Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Optimism in the Middle East? - Minitokyo

Optimism in the Middle East?

page 1 of 1 17 total items

bbls

bbls

Lazy days...

Quote by shinsengumiPeople in countries such as the Iraq of Saddam Hussein truly wanted freedom and the ability to order their lives as they wished. They yearned for democracy, and were willing to risk death to be able to determine their own futures, and indeed some sixty lost their lives because they went to vote on 31 January. The same is true throughout the Middle east; in Iran, student movements have taken heart because democratic governance has taken hold in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likewise in Saudi Arabia, partially in response to what has been going on in Iraq, the government is passing reforms to allow for broader sufferage, allowing women to have a say in government for the first time ever.


your comments about democracy taking hold in afghanistan and iraq have reminded me that there is a possibility that the bush doctrine to take a preemptive strike in iraq may have a domino effect in the middle east...of course, a very slow domino effect. there was also a democratic election in palestine after the passing of yasser arafat, egyptian president mubarak announced free elections for the presidency, and syria pulled out of lebanon (let's hope they don't revert to violence, which kicked us out due to the beirut bombings).
the vast majority of iran's population is quite young and perhaps they'll push for some democratic changes.

yes, change in the middle east seems slow, but democracy cannot be established over night. and in this age of 24/7 news channels and instantaneous communication, we expect change to happen at lightning fast speed. i might be incredibly naive for hoping for positive change in the middle east.

i'd like to hear what you guys think if progress there will be possible...and i hope we can keep this civil.. :)

Don't worry about tomorrow, don't think about yesterday,
don't live in the future, just make it through today!

Signature Image

I believe that any discussions of this sort could stay civil if everyone takes the time to reflect and respect the other person's point of view. I'd also like to point out that these kind of topics are welcomed. I would love to say I had the time to sit down and just share my opinions on every subject possible but I have chosen to do otherwise. This is my decision and I do encourage others to participate as much as they can (Spam forums are great to unwind, hell I needed to unwind for the past month or so.)

To reflect upon the situation in the Middle East, you will have to go back further than what had happened with the past 2 Iraq wars. The heated struggles which had shaken and unfortunately formed this part of the world had been nothing new. Some would go back to the Bible time and the arrival of Israeli in the land of Canaan. Some others would go to the schism between the too different main factions within the Muslim world. No matter where they would go in time, the struggle there had always been the same. Religion and politics have always been entangled within each other there.

Remember, this part of the world had never really been able to know true peace. They were either occupied or warmongering against each other. (Assyria, Babylon, Roman Empire, Persian, Sassanide persian empire, Crusades, Turkish influence, Colonialism, German and so on and so forth.). These poor populations had only to stand from an occupation that another war would come to blast them away. Where's the stability in there right?

Seemingly, Religious leaders and political parties have always been sharing the strings of whatever puppet government had been placed there. Is that another part of the story or something else completely different? You decide. There are plenty of facts or arguments that could topple for either ways....

Thankfully, our world as a whole is continuing to ascend in its evolution and the term and possibilities of that "global village" does bring a certain support everywhere there is a will. So yes, there is a will to change there. Everyone is hoping to stand and some are willing to die for this liberty (hopefully some extremist factions wouldn't take them as martyrs for their cause. I mean they possibly were the ones who killed them after all) but it is by being able to stand in the same direction that they will be able to change things.

The brainwashing ideologism that had been sank into the cultures within those countries are slowly and finally coming to an end. People are able now to communicate outside of their own communities. It is changing, slowly but surely....Remember just this...This crescent had been doomed with too many hardship for far too long...Give it time and the chance, they will stand on their own. Changing a whole culture takes a lot of effort. I'm sure we are just seeing the top of the iceberg.

crewcifix

crewcifix

Christian Boy

i hope for peace, not only in one place, but in everyone's hearts too. <3

Feel the Rain on Your Skin. No One Else can Feel it For You. Only You Can Let it in.
Signature Image
-=Admin&Mod=- Flip | Ice and Snow | Nippon Foods | TSubasa | Pure Light Love | Assistance Coalescence | Make a Friend | FMWS | Syaoran shrine | Filipino Comm. | Sakura | Sea | Pokemon League | SS shrine | The Real Folk Blues | English | McDonald's

EternalParadox

Retired Moderator

EternalParadox

.:Enigma Mod:.

