palestinians get conventional weapons at a similar rate to that of Israel. And that will happen in due time.



Some people, even in the Muslim World, believe that. But that it's like claiming that Apartheid South Africa was there to stay. Obviously some human projects are just unviable and Israel is one of those. It doesn't matter how much money is invested in it: it is failing by moments, though the real fall will still take some time to happen - the USA/NATO must be weakened first or they must renounce to keep their foreign policies depenant of the interests of Israel (that would be a smart move IMO but I don't think the West has smart leaders right now).





No. I don't think that was me. I also read that but it was someone else who wrote it.

The closest thing to an Arab democracy IMO is Syria (maybe after Lebanon?). Not because it's more democratic than the rest (it is not) but because it's secularist - probably the only non-fundamentalist regime in the Arab World after the invasion of Iraq.

But wait I was forgetting about the Palestinian Authority, where Hamas rolled over in true democratic fashion - only to be ostracized by the "democrats" of the World.

(I'm ignoring all that aprt on Iran because you're replying to someone else - not me).



I don't really know what you are talking about. All I know is that Arabs as any human beings are entitled to democracy and human rights. If they happen to be so pissed-off with everything as to elect a fundamentalist party, that would not be much different from say Germans electing Hitler in 1933. But they have the right to do it, the same that the Spanish had the right to elect the Popular Front in 1936. If we are for democracy we must be for it 100%. There are no exceptions, there are no "stupid peoples" who can't rule themselves - or maybe there are but that's primarily their problem.

And, as side note, even if the Nazis were the most voted party in 1933, the Communists were second. Hitler only rose to power because many inside and outside Germany feared more the commies than the nazis. Equally, many fascist regimes of today in the Arab World are sustained by the "democratic" West because they fear what the people would really choose, specially after so many decades of colonialism and neocolonialism. The West prefers corrupt fundamentalist tyrants like the Sauds or Mubarak to almost whatever the locals may want, to the very fact of leaving the destiny of Arabs to themselves. They want anything but to lose indirect control of oil reserves, of such a geostrategic area and to endanger Israel's existence.

There's nothing obvious about it.

What kind of government existed before colonialism?

Yep. If sheiks, sultans and emirs are "fascist" government, then the Arab world has one of the longest histories of "fascism" on the planet. And it goes right back into the golden age of Islam, strangely. Which didn't include democracy, strangely.

Blaming all this on "colonialism" and "neocolonialism" is the usual bizarre Marxist interpretation of history, except it really has the cart before the horse. Next, I'm expecting to hear that the rule of fascist Egyptian pharaohs and their corrupt pyramids were a propped-up result of outside Western oppression of the human rights of Egypt's proletariat....

As opposed to Egypt, where they at least pretend to have democratic elections (unlike Syria) and where overtly theocratic parties such as the Moslem Brotherhood are banned.



That shows a breathtaking lack of knowledge of religious sensitivities.

... and of the elasticity of Spandex.

But you are wrong, because you are insensitive to my areligious perspective: ouija board; crystal ball; sacred text ... it's all the same to me. That you feel that relying on one is acceptable and admirable while relying on another is something you would take extreme offense at being accused of it is the sort of silliness that could only come out of ouija boards, crystal balls, or sacred texts.

Moderator's note -- I have tarpitted some unnecessarily venemous comments and subsequent responses. They are available here. --HK

Fascism.

Sure. But well Europe was that way too not long ago. And you can look elsewhere too. And probably there's not a single cultural region in the World that is so reactionary, so persistently and so much thanks to Western support and confrontation.

What kind of Western secularist regime would choose to attack secularist Iraq over islamist Saudia? And on the unbelievable pretext of connivence with fundamelist terrorists - when we all know that the Taliban and Osama are a product of Saudia, Pakistan and the USA.

Instead of supporting the lesser evil, the more illustrated regimes in the area, we are supporting the more rancid, negative and fascist elements, specially Saudia. How can one make deals with a regime that is the most notorious on Earth for its sexist apartheid?! "We" are paying the worst among them to keep the Arabs ignorant and fanatic. "We" took out Saddam only to place Mokhtada el-Sadr islamist terror in its place.

