Destruction of World’s Eastern Heritage in Iraq
Gajendra Singh November 25, 2003
#51 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on August 8, 2004 8:36:59 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#50 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on March 1, 2004 8:28:32 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#49 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on January 2, 2004 7:24:36 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#48 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on January 2, 2004 3:22:21 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#47 Posted by Pardesi on December 6, 2003 7:35:48 am
#34 by stuka on December 2, 2003 7:06am PT
Thanks for the info. Regards.
Thanks for the info. Regards.
#46 Posted by tahmed32 on December 3, 2003 1:27:19 pm
michaelm #44 let me start with your conclusion: ``America has his own history, and it`s a mistake to take it for an example. Why not be inspired by its great values, like the great values in Islam, and build a new kind of society? ``
i think rather than talking about american values or islamic values, we need to talk about universal values which no one except a complete sociopath would deny: equality, liberty, fraternity (to use words from the french revolution you mention). these also happen to coincide with american values and islamic values (as apparent in the Quran and in the best examples of muslim history as in muslim era spain and 12th century baghdad for example, not as promoted by religious parties today whose idea of islamic values is the opposite of that found in the Quran). so actually, it is not too hard i think for everyone to agree on a universal set of values, whether these are in the preamble to the US or most other written constitutions, or dug up from some religious books.
the question that you pose therefore is: what is the best way to ensure these values are promoted in society, and not curbed.
for this purpose, what you are suggesting is basically to start from scratch, forgetting about democratic institutions and capitalistic forms of economy. i dont believe that is realistic. Rome wasnt built in a day. systems evolve, they dont emerge overnight. communes of the kind you mention have been tried in many places (including the US), and they have never caught on, and many ex-hippies now wear black suits and drive SUVs to work. so, unless you know a good alternative, you are best quitting while you are ahead when quoting Churchill on democracy being the worst form of governemnt except for all the alternatives.
incidentally, the french revolution that you mention did not result in living up to the ideals of liberte, equalite, fraternite either. the revolutionary leaders like robespierre ended up guillotining one another as soon as they were through guillotining the bourbons, and as soon as they were gone the french did not get a committee something to rule but the Emperor Napoleon, the biggest dictator of all. so, like i said, revolutions cause a lot of bloodshed and generally put society a few steps behind: the russian revolution, led by visionaries like lenin, led not to freedom but to the dictator Stalin who killed people in the millions. The chinese revolution, led by the visionary mao-tse-tung, soon degenerated and today the biggest visionaries in china are the ones who stood at tienanmen square with - surprise - a replica of the Statue of Liberty to inspire them. and the chinese government that suppressed them has thrown completely overboard the basic notions of marxism and adopted the US economic model instead. and if marx is to be believed (this is probably the only thing he said that made sense outside the narrow context of late 19th century europe), poltiical institutions in china will follow the economic structure. in other words, the chinese revolution, after meandering around, will finally end up on the same path the US has been on for two hundred years.
i think rather than talking about american values or islamic values, we need to talk about universal values which no one except a complete sociopath would deny: equality, liberty, fraternity (to use words from the french revolution you mention). these also happen to coincide with american values and islamic values (as apparent in the Quran and in the best examples of muslim history as in muslim era spain and 12th century baghdad for example, not as promoted by religious parties today whose idea of islamic values is the opposite of that found in the Quran). so actually, it is not too hard i think for everyone to agree on a universal set of values, whether these are in the preamble to the US or most other written constitutions, or dug up from some religious books.
the question that you pose therefore is: what is the best way to ensure these values are promoted in society, and not curbed.
for this purpose, what you are suggesting is basically to start from scratch, forgetting about democratic institutions and capitalistic forms of economy. i dont believe that is realistic. Rome wasnt built in a day. systems evolve, they dont emerge overnight. communes of the kind you mention have been tried in many places (including the US), and they have never caught on, and many ex-hippies now wear black suits and drive SUVs to work. so, unless you know a good alternative, you are best quitting while you are ahead when quoting Churchill on democracy being the worst form of governemnt except for all the alternatives.
incidentally, the french revolution that you mention did not result in living up to the ideals of liberte, equalite, fraternite either. the revolutionary leaders like robespierre ended up guillotining one another as soon as they were through guillotining the bourbons, and as soon as they were gone the french did not get a committee something to rule but the Emperor Napoleon, the biggest dictator of all. so, like i said, revolutions cause a lot of bloodshed and generally put society a few steps behind: the russian revolution, led by visionaries like lenin, led not to freedom but to the dictator Stalin who killed people in the millions. The chinese revolution, led by the visionary mao-tse-tung, soon degenerated and today the biggest visionaries in china are the ones who stood at tienanmen square with - surprise - a replica of the Statue of Liberty to inspire them. and the chinese government that suppressed them has thrown completely overboard the basic notions of marxism and adopted the US economic model instead. and if marx is to be believed (this is probably the only thing he said that made sense outside the narrow context of late 19th century europe), poltiical institutions in china will follow the economic structure. in other words, the chinese revolution, after meandering around, will finally end up on the same path the US has been on for two hundred years.