The chance for lasting peace lies within the general population's concerted effort to reject fundamentlist doctrines and to embrace tolerance rather than violence. The current Wahhabi monarchy in Saudi Arabia, for example, refuses to allow any individual to practice anything other than their specific branch of Wahhabi Islam; to do so warrants immediate death. Even worship in the privacy of one's home is forbidden. Same thing in Iran, where not only are non-Muslims oppresses by the Shiite government, but also Sunni Muslims.

Each of these examples are governments who take Shariah law to the utter extreme. The complete lack of the idea of toleration and the continued indoctrination of a nation's youth in these ideologies of hate prevents any lasting change between neighbors of differing faiths. To affect change, the people of these nations must by themselves choose to cast aside their fears and to choose to reject these hateful preachings of their governments. A concerted movement by the general populace toward tolerance of other faiths and away from unneeded hatred and violence is I believe the only way for peace to take root.

America's injection of democratic values into the Middle East can at most be a beginning. If the people of that region does not embrace democratic principles, if the people of that region continue to live in constant struggle to survive by the destruction of another, then however much military, economic, or diplomatic intervention the US can muster, none will succeed. The final result of the Iraq War to spread democracy will lie in how much the example of the Iraqis going to the polls will have on the rest of the Middle East. When that part of the world as a whole moves toward freedom and democracy, then peace can have a real lasting chance.

EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator

beyondmeasure

From the mind comes the query.

I think progress there is possible, but, however, a few nations aside from the aforementioned countries will bask in the glory of democracy, to say the most, worst-case, the so-called progress will collapse into distractive anarchy.

im gona say this once.
americans pay attention

1. people of middle east are NOT some sort of barbarian/barbaric tribes that have killed each other since begining of time.

2. america aka USA isnt an eqalitarian society were people tolerate each other. example gays and muslims....so why is the east ment to be when you can even manige it?

3. your country says that it wants to expand democracy in mid east and yet supports the mornarchy of saudia arabia. this is stupid at best.

yes the mid east can become democratic, if it wants. Not every person wants democracy. So dont go around invading countries on the basis that you know arabs so well, that without elections you can tell what the people think.

america is part of teh problem because it has a versted interest...should i name some allies it has in that region.

lastly if america actually tried to expand democracy(honestly) then at best it can begin teh process. but the strings attached to its "democracy" take the people 2 steps back for every step forward!

be pessimistic so that youll never be disapointed and will live a happy life.

LigerZSchnider

LigerZSchnider

Litterbox Trained........

Quote by pepeoim gona say this once.
americans pay attention

1. people of middle east are NOT some sort of barbarian/barbaric tribes that have killed each other since begining of time.

2. america aka USA isnt an eqalitarian society were people tolerate each other. example gays and muslims....so why is the east ment to be when you can even manige it?

3. your country says that it wants to expand democracy in mid east and yet supports the mornarchy of saudia arabia. this is stupid at best.

yes the mid east can become democratic, if it wants. Not every person wants democracy. So dont go around invading countries on the basis that you know arabs so well, that without elections you can tell what the people think.

america is part of teh problem because it has a versted interest...should i name some allies it has in that region.

lastly if america actually tried to expand democracy(honestly) then at best it can begin teh process. but the strings attached to its "democracy" take the people 2 steps back for every step forward!

Obviously you don't have a clue, do you? :hmpf:

1. You're right, Arabs aren't barbarians and kill each other: Some are maniacial and most just have a problem with just killing all westerners, and those who simply don't believe in the Koran.

2. US Americans aren't a eqalitarian society, we never meant to be. But you have the occasional "assholes" who likes to keep things out of balance. You can find them all over the globe. Call it human nature to screw things up for others......