What kind of common sense is that? It's suicidal.



Egypt certainly was not a colonial dependence nor a semicolonial state before the Assyrians, so I will never claim that. You are just resorting to Tory rethoric.

All is not to blame to colonialism, I'm not that naive. But in the case of the Arab World specially, we can see how the Western powers have intervened directly and indirectly, once and again, since the beginning of the 20th century and specially since WWI. I could understand certain choices in the context of the Cold War, as I could understand the support for racist South Africa in that context (not that I supported such things - but they had their own logic). But, after it, following the same kind of policies and supporting the same kind of reactionary "allies" just for the interest of Israel (and nothing more) is plainly stupid and sucidal.

I can understand fueling Islamism in the context of the Cold War, when the paladin of secularism was the Soviet Union specially. But not a second after it was over. Yet the vicious inertia remains. Why?

Pretenses are not in any way democracy. Franco also organized "elections" and "plebiscites" but it was hardcore fundamentalist fascism anyhow (just that Catholic in this case). And, well, I have the feeling you are not following the events in Egypt certainly. It's not that they ban the Muslim Brotherhood, they ban and jail everybody who dares to speak out, there are no legal labor unions, people must be officially member of one of the three recognized religions (Islam, Christianism or Judaism) and special laws abide to each of them. It's not Saudia but it's just one small step away.

I am certainly for democracy (true democracy with their full set of human rights in efefct) for the Arab World and anywhere else in the World. But, if that's not a choice, then a secularist illustrated dictatorship is always better than a religious fundamentalist one. Thinking otherwise is not thinking for the good of the people, nor for Western values in any case.

The problem, as I see it, is that with Western values they may become proud and independent, and not be anymore the subservient puppets some have decided they must be. Some prefer they are fanatics than illustrated, that they are tyranized than free.

No. It has nothing to do with Western confrontation. Without Western confrontation, it's as bad or worse. Remember the example of Afghanistan, where fundamentalists gained power in "reaction" to a Soviet invasion; the Soviets are not the "West". But wherever Muslin fundamentalism can find a foothold in poor and uneducated Muslims, it turns them into oppressive societies of Witchhunters where freethought is ruthlessly and completely in the name of a small group of fanatics who hold power and claim to be absolutely correct. Very much as you saw in the Stalinist USSR and in China in the cutural revolution under Mao. The only reason you don't call this "reactionary" in the USSR and China is because you're trained to stick left and right labels on things. But it's the same old witchhuntery and suppression that dogs all small ignorant societies, whether it's fundamentalist religious, or fundamentalist-"scientific-Marxist." The "religion" of communist totalitarian societies was Communism. It doesn't matter if it's a little red book or a Koran or a Wikipedia Five Pillars. Religion and Left/Right politics actually have very little to do with it.



More the USSR/Afghanistan mess, with bin Laden being an unrecognized 53rd son or something of a rich and politically-placed father. It's an old rebellion notice-me story of a very extended family with some really angry tail members. And it feeds into a larger family/feudal fight over Saudi oil. It would happen whether the West was involved or not. A few of the Arabs have the oil, and a lot of other Arabs want their share. If the US and the West completely disappeared, there would be a big fight and you know what the end of it would be? If few OTHER Arabs would have all the oil, and the rest would have none. There is no Arabic tradition of equal division of wealth. They aren't going to grow one simply because they can't blame the West any more. Communism isn't going to help them, as no example of Communism can be found which isn't utterly corrupt, so the same Orwell's "Animal Farm" problems happen.

Democratic socialism might be helpful, but these middle Eastern countries don't much like it (Israel excepted). So.


Yep, that was dumb. But the worst "sexist apartheid" ever seen in the Arab world was under the Taliban, after the USSR devastation of Afghanistan. Again, stop blaming the West for essentially Muslin fundamentalist problems. We didn't invent Wahabism. And you can blame the cold war for the spread of it, but the West didn't invent the Cold war.





Well, various reasons, some defensable, and some less so.

One IS simple intertia. The West fought the cold war so long it forgot how to do anything else.

