Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure

#41 by freethinker

Iqbal was in an intellectual quandary because Ata Turk was his Mard-e-Momin and the perfect man. Now he was put into a difficult situation. Iqbal rationalized it by arguing that although Islam does not allow the abolition of khilafat, there was no verdict from the recognized Islamic authority (such as Jaamah al-Azhar) against Ata Turk’s installation of democracy in Turkey. This was a lame rationalization.

This verdict is a bit hasty. There appears no contradiction between Iqbal being opposed to conventional democracy/seperation of religion & state, and his support for Ataturk for the reason that he did not accept the clergy`s Islam being same as the Mard-e-Momin`s Islam. He perhaps believed Ataturk to be that and may have been disappointed, but never changed his stance.

See below from 1936:



Anyway, echoboom is more qualified on the subject, and may like to shed some light.

Re: # 39 exactly, if you see US realtions with democracies, they are much cordial than with dictatorships. It is about the alternatives available in that land. If tomorrow Musharraf goes..who is going to lead Pakistan. There are no political institutions in the country..alternatives are not that great

Tahmed writes : <<< 1. the long history of the US inspiring democracy around the world that I summarized below is equally true.

2. the US has much warmer relations with democracies today than it does with dictatorships/kingships. Thus, the US has much warmer relations with England, Western Europe, and even more so Eastern Europe, Japan, Australia, and increasingly India than it does with iran, jordan, egypt, or even pakistan. >>>


We have to leave it to the most dispicable slave of the West on here, tahmed, to confound facts and twist relationships in order to prove the official slogans of his object of worship, i.e. the US elite.

The long ``history`` that the US has is a bloody history of genocide and imperial conquest and slave trade, not a single example exists, among a non-European nation (whose extension/settler society the US was) where the US has promoted democracy and brought development, other than for the strategic reason of US occupied Japan and South Korea. In both cases their sights are firmly fixed on China. Giving examples of US neo-colonial parterns the likes of Australia and the UK and saying that the US has closer relationship with them compared to Pakistan is a most pathetic attempt at trying to justify US crimes in the name of democracy. No democracy exists in the US itself by the way and this elite has done everything to undermine it using corporate concentration and institutional links between its political and economic sector. When it does not exist at home how can they promote it abroad?

Let me end by quoting Micael Parenti for the fifth time on here

(quote)``...for the United States has supported some of the worst butchers in the world: Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua, the Shah in Iran, Salazar in Portugal, Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Zia in Pakistan, Evren in Turkey, and even Pol Pot in Cambodia. In the 1965 Indonesian coup, the military slaughtered 500,000 people, according to the Indonesian chief of security (New York Times, 12/21/77; some estimates run twice as high), but this did not deter U.S. leaders from assisting in that takeover or from maintaining cozy relations with the same Jakarta regime that subsequently perpetuated a campaign of repression and mass extermination in East Timor...`` (end quote)

(quote)``...the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran and installing Shah Moammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah of Iran) in 1960; the CIA’s Council of Generals’ military coup in Indonesia toppling President Sukarno in 1965; the killing of President Allende of Chile in 1973; President Johnson in 1965 sent 25,000 Marines to the Dominican republic to prevent the return to office of the elected Juan Bosch; Prince Sihanouk was removed by the army led by CIA-trained General Lon Nol; the CIA’s Counter Terror Teams and the Provincial Reconnaissance Units, used techniques of terror, assassination, physical abuse and intimidation in Vietnam; U.S. Marines supported a conservative party revolt against a nationalist government and where they remained for 20 years in Nicaragua;..`` (end quote)

#28 by broken_78rpm

.. I`m sure they whacked a bunch of your jihadi buddies...

awww ... looks like the other way around ....

Soldiers look upon the bodies of their colleagues in Srinagar after attack left nine killed and seven injured.

And what Bush`s readjustment of policy are you talking about in #45? Oh ... you mean the `send more` policy when 67% americans are saying `get the hell out of there` policy.... I forgot you need regular medication for congenital mental deficiencies.

