NEWS: Dear George, How Are The Middle East Democracies Going?

SG wingnuts, for when you're feeling less than fresh.

just an fyi, lots of Palestinians are Christians .. Allah isn't going to help them much. As to the rest, these people have been living in Jewish run prison camps for 50 years, I think they have the right to be pretty pissed off at this point.

That's one method that is easier than honest debate.

It's that simple is it? The failed Palestinian leadership has nothing to do with it? The inability to accept a two-state solution for decades, starting in 1947 and the latest attempt under Bill Clinton...no comments at all for the Palestinian leadership....just a "blame the Jews" mentality? What next? Revive the canard of the Jews killing Christ? Don't forget we love Christian baby blood for our matzahs also.

Yeah, because your method of saying HOW DARE YOU!!!! instead of actually refuting points with evidence to the contrary is totally honest debate.

I cannot imagine having to refute a comparision of the Nazi regime with any US administration. That strains all understanding of credibility.

I don't know. Six million dead Indians might disagree with you. If they weren't dead, that is.

I can't believe it took me this long to figure out who goatinamoat was. Dammit.

I honestly don't know how many Indians were killed by the white man, but to put just the US into this mix without including the Spanish would be shortsighted. However, you do have a good point. A much more intelligent reply than "I know who goatinthemoat is." Sigh. That said, I still would not compare Bush/Cheney to what happened to the Indians nor to the Nazis. There is such a thing as scale. All evils are not equal.

but you said ANY U.S. administration, not Bush/Cheney.

and i STILL don't know who goatinmoat is.

Actually, I guess I'm wrong. He was just strongly reminding me of UpTight, who was fond of sudden name changes. But the man doesn't live in America, and is probably still going by laughingboy after all.

So, yeah. Nevermind. Carry on.

I am new to the forums; I don't know who laughingboy is. Maybe he is someone that doesn't tow the liberal line? I see the forums are fairly hostile to those that don't have liberal views. It may be better just to lurk and not converse. I don't think people here really want their beliefs challenged.

No, all evils are not equal, I agree. But when it comes to genocides, I would hold that the differences are quantitative rather qualitative. The Holocaust was almost certainly the worst atrocity humans have ever deliberately inflicted upon their fellow men (with the arguable exceptions of certain Stalinist and Maoist actions), but it was scarcely uniquely evil, and the paths that led to it could be followed anywhere, by nearly anyone.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it's not a genocidal situation - at least as yet. There are definitely indications that it could become one, however, and whether or not that happens is not something that this administration shows any sign of being able to influence positively.

I would actually like to be proved wrong on that.

But even so, the war must stand as a black mark against our good name insofar as it was both catastrophic in its effects and unnecessary in its origins. It has been, effectively, an unmitigated crime against the people of Iraq (who are neither more free nor more secure than when we invaded), and a disastrous and dishonorable misuse of our soldiers.

I don't know what the solution is. I frankly doubt there is one, or at least a viable one. I can say, however, that this is not a crisis that couldn't have been both predicted and avoided with very little consequence, and for that, this administration deserves the full blame and moral censure.

1) The correct use of the phrase is toe the line, and 2) it's not the challenge itself as much as it is the poorly-executed hamfistedness of the typical attempt.

I stand corrected.

Fear the Reaper starts this thread wtih the hypothesis that George Bush is an idiot; I think this tone invites "hamfistedness." Regardless that was not what I was trying to do and if I came across that way, I apologize.

Looking to the recent post FTR has on Michael Moore, he says anyone who is not in favor of universal health care is a "moron." With this sort of slant, I think anyone who has an opposing view is setup to be "talked at" and verbally spit upon in such a forum. I admit that in political forums I am not a stranger to tough talk, but I am used to the moderators having a more civil tone and attempting to structure the discussions where give and take is welcome. Here it seems FTR posts and then it's up to everyone else to say, in some form or another "Yes I agree with you." Frankly, this becomes nothing more than an adversarial atmosphere to anyone who disagrees with the thread starter. Time for me to wind down what little I have done so far on the SG political forum; this is just not for me -- and again, it's not about the content; it's about the vitriol.

I can't help but think that if SG had someone like Zarth moderating/starting these threads, an actual circulation of ideas would be fostered.

Oh, fuck. Yeah, call their attention to me, why don't you? Asshole. Now it's just a matter of time till Zarth.

Oh, well. All good things . . .

I don't know. I would actively welcome any conservatives (or indeed non-liberals of whatever stripe) to these boards provided they were willing to engage in mannered, reasoned debate, preferably with credible sources to back up factual claims.

Unfortunately, this happens with depressing rarity. I think for one thing it's awfully tough to come up with reasoned defenses of the current administration. (Though there are a fair number of conservatives willing to concede that particular point.)

And yet so many radishes have internet connections. It's amazing.

Not sure if it has been mentioned, so flame me if it has;

A basic dictate of political theory is that the basis of democracies is a large, educated middle class. Throughout history, when a middle class forms, they begin to want better representation to have a say in their affairs with their newfound wealth and power. As their children become educated, they demand more power in governing their affairs as well. The problem isn't with Bush, or Democrats, but mainly because of many modern governments failure to grasp that there is no easy answer. These countries that need to be 'freed' of religious control and totalitarian regimes cannot be truly free until they have a hungry, educated middle class. The problem is recognizing that allowing that class to form (not have sanctions and so forth) is the strongest weapon. However, this is not a given either, as the totalitarian regimes will appropriate as much as they can for their own wealth, as well as take credit for the little bit the people get. It's a horrendous catch 22. Even Iran, which has over time demanded more freedoms as a middle, educated class formed, still is bound by the dual tug of 'who do we owe our fortune to.' Contrast that with China, which has become a more Socialist Democracy than Communist State in many ways with the advent of cities and trade.

These countries do not have a basis of historical democracy, nor do they have an easy way to form an educated middle class that values secular representation. Instead the are controlled by regimes that feed into a much larger and easily controled lower class; those are the dictates of a dictatorship or communist state.