A second matter was certainly Western greed for Middle East oil. It's certainly more conventient to prop up pro-Western governments that sell to us. But again, everybody's greedy for that oil, and if there's some group that would pump it and use the revenue to build schools and hospitals for the ordinary people in the way that (say) improves on what the Saudis have done, I'm not aware of it.

It isn't so much that the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or the UAE citizens hate their governments. They love their governments, and the government checks. It's Arabs who live in coutries with less oil, or who never got such services in countries that had some oil, like Iraq, who are angry. Again, if they got their way, what do you think would happen? Who should checks for Saudi oil go to, besides citizens of Saudi Arabia? Do you think (say) the Egyptians have some claim on this wealth, because they read the same Koran? What's your argument here?

A third problem was Western shock and what happened in places like Iran and Afghanistan after Muslim fundies took over. You might argue that people have a right to vote themselves into messes like that, but that's actually a debatable point.

As for the idea of democracy in places where the average citizen thirsts for a fundamentalist theocracy, the question is whether or not it's moral to let this happen to people who don't know what they're in for (do you think the Afghanis would vote the Taliban in again, now that they have some idea of what they are like?).

The Nazis are actually a bad example, inasmuch as the elections of 1933 were not fair ones. They were preceded by a lot of very violent suppression of the Left in Germany. Look, the Nazis didn't behave like perfect gentlemen until they got into power in 1933, and THEN start behaving like....Nazis. Here's news: they used Nazi tactics all along-- all they could get away with. And that was a lot, even before Hitler became chancellor and basically abolished democracy.

But let's pretend the Nazis had played fair and square up to the results of 1933. The question of whether or not you allow a country to vote itself into a totalitarian state it cannot get out of in the same way, is rather like the question of whether or not you allow a person to sell themselves into a lifetime of slavery, with no chance to break the contract ever again, even if they realize they've made the worst mistake of their lives. What say you?

Democracy actually isn't a "starter" political system. It requires some sophistication, and it particularly requires the dedication of a military to civilian-rule principles. That's hard to inculcate. Western democracies work very hard to doing so, in all their officer training. If some new Cromwell in the UK tried to use the military to oust parliament, the military there would refuse. And THIS is ultimately what protects them against ever being totalitarian. There's a similar parallel situation in the US where military officers have very firm grounding in the meaning of the constitution, which is that civilians must rule, and democracy cannot be suspended as the mechanism of civilian rule.

Without all this stuff, democracy is unstable and it just slides over into totalitarianism, and then disappears. So saying "let them have democracy" is no answer to any country which isn't ready for it, properly educated military and all. Since otherwise, democracy will slip through their fingers like water, and you've just wasted everybody's time.

MR

Nope. Religion (at least in its political form is rightist, conservative and/or reactionary). Albania is doing pretty well in terms of lack of fanaticism after 4 decades of pseudo-Maoism, much of the same can be said about places as Azerbaijan or Central Asia. Even Ataturk got support from the Soviets first and foremost, even if he was not a socialist. And so did most secularist regimes and resistence groups in the Muslim world, from Western Sahara to Afghanistan, passing by Nasser's Egypt.

Communism is not a religion. It has no god (even if it may have prophets). If anything hey have done well is secularizing and educating incredibly illiterate and fanatic societies - though not only them surely.



Don't forget he was "adopted" by the CIA for long.



Again just confused tory rethoric. As I said before communism or other types of secularism are of great help in educating and secularizing societies. There are no miracles, of course, but if the Taliban achieved what they did it was mostly thanks to the USA and its allies, not the bolsheviks.

Guess that one could argue that the Soviets may have helped the ayatollahs of Iran though (not sue about the details anyhow).



Not too different anyhow. And remember who put them in power, ok?



But "we" supported it. In fact Saudia is the most strategic US (and formerly British) ally in the region after Israel and arguably Egypt.



That is much more than arguable. I have over here some book of Galbraith that deals partly on his time in post-WWII Berlin and certainly the West is not innocent of that evolution.