#43 by bulleya on January 24, 2007 7:05pm PT


turkey, another one, did not allow the usa to use its land for attacks on iraq.....pakistan, an off and on democracy, is also somewhat of a thorn in the usa`s neck........


Is this the same Turkey that was bailed out by the US and gets plenty of US aid and the democratic government of which has decided to align itself with the US in matters other than the IRaq invasion...

And Pakiland a thorn in America`s neck...don`t flatter yourself...didn`t you read about how they`re piling on the pressure..that bombing they did 10 days ago whacking paki jihadis..and just yesterday they whacked one of your soldiers when a precision guided bomb ``mistakenly`` landed on a paki checkpost...

#44 by SR on January 24, 2007 7:33pm PT



The principle that state power should be subservient to the people, and not the other way around, is the most sacred and fundamental corner stone of a ``democracy.


Dude..when Iraq was invaded, a majority of people were in favor of the war...now a majority of people are against it..hence the democrat win in november and Bush`s readjustment of policy...


And about your BS about the composition of the US congress, has it occurred to you that some groups are perhaps not interested in running for office and chose to make their mark elsewhere..

It`s always funny when people from the land of the pure, the land that`s had very little experience in representative democracy, criticize the supposed faults of US democracy based on some unachievable gold-standard...

Re: # 26 Urstruly {``...I am seriously beggining to have doubts on election or vote as a vehicle to achieve ``rule by the people and for the people``. ...``}

The principle that state power should be subservient to the people, and not the other way around, is the most sacred and fundamental corner stone of a ``democracy.`` All other considerations are secondary to this basic goal. The trouble is that there is no flawless mechnism with which to setup a state system which ensures that the state does not become a tool of coersion or exploitation in the hands of those who are vested with the state`s executive authority. Majority rule can quickly turn into mob-rule if the minority rights are not held sacred... and mob-rule can be every bit as bad as a ruthless monarchy, if not worse. A cursory study of The Terror in Paris under the ``committee of public safety`` will convince you of that. So then what is the answer?

Most people will instinctively say that voting is the best way to elect ``representatives``... Sadly, on closer examination we realise that more often than not ``elections`` turn out to be, paradoxically, unhealthy for the basic spirit of democracy. This is because the electoral process is easy to subvert. Take America for instance. The US Congress was supposed to be, in Thomas Jefferson`s words, ``...a portrait in miniature of the people of the United States...``, that is, if America was to be a true democracy. In that event Congress should have consisted of over 50% women, 11% blacks, 12% Hispanics etc, etc, and 1% Jews and 1% Muslims (My percentages are not exact, but you get the point). What we have instead is a Congress that consists of 95% white men, 45% of whom are lawyers. (We shall not mention religious heritage.) Clearly, this flies in the face of Jeffersonian ideals. But this is what you get if you hold elections, flawed as they are. But there is a better solution.

In this modern technological era a random computer generated list would be a better choice than the primitive system of voting. Most voters don`t ``know`` their elected reps any way. So neither will they ``know`` their computer selected reps. The voters lists do an adequate job finding jury members to sit on trials, so why also have a ``Congress Duty``...? Of course you would have screening safeguards to keep the serial killers, rapists and wackos out, as you do in a jury selection. These guys would have only one term (unless they hit the lottery again) so no lobbists offering PAC money for re-elections. Each representative would get a whole office full of staffers and there is no reason to think that they will do any worse of a job than these rascals who presently run for office. Surely we could cut down corruption and represent the voice of people better by this method of computerised true democracy.

{``...The Musharaf phenomenon can be taken as the pig-without-the-lipstick aspect of this illusion...``}

Here I must disagree. Although no particular fan of Musharraf himself, I have revised my old misguided liberal notions about the role of Paki army in politics. Let me explain.