3. We don't want to expand Democracy, we like it right where it is. If others want to try it on for size then fine, so be it. Cuba tried Democracy, then decided that a dictatorship was better. We are cool with that.......the Soviet Union was Communist (or Socialist), and now trying on the Democracy pants to see if that fits; that is okay too. As long as Americans can sleep well at night, we pretty much don't care what the world does. Unless they decides to bring us harm. Thats is when we will send them back into the Stone Age..... ;)

BTW, keep in mind that Saudi Arabia was ALWAYS a monarchy, and they didn't align with the US until Saddam tried make their land his beachfront property.

If you want to know a little bit of history, Isreal, came asking for our help a long time ago. And America helped out. Since the rest of the Arab world hates Isreal (with the exception of India) they decided to hate us. And they did what ever it took to piss us off. September 11, 2001, they succeeded. But now we are in their backyard. Oh well, sucks to be them.....If you don't want us in your backyard, then leave us alone. That is the problem with people these days.....always meddling.

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it" - Erwin Rommel

i said number 1 because there are peole out there who think that arabs need to be guided to the enlightenment of democracy.

number 3
well, its not what i hear. the facts are that expanding democracy is a foriegn relations issue. Thats why you elect governments and your current government has said that it wasnts to "spread democracy" in the middle east.

yup ur really cool with cuba, umm since they tried socialism isnted of a corrupt american supported government, you have had sactions for over 30 years.

btw russia is looking like democracy but in truth its becoming more dictatorial than USSr ever was.

reason why america is hated politicaly by arabs is coz they have biastly supported the israeli side of the conflict. Especially in the UN...60-80 un resolutions that are telling israel to withdraw and guess what only US, australia and Israel vote negatively. thats 150+ nations for 3 agaist...i wonder why they might get pissed after 30 years of this shit!


btw i get ur " they harm us, we bring em back to stone age theory" but what about the arabs
when u give israel advanced weapons u bring harm to arabs. SO isnt it fair for arabs to bring harm to u 2?

i believe the US+ rest of world
should but out of the middle east and let them sort it out. this involves not giving support(military especially) to any1, even if they ask

be pessimistic so that youll never be disapointed and will live a happy life.

LigerZSchnider

LigerZSchnider

Litterbox Trained........

Look at it this way:

If you see two guys beating up your cousin, you'll jump in to help right? It is somewhat the same principle. I don't know why the US got involved then, but that was then we simply gave Isreal the means to defend themselves, just like we've done with Japan. Does that mean you pick a fight with someone cause they helped out? If you think so, then good luck, for you are about to get your butt kicked! As far as I can see, Isreal isn't the aggressor, the rest of the arab world is! They haven't invaded any other countries, declared war against their neighbors, nothing. However, there has been attempts by other arab nations to bring harm to Isreal Saddam in 91 and now the threats by the Iranian president. Its a classic case of a high school scenerio:

The Arab world (the Jocks) picks on the Isreal (the Nerd). The New Kid (the US), a rebellious but thoughtful lad, helps out the Nerd. Thus brings the wrath of the Jocks on the New Kid. But the New Kid isn't a sissy and can fight back.......you take it from there.........

If the rest of the Arab World is mad cause we supplied Isreal withsome outdated and obsolite (sp) weapons to defend themselves, then why not got to the Soviet Union for arms (and some did) instead of picking a fight that can get their country turned into a sheet of glass or a parking lot?

As for the last statement, you should see that that isn't the issue. many people who tried to help those nations there in need are getting killed simply because they are westeners, not the military nor Americans. Like I said before, they believe in the fact that if you don't believe in Allah, then you are a infidel and should die.

merged: 12-12-2005 ~ 12:01am
Take a look at Cuba now.....its only a matter of time when that system of government will ultimatelty fail. If the people in a country can't be involved in creating a better society for themselves, then something bad is going to happen.

Look kid, face it; every government isn't perfect. You will have corruption of some sort within it. China, N. Korea, S. Korea, Cuba, United States, Russia , G.B.......every freaking government has some form of corruption. It is ran by humans that has their own basic needs for themselves. Show me a perfect human and I'll call him a liar. Every government official on this planet is getting paid! Do you think they want to simply give up this kind of power for the greater good or their country? Why do you think Bush ran for reelection? :\

The quest for power is one of the humans basic needs, period.

