Politics and history

Re: Politics and history

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:41:20 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

Supposing that the voting procedures were followed correctly. The Egyptians elected an Islamist regime, yes. They did have over 50% of votes but not much over 50%. One can think that if they have >50%, they can change laws to smash democracy again, at the end of the day democracy is not much more than a Dictatorship of the 51% of the population.

[/quote]

I heard an interesting comment on this recently. While electors in a democracy have to accept that they may be governed by a party they didn't vote for, those who are elected also have to accept that a large proportion of the population haven't voted for them, and they have to at least appear to be listening to alternative views to their own. It is apparently not uncommon in new democracies for this to take some time to be learnt.

Re: Politics and history

Bob Russell — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:53:36 GMT

I was under the impression that the 2004 Madrid bombings were carried out by Moroccan and Indian muslims, followers of al-Qaeda.

Just reread your post Iraq war started 2003 so correctly no islamist terrorism before the Iraq war!! Not sure anyone outside the middle east had many problems before the Iraq war. Most of the attacks stayed within the middle east.

Re: Politics and history

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:47:45 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]the country waited a few years so hopefully the population could have had the chance kick them out (by voting) of government and they would have gone away quietly. [/quote]

Sweet optimism.

Re: Politics and history

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:44:14 GMT

Well, obviously, if you are fighting a war you aren't surprised if the enemy fight back.

Re: Politics and history

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:56:00 GMT

Evelyn. If all the dishonest politicians/bankers were properly punished, we'd need another prison! If unlimited fines were introduced, they could easily fund it themselves, with nocontributions at all from honest taxpayers.

No need to feel sorry for TB - his missus could easilymake another fortune in Hollywood. I can think of several roles in which she'd be brilliant - the wicked witch in Wizard of Oz - Cruella de Vil in 101 Dalmatians( dye half her hair white, and she'd even look like her ) - Lady Macbeth - Lucrezia Borgia. It wouldn't matter whether or not she could actually act - she wouldn't need to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

Re: Politics and history

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:55:58 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

IMHO it's INCREASED our risk of terrorist attack.

[/quote]

If the reasons to send troops to Afghanistan were the ones being proposing in the thread, I have no option but to agree with the above statement.

Maybe I'm wrong in this (because I suppose some Muslims may consider most of Spain theirs in relation to History) but democratic Spain never had Islamist terrorist attacks (and there is a large Muslim population) before we agreed to support the Irak invasion.

http://www.cadenaser.com/recorte/20070316csrcsrint_2/XLCO/Ies/trio-Azores.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombing s

Re: Politics and history

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:48:06 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

As a matter of interest, Francisco, which would you prefer for Egypt: a democratically (supposedly) elected horrible Islamist regime, or a military junta that stands (probably) for freedom and secular government?

[/quote]

Great question.

However, some rules, even in democratic countries, can't be changed unless you have a vote >2/3 or >4/5 of the parliament. Considering that the elected government would be able to legislate but won't have power to turn the country back into a dictatorship again, I would think keeping the elected government would have been the obvious choice.

You do say 'horrible' Islamic regime, but there is no reason to expect the perpetrators of the cup to be any less horrible anyway (since they got rid of the elected government by force).

Now, the Islamic Brotherhood will become a martyr group and the long term consequences will be much worse than if the country waited a few years: hopefully the population could have had the chance to kick them out (by voting) of government and they would have gone away quietly. This cup had only made them gain supporters. IMO.

Re: Politics and history

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:56:40 GMT

We have no moral right to interfere in Afghanistan's internal politics, any more than they have in ours, and they probably regard aspects of our culture (alcoholism and illegitimavy) as abhorrent as we do aspects of theirs. It's cost our taxpayers billions, which we can't afford, and IMHO it's INCREASED our risk of terrorist attack.

Wynne

Re: Politics and history

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:31:48 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]So just to be clear, according to the above, the West went to war in Afghanistan so we can all feel safer. Freeing humans fron the taliban regime is only a side effect, but we don't care much about them, because once we let them organise their society on their own, they're just going to become what they were before we went there, right?[/quote]

If you like. We can care, but, you know, self-determination and all that.

Re: Politics and history

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:20:34 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Well, remember - Pakistan has nukes, and Afghanistan doesn't. Sometimes it's that simple.[/quote]

And Pakistan is (nominally anyway) on our side.

[/quote]

True! Strange coincidence that Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, a large city 70 miles outside of Islamabad, with a military academy about a mile away...oh, and he'd apparently been living there 5 years. Odd definition of a country on 'our side', isn't it?

[/quote]

It is indeed.

Re: Politics and history

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:08:13 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"] But I won't buy that we went there and changed the ways of the civil population because we were looking to shut down a terrorist organization. It just doesn't make any sense. [/quote]

Yes it does.

[/quote][quote]

Achieved quite a lot. Set up an Afghan Army that can look after itself. Set up a stable(ish) government that's more or less democratic (ish) and, for all the President's posturing, is likely to remain aligned with the US.

