Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
running commentary on middle east policy and news.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 49312" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Saddam_Hussein" target="_blank">Trial of Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></p><p></p><p>While some dispute any trial as being politically motivated, the apparent crimes of Saddam against his people were hard to dispute. Efforts were made to give him as fair a "civilian" trial as possible, while I'm sure there was a motivation compelling the interim leadership to eliminate any possibility of him returning to power, that fueled hope for the insurgency. </p><p></p><p>I would contrast how Saddam's trial was handled with the recent treatment of Libya's Khadaffi, and other failed dictators in the region. Deposed dictators rarely get much accommodation from succeeding governments. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Should be a single goal for the entire world. While it is not our job, and we don't have the resources to impose our ideals on the world, we have long promoted liberty and freedom for all people. </p><p></p><p>On a more practical level, the west has economic interests in the region (oil,, duh), and it is incredibly difficult to ignore groups who actively plot the destruction of the west, to restore a conservative religious rule over the entire world. Many dismiss this as ramblings of few crazies, but this very small fraction of the overall muslim community is tolerated by the more moderate majority perhaps out of fear based appeasement. </p><p></p><p></p><p>More cliches, what do you propose? Prosecuting terror attacks after the fact as simple criminal activity, allows an increasing amount of this terrorist activity in the west, unless we proactively protect ourselves by searching out and neutralizing these bad actors. The hard part is to balance this security activity against personal privacy and individual freedoms.</p><p></p><p>If there was prosperity and rule of law everywhere, there would be no place for terrorist to base and operate from. Spreading economic prosperity around the world is one leg of the stool to promote world peace. </p><p></p><p>I am critical of the expansion of drone use. Just like one nuclear bomb can serve as a deterrent, the spread of the technology too widely can be destabilizing. What rational person thinks drones will not get used by terrorists, to wage their asymmetrical warfare? The technological threshold for drones is certainly lower than for nuclear weapons while a barrier (so far). </p><p></p><p>The UN is mostly a "feel good" organization, but it doesn't hurt to give even the crazies a platform to speak. The UN needs to focus on things they can actually do. Even their record as a neutral police force is not without blemishes </p><p></p><p>Funny you mention China... our ability to influence them wrt human rights tracks along with their economic trade and dependance on us for that revenue. At the moment China is preparing for another transition of internal leadership at the top of their government with rumblings from a less western aligned candidate. If he should gain power that could lead them to walk back recent progress there. I don't see how they could ever take back what they have already given their citizens in recent decades without a fight, but it wouldn't be the first time they decided to reeducate their own citizens. </p><p></p><p>Besides the Uyghars, China's treatment of Tibet is also not appropriate for a modern world power, but be aware, it could get a lot worse if the next government shifts away from the west. Then the Uyghars would be low on the list of the west's complaints with them. Right now China's thirst for energy and resources has led them to align with the wrong side (IMO) in many regional conflicts. They don't block the west for idealogical reasons, but in competition for the same world resources and economic power (Darfur/Sudan/oil... do the math). </p><p></p><p>Of course I could be wrong... </p><p></p><p>JR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 49312, member: 126"] Re: running commentary on middle east policy and news. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Saddam_Hussein]Trial of Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] While some dispute any trial as being politically motivated, the apparent crimes of Saddam against his people were hard to dispute. Efforts were made to give him as fair a "civilian" trial as possible, while I'm sure there was a motivation compelling the interim leadership to eliminate any possibility of him returning to power, that fueled hope for the insurgency. I would contrast how Saddam's trial was handled with the recent treatment of Libya's Khadaffi, and other failed dictators in the region. Deposed dictators rarely get much accommodation from succeeding governments. Should be a single goal for the entire world. While it is not our job, and we don't have the resources to impose our ideals on the world, we have long promoted liberty and freedom for all people. On a more practical level, the west has economic interests in the region (oil,, duh), and it is incredibly difficult to ignore groups who actively plot the destruction of the west, to restore a conservative religious rule over the entire world. Many dismiss this as ramblings of few crazies, but this very small fraction of the overall muslim community is tolerated by the more moderate majority perhaps out of fear based appeasement. More cliches, what do you propose? Prosecuting terror attacks after the fact as simple criminal activity, allows an increasing amount of this terrorist activity in the west, unless we proactively protect ourselves by searching out and neutralizing these bad actors. The hard part is to balance this security activity against personal privacy and individual freedoms. If there was prosperity and rule of law everywhere, there would be no place for terrorist to base and operate from. Spreading economic prosperity around the world is one leg of the stool to promote world peace. I am critical of the expansion of drone use. Just like one nuclear bomb can serve as a deterrent, the spread of the technology too widely can be destabilizing. What rational person thinks drones will not get used by terrorists, to wage their asymmetrical warfare? The technological threshold for drones is certainly lower than for nuclear weapons while a barrier (so far). The UN is mostly a "feel good" organization, but it doesn't hurt to give even the crazies a platform to speak. The UN needs to focus on things they can actually do. Even their record as a neutral police force is not without blemishes Funny you mention China... our ability to influence them wrt human rights tracks along with their economic trade and dependance on us for that revenue. At the moment China is preparing for another transition of internal leadership at the top of their government with rumblings from a less western aligned candidate. If he should gain power that could lead them to walk back recent progress there. I don't see how they could ever take back what they have already given their citizens in recent decades without a fight, but it wouldn't be the first time they decided to reeducate their own citizens. Besides the Uyghars, China's treatment of Tibet is also not appropriate for a modern world power, but be aware, it could get a lot worse if the next government shifts away from the west. Then the Uyghars would be low on the list of the west's complaints with them. Right now China's thirst for energy and resources has led them to align with the wrong side (IMO) in many regional conflicts. They don't block the west for idealogical reasons, but in competition for the same world resources and economic power (Darfur/Sudan/oil... do the math). Of course I could be wrong... JR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
running commentary on middle east policy and news.
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!