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it" - Erwin Rommel

israel's not the agressor ...partly true
arabs attacked 2 times and israel attacked 2-3 times.

btw america supplies weapons to israel every year and they arent obsolete unless black hawk chopers are obsolete now...in realation to the countries in the middle east they are not obsolete weapons.

the arab israeli issue isnt as simple are u put it. i could illustrate the point by showing you 2 site one jewish other one iranian.

jewish one says thats arabs are dogs that must be killed.(obviously im not gona put it up)
the iranian one would be what the president said(self explanotory)
my point is that both side have kind and loving people and hate filled ones. NOT fing black and white!

anywho did u know that more people are leaving the occupied territories+israel than being born+migrating... so the state isnt sustainable in it current form.

i agree with the point on human greed. but in the real world there is no good side and bad side. both sides make allot of mistakes.

ive lost the will to argue anymore, we should let other people voice their opinions.

be pessimistic so that youll never be disapointed and will live a happy life.

candy-chan

Retired Moderator

candy-chan

Quote: If you see two guys beating up your cousin, you'll jump in to help right? It is somewhat the same principle. I don't know why the US got involved then, but that was then we simply gave Isreal the means to defend themselves, just like we've done with Japan. Does that mean you pick a fight with someone cause they helped out

You are extremely naive if you think USA was being altruist when it helped Israel and Japan.

As for hope in Middle-east, I believe the West should move out of there, and fast. Including Israel and western military occupations.

Ayamael

Ayamael

yumemitai

Quote by candy-chan

Quote: If you see two guys beating up your cousin, you'll jump in to help right? It is somewhat the same principle. I don't know why the US got involved then, but that was then we simply gave Isreal the means to defend themselves, just like we've done with Japan. Does that mean you pick a fight with someone cause they helped out

You are extremely naive if you think USA was being altruist when it helped Israel and Japan.

As for hope in Middle-east, I believe the West should move out of there, and fast. Including Israel and western military occupations.


LOLL... yup, the US weren't altruist.. if i believe that geography book i'm currently studying for the exam i have tomorrow, (it's in French, so...), Washington had 2 reasons to develop a relationship with Israel back in the 70s and help them : weaken the nationalist Arab States and reduce the Soviet Union's ardor, coz' they were counting on an alliance with those States...

As for the democracy in the Middle East... well, i suck at politics, strategies and so on... so i don't really have an opinion about it or a prevision. (someone is preparing to fail her exam tomorrow >.<)

I think things are looking up in the world. If these countries, albiet very slowly, are giving their people the rights they should have, it is a good thing. Now that I said that, I will say that these pro democracy movements in the Middle East can be directly attributed to actions in Iraq. Which is a good thing. If the other counties hadn't seen the results of a "test" system of democracy, they wouldn't have bothered trying it out themselves.
Is there really any reason to start pointing out any bad things(very small ones) that have arrised from the war? Let me ask any detractors this-Would you rather have Saddam in power? His sanctions raised, and the same old thing happening in the Middle East, but worse? After seeing the sanctions raised, other radical counties in the region would have seen this as a victory against not only the US, but the UN as well. They could then spread their radical ideals farther and wider. More and more would be turned to their "anti everyone but us" cause. 9-11 would have galvinized many of the radicals beliefs about their chances in the "Holy war" they believe themselves to be on. I believe that many more attacks would have happened if: A-the sanctions were raise. B-Saddam was left in power. C-There would be a lot more people dead right now had this action not taken place.

Is this war popular among some of the nations of the world? No. Do many not really care? Yeah. Are foreign troops going to pull out soon(not totally but in reasonable numbers)? Yeah. In the long run, will it prove to be a better choice than letting Saddam stay in power? I think so. I think people should take a look at the big picture and the long term, instead of focusing on their own opinions and ideals. That is the difference between an educated guess and an opinion.

And we all know the saying- Opinions are like A-holes, everyone has one, and they all stink. This is especially true when it comes to inflammatory ones made to chime on people's nerves Pepeo. Please note that the original querry did not mention the United States once. The question was about the growing movement of democracy and rights in the middle east, not who initiated it. Like the first few post said, keep it civil.