First, you have to get rid of the silly idea that the army is in fact a military service. It is not. Since there is no possibility of a future war with Bharat (and God knows we never thought beyond Bharat) there is no need for a military. You might ask, How do I know there is going to be no war? Simple..!! All the land on the Pak-Bharat border has been bought up by the senior army officers. There is thus an incentivised built-in guarantee of peace.

So, Pakistan has no further need for an army, therefore the army has transformed itself into a professional political organisation.

Now given that the various other political organisations (or parties) only make provisions for the rich and powerful to rise to the top, they are not very democratic. Only the wealthy can afford to rise above the level of local area politics. However, there is only one political party, the army, where a fellow from a safaid-posh gharana has any hope of rising to the top. Its not a perfect system, but hey... its the best we seem to have managed.

...SR

anil #42: ``My question to you is: don`t you wonder why?``

....i don`t wonder why...because i think i know why....this is what all superpowers have done throughout history....the occupy other countries so that they can use the resources there, to raise the living standards of their own people.......

......previously, superpowers use to outrightly annex and conquer the countries......now that is no longer the fashion, as it has become extremely difficult to occupy other countries....iraq and afghanistan being prime examples....

.....so now superpowers get access to resources through other means......they support and in many cases keep in power kings and dictators, who are dependent on the superpowers for their survival....in the process, the superpowers are allowed access to those countries.....

...i am quite sure saudi arabia would not be selling oil at the rates it is to usa, if it had a democracy......i am quite sure qatar would not have allowed us troops to use its bases to launch the iraq war had it been a democracy......

....we have some good examples in front of us, for what happens is the usa`s supported kings and dictators are thrown out........it is happening in south america.....venezuela is a huge thorn in the usa`s neck....the usa tried a coup there recently, which did not work.....other south american countries are going in the same direction......

....similarly, iran a fledgling democracy is a thorn in the neck of the usa....as is palestine, another fledgling democracy.....turkey, another one, did not allow the usa to use its land for attacks on iraq.....pakistan, an off and on democracy, is also somewhat of a thorn in the usa`s neck........

as i said earlier....all superpowers do this....otherwise they cannot remain superpowers.....pakistan and india also do it at whatever local level they can.....the only difference is that, for some reason, the usa tries to hide its unethical superpower moves behind a veil of, ``helping the others``........

i would have more respect for the us foreign policy, if its leaders simply told the truth and said, ``we push other countries around, because we can...if others don`t like it, they can climb a tree.``.....what i don`t like is hiding behind all these falsehoods about pushing democracy and human rights etc.......

Re: # 38

Romair:

``..following is a portion of the list of countries whose kings and dictators that the usa has supported and/or continues to support.....

iran (shah)
pakistan
jordan
egypt
saudi arabia
oman
uae
bahrain
qatar
iraq (during saddam`s earlier days)
morroco
most of the central asian stans
venezuela
argentina
nicaragua ``

Wish you would do not lump countries into one Central Asia in this list.

My question to you is: don`t you wonder why?

Anil

Interactors:

Let me try to put a few things in correct perspective. Democracy was not the prime reason or reason at all, for President Bush to attack Iraq. It was an afterthought; it was cooked up when he didn’t find any good reason to give to the American public and the rest of the world. The reason for invading Iraq was its weapons of mass destruction, wmds, that were never found anywhere in Iraq. Even this excuse was false and fabricated.

Then he used the “regime change” for an excuse for Iraq invasion. He brought in democracy as the last excuse to continue the occupation of Iraq.

In itself, democracy is a good form of governance. It stinks when you consider it together with the occupation of Iraq. Democracy may not be ideologically the best form of governance but it is surely the best among other forms that we see around us in many countries of the world.