[/quote] So just to be clear, according to the above, the West went to war in Afghanistan so we can all feel safer. Freeing humans fron the taliban regime is only a side effect, but we don't care much about them, because once we let them organise their society on their own, they're just going to become what they were before we went there, right?

Re: Politics and history

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:13:33 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Well, remember - Pakistan has nukes, and Afghanistan doesn't. Sometimes it's that simple.[/quote]

And Pakistan is (nominally anyway) on our side.

[/quote]

Re: Politics and history

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:44:00 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Well, remember - Pakistan has nukes, and Afghanistan doesn't. Sometimes it's that simple.[/quote]

And Pakistan is (nominally anyway) on our side.

Re: Politics and history

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:40:33 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Pakistan (which, by the way, it is where this idiot was 'harboured').[/quote]

Later on he was.

Yes it does.

Re: Politics and history

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:37:34 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Sorry Evelyn. I'm with Francisco this time - and if anybody had actually bothered to study history, Alexander the Great, Queen Victoria, Soviet Russia - they'd have realised that an invasion of Afghanistan was bound to fail - or, at least historical precedents aren't encouraging. Tony Blair wanted to be a world statesman, and, surprise, surprise, got it wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

[/quote]

Wynne, I know all about that. We didn't attempt to conquer Afghanistan though. And although the b****** politicians couldn't give the military any clear objectives, we have as I said achieved some modest but worthwhile success.

********Blair and the Wicked Witch have done all right out of it as well, haven't they?

Re: Politics and history

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:21:43 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

If there was a clear differentiation,then there was no justification in invading.

[/quote]

I'm afraid I don't agree with that, they were clearly separate organisations, but the one in control of the country had offered a safe and secure base to the other from which it could launch attacks on us.

Again, I'm not saying invasion was necessarily the only option, but no one has yet offered another solution for dealing with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And yes I know that a lot of them were driven into the mountains of Pakistan and there are branches of Al Qaeda in other parts of the World, but at the time the significant attacks on the west had originated in Afghanistan.

Re: Politics and history

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:07:25 GMT

If there was a clear differentiation,then there was no justification in invading.

As for whether there would have been more or fewer attacks if we hadn't invaded, neither side can prove it, but we are all entitled to our opinions, and I know mine-fewer.

Wynne

Re: Politics and history

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:46:02 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

2001, George Bush failed to distinguish between terrorists living in Afghanistan,and the Afghan government - and Tony Blair said," Can I come too?" 12 YEARS LATER, WE STILL HAVE THE TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/quote]

As far as I remember there was a clear differentiation between the Taliban regime and the Al Qaeda terrorists. The arguement was that as the Taliban were actively harbouring Al Qaeda, and there was no way to change the behaviour of the Taliban, the only way to deal with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was to get rid of the Taliban regime.

I don't know enough about the situation to say whether there was another way or not. Also, while we know about the Al Qaeda attacks on the West that have happened since the invasion of Afghanistan, I imagine it's very hard to know if there would have been a greater or fewer number if we hadn't invaded.

Re: Politics and history

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:26:43 GMT

PPS It's a maoist group at the centre of the south London slave scandal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

Re: Politics and history

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:22:04 GMT

PS to above.

Another extremely oppressive regime is China.

But we can't invade them:

a) there's around 15 of them to every one of us,

b) they've got nukes

and

c) they're communist - so they're left wing - so they're good guys.

Wynne

Re: Politics and history

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:24:49 GMT

Thomas We haven't eradicated the terrorist organisation- yet again a failure to heed the lessons of history. In 1914, unbelievable carnage resulted from the failure of Austro-Hungary to distinguish between Serbian terrorists, and the Serbian Government. 100 years later, the Balkans are still volatile.

As toan oppressive regime, as Evelyn says, if they want Sharia law-it's their country. If we'd invaded every oppressive regime, then the nuclear holocaust which would have resulted from invading the USSR would mean none of us would be here now.

It's very very rarely I'll find anything good to say about a Labour politician,but at least Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam.

Wynne

Re: Politics and history

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:56:41 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]

What would you have done about the oppressive regime that was harbouring the terrorist group that had hijacked 4 planes, destroyed the World Trade Centre and killed over 3,500 people, and was likely to go on to commit further acts of terrorism?

[/quote]

There is a difference between catching a terrorist and forcing people to change their society so it is more likeable to Western tastes. Using that logic, I see no reason for not invading Pakistan (which, by the way, it is where this idiot was 'harboured').

If the reasons to go there are the ones proposing by Evelyn, I would disagree on going there, but I would understand them as a reason. But I won't buy that we went there and changed the ways of the civil population because we were looking to shut down a terrorist organization. It just doesn't make any sense.

[/quote]

Well, remember - Pakistan has nukes, and Afghanistan doesn't. Sometimes it's that simple.

Re: Politics and history

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:44:12 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]

[/quote]

Re: Politics and history

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:08:49 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

[/quote]

Re: Politics and history

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:47:55 GMT

Wynne