The age of horrorism

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His novel Time's Arrow is utterly fantastic. Dynamite. Amazing. Awesome.

So, yeah, I liked it.

As for the OP, his first two points are what I have been saying for years. Aside from my personal feelings that democracy is an inherently bad thing, what kind of government do you think will be elected by a population that practice a religion base around religios law and government? And second, the only way to hold together 3 cultures who hate each other is either through armed and continuous millitary occuptation (like the British did it) or through iron-fisted totalitarianism, ala Saddam. Why SHOULD three cultures who hate each other be forced into the same state? It's like a recipe to ensure that the maximum possible number of people hate the situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong but didnt the South and North in the U.S. fail to get along at one point? If I recall correctly, I believe there were some doins and shufflin about because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely my point. One part of the country wanted to (peacefully) go their own way, the other launched a bloody military invasion and conquest, installed and ruled via muliple (highly corrupt) military dictatorships and puppet governments, with the result that one ethnic group bore the brunt of another's violent resentment for over a century.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that there are always a ton of people who tell you why you can't do something. They are always bitching and whining when anyone tries something even remotely difficult. I am not speaking about you but all the uppity pundits who write about such things.

Maybe Iraq ends in disaster. Maybe it was a terrible idea in the first place. But, the idea of getting rid of corrupt dictators who oppress their people and then replacing those dictators with democracy and freedom is a fight worth having.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. You've totally ignored the OP.

Just to make this perfectly clear, imagine a country run by a brutal dictator. But the majority of the populace are only slightly less brutal relgious fanatics of three different sects who each believe in their own supremacy and the righteousness of the supremacy of their religious law and the subjugation of the other two sects.

What do you believe will be the result of installing democracy in such a country?

Note that I am not claiming that this is the exact case in Iraq; I am using an extreme example where the consequences are clear to make a point.

[hmkpoker]

Two countries, country A and country B, border each other. They are bitter rivals, with very different ideologies. The leaders of A and B decide to merge and form the Democratic People's Republic of AB. The laws of DPRAB are a mixture of both ideologies. The A people now have to live with B's rules, and the B people now have to live with A's rules.

Is this a good thing?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
only the sack of Mecca or Medina

[/ QUOTE ]


That got my heart fluttering there. What a beautiful picture that phrase paints in my mind. Payback for Manzikert, Acre and Jerusalem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Manzikert? Are you insane?

[/ QUOTE ]


Why? It was the proximate cause of the crusades as it was the reason Byzantine Emp. Alexius I asked for help from Catholic Christians to battle the Islamic Seljuk Turks who also held the Holy Land.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
only the sack of Mecca or Medina

[/ QUOTE ]


That got my heart fluttering there. What a beautiful picture that phrase paints in my mind. Payback for Manzikert, Acre and Jerusalem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Manzikert? Are you insane?

[/ QUOTE ]


Why? It was the proximate cause of the crusades as it was the reason Byzantine Emp. Alexius I asked for help from Catholic Christians to battle the Islamic Seljuk Turks who also held the Holy Land.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm familiar with the battle and its historical significance, but it is unclear to me why any sane person would feel that the Battle of Manzikert needs to be avenged by sacking Mecca or Medina. If this was, you know 1100, I could see how you might get back at the Turks by attacking their holy sites, but considering that it was almost a thousand years ago, it seems like you'd just be victimizing a bunch of innocents.

[BluffTHIS!]

The radical Islamists and their terrorist minions would be right at home back then. Besides Islamic terrorism, the current oppression of Christians and others in the Sudan, the mistreatment of Christians working in Islamic countries like Filipina maids who have been raped and beaten and condemned when they complained, the violent attempts to impose Shari'a on non-Moslems in northern Nigeria and other Islamic countries, the denial of the freedom for Moslems to convert or face the death penalty and the restrictions on the ability of Christians to freely practice and prosyletize their religion in majority Moslem countries, all speak to the continuous line of aggressive violence by Islam on non-believers from before the crusades down to today. All the while those same Moslems in majority Christian countries enjoy the freedom to openly practice and prosyletize their religion.

Yeah I know, you and others have some stories and beliefs about "moderate Moslems" who suppposedly don't agree with or do those things, but who also don't stand up to those in their own religion who do. Save it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems like you'd just be victimizing a bunch of innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since when would that bother him? Have you not read anything he's written about N. Korea?

[Borodog]

Nuke 'em!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
His novel Time's Arrow

[/ QUOTE ]

Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.

-- Marx

[andyfox]

"Payback for Manzikert, Acre and Jerusalem."

Hasn't the statute of limitations passed on those? And isn't the concept of payback largely responsible for the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in just now?

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Precisely my point. One part of the country wanted to (peacefully) go their own way, the other launched a bloody military invasion and conquest, installed and ruled via muliple (highly corrupt) military dictatorships and puppet governments, with the result that one ethnic group bore the brunt of another's violent resentment for over a century.

[/ QUOTE ]So, the U.S. should have just let the South go? Are you suggesting that the path prewar to now would have been +EV over current baseline if the war never happened? Also, if Minnesota simply wanted to leave the U.S. we should let them to avoid violence?

[ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't. You've totally ignored the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I thought they were silly so I disregarded them. That is much different [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you believe will be the result of installing democracy in such a country?

[/ QUOTE ]Dont know. I am guessing if it was done right there would be a chance of success. Human behavior for all is driven by the same fundamental genetic laws. No one is destined to slaughter and be slaughtered. Cooperation is in our blood.