THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

At the moment, I am wondering what would happen if the West were to completely withdraw its military from the Middle East. Would the people of the Middle East eventually abandon their apostasy principle? That is, would they abandon their adherence to the principle that apostates--those who abandon or defect from their previous loyalty or allegiance to Islam--shall be murdered, and those who refuse to ever be loyal to or or hold allegiance to Islam are people who must eventually be subjugated by Islam?

If not, isn't it too unrealistic to expect peace to be achieved within the Middle East without it being completely conquered by at least one Middle East state that completely rejects the apostasy principle?

ican wrote :

Quote:

At the moment, I am wondering what would happen if the West were to completely withdraw its military from the Middle East. Would the people of the Middle East eventually abandon their apostasy principle? That is, would they abandon their adherence to the principle that apostates--those who abandon or defect from their previous loyalty or allegiance to Islam--shall be murdered, and those who refuse to ever be loyal to or or hold allegiance to Islam are people who must eventually be subjugated by Islam?

If not, isn't it too unrealistic to expect peace to be achieved within the Middle East without it being completely conquered by at least one Middle East state that completely rejects the apostasy principle?

perhaps looking back at the european/western history from about 1500 to 1900 gives us some idea what we MIGHT expect to happen in the midle-east - and to a lesser extent in asia .
many bloody religious wars were fought during that period between various religious groups - i'm suere all of us have some idea how bloody they were .
looking at what happened - and still happens - in the former jugoslavia shows how difficult it is to try and get people to live in peace - even when some the opposing factions call themselves CHRISTIAN .

i wouldn't want to suggest that the middle-east necessarily has to go through religious wars for several more hundred years .

my hope is that , by getting many nations/governments to sit down and talk to each other , they might find a way to realize that they can live with each other without continous war-like action .

i'm sure such process would be very difficult and very time consuming ; but i believe it might be better than the current situation .

even looking at ireland and great britain shows how people speaking the same language and being similar in many respects - even related through marriage ! - have had a tortuous relationship .
while the british and the irish now seem to have come to a more peaceful relationship , every now and then trouble flares up - and will probably continue to flare up for some time .
it just seems to me that the long negotiations have at least brought some peace to the people .

can we really expect the people of the middle-east to become more enlightened than the people of the western world in just a few years ?

i'm beginning to ramble , so i better stop .
hbg

Actually, that sounds like a good idea.

Let all western countries pull ALL of their military and civilian personnel out of the middle east.
That includes UN observers, medical personnel, oil techs, tourists, everyone.

...

The Mideast Won't Change from Within
By MOHAMMED FADHIL
May 31, 2008; Page A9 Wall Street Journal

The Middle East has witnessed dramatic changes over the past few years, including the adoption in some countries - Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories - of the democratic system as the means for the transfer of political power. Though all of these countries are still troubled, the huge turnouts in all three electoral processes were clear evidence of the willingness of their peoples to switch to ballots over bullets.

Unfortunately, some Arab intellectuals seem bent on rejecting democracy as a foreign - in particular, Western - concept. I recall before Saddam's fall that many were repeating a slogan that says "No America and No Saddam," which ostensibly aimed at touting a nationalistic project for change. Today the same slogans are reiterated; sometimes out of good will and naïveté, other times to support the totalitarians and the extremists. People keep saying that if both Iran and the U.S. had stayed out of our business we would have been able to solve our problems on our own.

In my opinion this fantasy about change in isolation from foreign influence is ridiculous. The Middle East is not like Eastern Europe - where the countries that underwent a change were surrounded by old and well-established democracies and the Soviet Union was falling apart. Had the latter factor not been the case, democracies in Eastern Europe would've been silenced for God knows how many more decades.

Similarly, it's naïve to expect democracies that emerge from isolated nationalistic initiatives, without backing from outside powers, would ever be welcomed by the neighbors in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria. The idea that these states wouldn't interfere if America and the West did not is laughable.

Just look at Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanon, even though America did not lead the change the way it did in Iraq. And while Gaza and Beirut have fallen to the extremists, Baghdad has not. The reason is the American presence that continues to protect the democratic process.

Change with support from the outside, especially the West, is a necessity. First of all, the neighbors would not let these democracies take a breath and second, democracy is a concept that emerged and evolved in the West. For the Middle East it's like importing a medicine that we didn't manufacture. The usage and dosage instructions are necessary.

Toppling Saddam's regime was half the way to democracy, and now it's become clear that protecting the newborn democracy is just as crucial a job as overthrowing the dictator. There's absolutely no doubt that the American presence in Iraq has been the biggest factor in protecting Iraq from coup attempts by extremists - be it al Qaeda to declare an Islamic state, or the hard-line Shiite movements.

It is obvious that in the Middle East there's a real war raging between the supporters of extremism and totalitarianism and those of democracy and tolerance. The choice before the world is whether it will support one side by doing something, or the other by doing nothing.
Mr. Fadhil co-writes a blog, IraqtheModel.com.

I only said "accused", mind. They deny it so far.

Just like they denied and then re-defined torture.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=torture&x=25&y=9
Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: trchr, -()ch(r
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura act of twisting, torture, from Latin tortus (past participle of torqure to twist, wind, torture) + -ura -ure; akin to Old High German drhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle, Sanskrit tarku
1 a : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding) to punish or coerce someone : torment or agony induced to penalize religious or political dissent or nonconformity, to extort a confession or a money contribution, or to give sadistic pleasure to the torturer <no> b obsolete : an implement of torture
2 a : anguish of body or mind : excruciating agony : extremity of suffering <long torture with Parkinson's disease -- John Mason Brown> <she> b : an extreme annoyance or severe irritation : an intense strain : something pernicious or baneful : PLAGUE <plays> <many>
3 : distortion, overrefinement, or perversion of a meaning, an argument, or a line of thought or reasoning : STRAINING <no>
4 : the subjecting of material or equipment to extreme strain or abuse as a test of strength, endurance, or quality <cars>

What is so bothersome about this administration is their attempts to find ways to make sure none in his administration are charged with crimes now or after Bush leaves office. If they haven't broken any US or international laws, why do they want to seek protection now?

This is interesting, and I notice that none of the "Iraq is a failure" crowd are acknowledging it at all...

Quote:

Cool. So can we declare victory, bring our troops home and stop spending $12B a month? I, for one, who went through the last year or two in Vietnam, could certainly live with that. The UN is giving us an out.
"World leaders" will, I assume, offer to send soldiers from their own countries to take over for us in this happy time of peace and love in Iraq, and also offer to send lots and lots of money. They will do that. Won't they?

This is interesting, and I notice that none of the "Iraq is a failure" crowd are acknowledging it at all...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPmfoMR0GDFx8KkGeO3BPlY4qsGg

Quote:

So now we have other countries, including some that opposed the US, saying that progress IS being made in Iraq and that the situation IS improving.

This is interesting, and I notice that none of the "Iraq is a failure" crowd are acknowledging it at all...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPmfoMR0GDFx8KkGeO3BPlY4qsGg

Quote:

So now we have other countries, including some that opposed the US, saying that progress IS being made in Iraq and that the situation IS improving.

When you drop something to the bottom of a well, then start to lift it out, the situation is improving.

... I posted a few days ago an article about UN saying Iraq conditions are improving. I have said myself that the conditions are improving in Iraq numerous times on various threads. So; do I get a cookie or what?
...