In fact, the Cold War (or a prelude of it) existed since the revolution of 1917. Fascist leaders as Mussolini, Franco or even the very 666 Hitler were elevated with clear Western (British particularly) support. The case of Hitler and Franco are very clear because the Brits (and local tories) saw the alternative too close to the soviets to be allowed. In the German case, the Weimar bloc had succumbed and the alternative was basically the Nazis or the Commies. In Spain the Popular Front (similar to the one ruling in France: a wide left-wing coalition, from liberals to commies) had just won the elections. The Brits imposed to France the "international blockade", while he Germans and Italians ignored it completely. The legitimate government only got some Soviet support.

The Cold War is a byproduct of the fears (maybe realistic fears) that the people of Europe (and elsewhere) could choose socialism over other socioeconomic paradigms following the Russian model more or less. This was a very real threat in the Great Depression but had been a threat too in the very aftermath of WWI, when there was a large wave of revoutionary attempts in all Central Europe.

The Cold War was going on even inside WWII: Stalin naively (he seemed to ignore the real Nazi plans to make Russia the German "India") first made a deal with Hitler (and believed till the last minute it would be respected - he may have been a murderous paranoid tyrant but he was extremely naive in this aspect), then the Western allies (basically Britain and the USA) basically allowed the Soviets to carry on with most of the war, delaying the opening of the third front until it was almost necesary to stop all Europe from falling to the Russians. The Asian theatre was part of that cold war within the "allies" as well and many believe that the use of atomic weapons against Japan was made largely to prevent the Soviets (who had just entered in war against Japan) from gaining more influence in the area.

The Cold War is in the end an ideological conflict within the West (understood here as the European world). And the West within the West (Britain, the USA, sometimes France too) is not innocent but a fully involved party since the beginning. Just look at who intervened against the Bolsheviks in Russia itself, who supported the fascists as "lesser evil", etc.

If that's not semicolonialist intervention against, often, too often, the European peoples and their legitimate choices, you tell me what is it? And I don't think the Soviets were any saints, just that one has to be fair and not just one-sided.



Sounds like a very stupid reason. Only stupid "statesmen" would do that. Maybe you have a point but I rather think that the Islamist threat is a much more convenient foe than a secularist westernized tyrant like Saddam. The first certainly can raise no sympathies outside their cultural ghetto (ok, a large ghetto but a ghetto anyhow), while the latter could be felt as "one of us" by many westerners.



True. A most important reason, even if the benfitiaries are doubtfully the Western peoples, rather some olygarchies - but anyhow.

I read James Petras claiming in the early 90s (prior to the Kuwait War) that the goal of that op was basically to force Saudia into submission, as well as to disarm Iraq, that was full of weapons provided by the West for their war with Iran and could become sort of the "Prussia" of the Arabs (potentially threatening Israel and Saudia, of course). I think the latter was most important. There was a serious risk of a (dsicursively at least) Arab nationalist regime to become very popular. Though it was also true that the USA had no bases in the area, and that was a good opportunity to build them.

It was largely an operation to dismantle Arab nationalism (even if Saddam was a "moderate" among Baathists in this regard) before it could be reborn. As well as to secure direct military presence in a most strategic region.



What "government checks"? Allah? don't make me laugh. Certainly they probably love easy life sustained by oil revenues and masses of practical slaves from other countries. And probably they are very conservative because they don't want to risk that easy way of life (mainly), though this is much less clear in such a large and reactionary country like Saudia, where there are some 13 million "citizens", plus some other similar amount of immigrants (with no chance of getting residency, much less citizenship - I mean "subjectship" or whatever the word is), with half of the population (women) being subject to constant apartheid and harassment. Most of this issues about "minorities" (that often are majoritary) also apply for the "Monacoes" of the Gulf.

Remember that the Palestinians and other "foreigners" (denizens) in Kuwait were quick to welcome Saddam as liberator - logically. Probably many women were happy too. There is many people in those states that would gladly welcome a change. A change in the sense of human rights. Rights like the most basic ones we could think of: unionization, freedom of marriage, freedom of walking through the streets, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and even of thought.

You are somewhat arbitrarily selecting a fraction of the real people of those countries, the privileged elite, and attributing them arbitrarily the right to speak for all. Much like whites were dealt with in South Africa or slave states of the USA. That is not a democratic, much less Humanist attitude. And if Western values those are Humanism, people's power and human rights.