The Muslim world does not seem to accept it mainly because it was developed in the western world and “everything western is pooh-pooh.” Also the vested feudal interests do not want to lose control. Iqbal ridiculed democracy in many of his verses such as:

Jamhooriyat ikk tarz-e-hakoomat haiy keh jiss mein
Bandon’ ko gina kartay hain tola naheen kartay

He also condemned separation of church from the statecraft in his verses. He wrote:

Judah deen’ ho siyasat sey tau reh jaati haiy Chingezi

When Kamal Ata Turk abolished khilafat in Turkey after World War I, Iqbal was in an intellectual quandary because Ata Turk was his Mard-e-Momin and the perfect man. Now he was put into a difficult situation. Iqbal rationalized it by arguing that although Islam does not allow the abolition of khilafat, there was no verdict from the recognized Islamic authority (such as Jaamah al-Azhar) against Ata Turk’s installation of democracy in Turkey. This was a lame rationalization.

Since there is no regular system of transferring power from one ruler to the other in the Muslim world, the result is continuing chaos and confusion.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 38

USA has opposed a lot of non-communist military dictators - it has failed in removing some of them.

Burma
Musharraf before 9/11
Algeria
Ethiopia

#38 What you say is true. But what is also true (and point 2 below completely negates your implication that the US supports dictatorships/kings) is...

1. the long history of the US inspiring democracy around the world that I summarized below is equally true.

2. the US has much warmer relations with democracies today than it does with dictatorships/kingships. Thus, the US has much warmer relations with England, Western Europe, and even more so Eastern Europe, Japan, Australia, and increasingly India than it does with iran, jordan, egypt, or even pakistan.

Both this points are of fundamental relevance to the question of the US role in promoting democracy around the world. And yet....these points never cross the mind of the US haters in muslim countries.

tahmad #31: ``The US is guilty as charged in being the foremost nation to bring an end to the Divine Right of Kings and to replace it by We, the People!!``

..following is a portion of the list of countries whose kings and dictators that the usa has supported and/or continues to support.....

iran (shah)
pakistan
jordan
egypt
saudi arabia
oman
uae
bahrain
qatar
iraq (during saddam`s earlier days)
morroco
most of the central asian stans
venezuela
argentina
nicaragua
....

the list is too long to print here........the general criteria has been to support who is pro-usa....not who is pro-democracy....

2001 was the first state of the union address by Bush. Each year after that things became progressively worse. But at the time of 2002, 2003, 2004 state of the union speeches, americans still earnestly believed that their commander in chief was not a pathalogically lying thug. They gave him a free hand to play on their fears.....and play he did!

Lets take a look at who was ``showcased`` in his speeches of those good old days:

2002 Union speech - A jubilant Bush showcased a newly liberated afghan woman. There was that puppet Hamid Karzai in his night gown sitting in the chamber as well, thanking Americans for promoting him from an oil executive to afghan president.......actually thanking Americans for liberating Afghanistan.

2003 Speech - There was that convicted felon turned Iraqi president-in-waiting Ahmed Chalabi sitting in First Lady’s chamber, looking somber and serious as Bush told us how Iraqis were begging to be liberated, with flowers in their hands.

2004- A jubilant Bush told an ovation loving congress that Iraq was liberated. Bush could hardly speak 2 sentence without this rubber stamp congress standing on its feet and applauding......

2005 - In what now looks like the most comical moment of his state of the union speeches, an Iraqi woman was flown from Baghdad......and on cue she stood up to wave her purple stained finger (anyone remembers the purple revolution so hyped by bush admin?) to prove to americans that she had just voted in Iraqi elections (Did anyone read the news in NY Times today stating that most of Iraqi parliamentarians today are actually living in Europe and other parts of middle east?)

Those certainly were the days!

#32 arjun: Did i refer to the jihadis? do i have to treat your inability to read english as well as your rabid hallucinations?

#33 Urstruly: Those are historical facts. Dont hide from facts by calling them slogans.

What are slogans is your calling for democracy from one side of your mouth while talking about shariah from the other - the moment you dropped that slogan of democracy after I brought this to your attention...you obviously have no choice but to avoid further discussion - since all you have left is your hollow slogans of ``shariah`` and your hollow berating of the US.