(...)

candy-chan

Retired Moderator

candy-chan

Quote by JLSL
Is there really any reason to start pointing out any bad things(very small ones) that have arrised from the war? Let me ask any detractors this- Would you rather have Saddam in power? His sanctions raised, and the same old thing happening in the Middle East, but worse? After seeing the sanctions raised, other radical counties in the region would have seen this as a victory against not only the US, but the UN as well. (...) I believe that many more attacks would have happened if: A-the sanctions were raise. B-Saddam was left in power. C-There would be a lot more people dead right now had this action not taken place.


Oh another naive post.
The United States of America dis not attack Iraq to free it's people from evil dictator Hussein. In fact, USA's history prooves they helped many dictators come to power. Must I remind you of Chili? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Tibet? Afghanistan?
Must I also remind you half of the Al-Quaeda terrorists were trained by the American military in a Mexican base?

OMG, Candy-Chan-did you even read what the thread was about genious?! Maybe if you pulled your head out of your rectum, you would notice that this thread has nothing to do with the US, it has to do with the positive impact the democratic movement has had on the rest of the Middle East. Yes the war was a catolist for this change, but it didn't matter who started it. Whether the US was to gain and what their motives were are not the question here.

Instead flaming someone on viable view and what may have happened had a war not happened, why don't you actually write an opinion pertinent to the original post, instead of country bashing. I will say this once again-The original post has no mention of the United States in it.

Another thing, when did I ever expressly point out that the US invaded Iraq and overthrew him for some noble cause? Oh, wait, I didn't. I mentioned that lifted sanctions would be seen as a victory against "NOT ONLY the US, BUT the UN as well". And what about the second abriged part of your quote. The series of thoughts starts out with "I believe". Not "The US prvented" or "Because if America wouldn't have". You are the naive one in thinking I was schilling American ideology, I was stating what I thought would have happened had Saddam stayed in power. I can clearly see where your motives lie. I can keep calm about someone who doesn't quite understand something I write. But your purpose was is to blatantly bash the US for no reason, and in doing so, launch a personal attack at me, by calling me naive. Pleas stay on the original topic.

candy-chan

Retired Moderator

candy-chan

I'm sorry if this is news for you but the United States of America has everything to do with the new arival of Democratic tryouts in middle east. Now if you'll excuse me but my reply was particularly not off-topic. Besides it looks as though you cannot read because Bush is indeed spoken of by bbls

And you are the one ranting, insulting and flaming, speaking of my rectum. Please take a good look at yourself before defending your little person in an aggressive way.

I do not wish to spam this interesting thread, this will be my last post.

Good, I know I was being insulting, as was my point. But once again you are wrong.

"your comments about democracy taking hold in afghanistan and iraq have reminded me that there is a possibility that the bush doctrine to take a preemptive strike in iraq may have a domino effect in the middle east" -bbls

This has nothing to do directly with the acts of the US. Instead he is reminded that the overthrowing of the dictatorship in Iraq, and the later democtatic elections may have inadvertently spurred democratic movements in the rest of the middle east as stated in his quote of shinsengumi. Comprehension is the key.
If I took what was said out of context, perhaps I was wrong but...

" Oh another naive post.
The United States of America dis not attack Iraq to free it's people from evil dictator Hussein. In fact, USA's history prooves they helped many dictators come to power. Must I remind you of Chili? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Tibet? Afghanistan?
Must I also remind you half of the Al-Quaeda terrorists were trained by the American military in a Mexican base?" -candy-chan

What does this have to do with the original post at all? Or mine for that matter. Nothing, it is just a jab made to raise a response. And it did, albiet in the wrong way. I will not perpetuate a country vs country train of thought. Proving or disproving anyones beliefs that America is a bad country is not my point. Stating that I was not partial to your comments was my goal. As well as calling me naive, you tried to extrapolate that I was, in some way, trying to schill American views on the invasion. You were wrong.

I know I got off topic, but I think that is warranted a response.

page 1 of 1 17 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.