Instead you try to justify aristocratic fundamentalism tyrannies, like if the Middle Ages were something you'd like yourself to fall back to as well. It was not a nice life for the common of Europeans then either. Of course the privileged lived well, sure.

And anyhow, the Middle Ages are over. They are over even in the Muslim World. Even Islamism cannot be a way back to the past (no matter their romantic imagery about it): it's a modern reactionary ideology: fascism.



May I remind you that the takeover in Afghanistan was generated by the West? Iran was another story surely but not Afghanistan. And the West put Saddam to fight against the Iranians, btw. And then they paid him with a trap leading to war (remember April Gillespie's recording).

It's all very colonialist, you must admit. And I would say Machievellic except for the fact that I have too much respect for the Tuscan writer to attribute to him much of the backfiring nonsense done in this area lately. It's too poor to be really Machiavellic but there is some intent of that kind anyhow.



They have the right to and they have the right to vote themselves out of them.



How do you even know? They have no feedom of speech, no right to vote even for moderate liberal options...



Well, 1932. There were some more or less fair elections (can't remember which ones) when the Weimar bloc collapsed and the two main parties were the extremes: the Nazis and the Commies. The Nazis won in parliament with conservative support and shameful Socialdemocratic indecisiveness while the Commies, the second largest party then, had been expelled from parliament with a maneouvre (the Reichstag fire possibly).

The situation is not much different from the rise of Hamas in Palestine: Arafat was placed in an untenable situation till his death and the successors were just puppets of Israel with no credibility. Hamas was about the only option, even if just as vote of protest.



I don't think that should be an option, mind you. But sometimes there are no or very few choices.

For me the first question is wether they can vote themselves out of a totalitarian state. And that is just not possible in any Arab country. And most of those totalitarian states are fundamentalist tyrannies of one style or another. That doesn't work, not if your goal ist to keep stability and approach those people as potential partners.

It may work (for some time only) if you want to approach those peoples as mere subservient vassals. But that's not ethically acceptable nor politically viable in the mid run anyhow.



It's possible. But it certainly requires seclarism and education, not fanaticism and illiteracy.



Don't be so sure. It may depend on the circusmtances (circumstances that are not right now in play certainly but that could hypothetically evolve in due time).

Same about the USA. Depending on the circumstances you may slip down to tyranny easily too. When the situation becomse unstable, maybe because of a deep crisis, when people begin getting out to the streets demanding radical changes, when the status quo of theelite is in danger... then they may well orchestrate a coup.

Political culture matters somehwat but it's more about how is the people more easily kept supportive of the regime. So far the system has withstood but never say never. The USA has been expanding since its inception one way or another but it may have reached its limits. One day the situation maybe will be not tenable anymore. And this may and will surely affect the internal political situation, probably in unexpected ways.

Not tomorrow surely anyhow. But nothing lasts forever.

IMO the USA should be able to look forard to the post-USA world. It does not look like it will do that but it would be most wise and honorable to look not just at that large chunk between Rio Grande and the Great Lakes but to the whole planet holistically. That would be real statesmanship. The opposite is wasting a unique opportunity that will not last for much longer surely.

But I don't think the US economical (rathern than political) system can do that. It's stuck in the paradigm that began with Colombus and de Gama: that of Western colonialism, even if in a modified manner. That age is over though. The Earth is only that big and other planets are not colonizable. I don't see any alternative leader either, to be honest right now, but one way or another the World is doomed to look at itself as a single "nation" (in a sense, I guess you know what I mean). It requires another approach - and the sooner this new approach begins, the better probably. The better for all, including the USA.



With that criteria no country should have ever been allowed to be democratic. If you are waiting for hell to freeze...

It's a paternalistic attitude and the case is that normally peoples know best what they want (not always maybe but more often than you want to admit). Most people around the world certainly does not think that the USA has made a good choice electorally in the last elections (some also think they were rigged, anyhow) but that's not a reason to reinstate King George, right?

Do unto others as unto thyself. It's a good advise if you want some respect and not to generate wild desires of revenge. To some extent it also applies to international politics.

Thing is - I cannot help but think of an AN/I thread I saw yesterday - an admin popped over from the farsi wikipedia and asked what to do about people handing barn stars that feature nazi icons and images...