#45 Posted by wajahat on December 3, 2003 9:45:29 am
#44 MichealM
Well said and Just to substantiate your views, the complicity of Democracy with Captilism invokes the kind of negative government system we see in the so called democratic states. The basic degeneracy is in the fact that democracy does not represent the people as such, but the pressure groups that back it into power, America for example has a government structure which is based upon who raises the most amount of campaign money from vested groups and thus its no wonder that Dubya today mainly represents and serves the interests of the Oil, Weapons Industries who have funded his accession. These pressure groups have global interests that only power and supreme power, at that can carry out. Thus the terrible mess in the middle east show the awesome power of Representative Democracy.
In Pakistan on a smaller scale, We have the feudals who hold the main voting banks who use democracy to violate and bring in civilain govts who basically represent their domain and their interests. e.g benazir for sindh and Sharif for Punjab. This is the problem with Western Notion of democracy based on capitalism. But if you take the capitalist structure out of democracy than it fails as a concept, athough I do not know enough about socialism to speculate(although I have been called a commie here at chowk)
The islamic alternative would be a sort of capitalism that does not make anyone rich, thus the idea of a No Interest based Financial System. But then the kind of consumerist society we have become, this will become almost impossible. I mean from 10-15 years ago our society has become more greedy, financialy unstable and decadent(I mean waste rather than religion). The need and use of credit is ever increasing and we will in the next decade or so turn from a Cash based society into a western type interest based society.
Thus the point I keep raising (Yelping as PZ refers to it :)) that we have to be mindful of the dogmas of our own society and understand that Western Democracy is not the only answer no matter how viable it may seem. That is my only conclusion no matter how illogical it may seem
Regards
Wajahat
Well said and Just to substantiate your views, the complicity of Democracy with Captilism invokes the kind of negative government system we see in the so called democratic states. The basic degeneracy is in the fact that democracy does not represent the people as such, but the pressure groups that back it into power, America for example has a government structure which is based upon who raises the most amount of campaign money from vested groups and thus its no wonder that Dubya today mainly represents and serves the interests of the Oil, Weapons Industries who have funded his accession. These pressure groups have global interests that only power and supreme power, at that can carry out. Thus the terrible mess in the middle east show the awesome power of Representative Democracy.
In Pakistan on a smaller scale, We have the feudals who hold the main voting banks who use democracy to violate and bring in civilain govts who basically represent their domain and their interests. e.g benazir for sindh and Sharif for Punjab. This is the problem with Western Notion of democracy based on capitalism. But if you take the capitalist structure out of democracy than it fails as a concept, athough I do not know enough about socialism to speculate(although I have been called a commie here at chowk)
The islamic alternative would be a sort of capitalism that does not make anyone rich, thus the idea of a No Interest based Financial System. But then the kind of consumerist society we have become, this will become almost impossible. I mean from 10-15 years ago our society has become more greedy, financialy unstable and decadent(I mean waste rather than religion). The need and use of credit is ever increasing and we will in the next decade or so turn from a Cash based society into a western type interest based society.
Thus the point I keep raising (Yelping as PZ refers to it :)) that we have to be mindful of the dogmas of our own society and understand that Western Democracy is not the only answer no matter how viable it may seem. That is my only conclusion no matter how illogical it may seem
Regards
Wajahat
#44 Posted by MichaelM on December 3, 2003 8:24:27 am
Tahmed32 said:
``So: the question is not if capitalism or democracy are better than any alternative. time has proved they are. the question is, HOW can they be made to work?``
I don`t agree (first point).
Let`s begin by an explanation of the two terms(second point):
`Democracy` means, more or less, the power (cracy) to the people (demo). So were is the problem in that? The problem is how the people is represented, and if it is well or not.
The institutions receive the majority of the critics, not the idea that the power is for everyone, maybe for more equality.
What is capitalism? An economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor (thank you yahoo, I was lazy to check somewhere else).
The main problem here, are, like Marx said (can say whatever you want about him, he did a great work pointing out what are the errors and dangers of the XIXth century capitalism), that the profit is not, at least morally, acceptable (ah Das Capital!).
So (third point), if I`m agree with the idea that democracy is the best option right now, because there`s no known better (like Winston Churchill said) if you want to live with a community, like the entire society of a country, I`m not at all agree with capitalism.
I will not use the arguments of the communists, but the idea is that all this economic development doesn`t have any reason to think of the best, socially speaking, for the people. If you want to make it work, you have to reduce his power. So that`s where the syndicats, the non governemental associations and organisms have to act.
Time (last point) didn`t prove anything. The result of communism (because it`s the first in the list of the losers) is only known as the result of a proletarian dictature, a thing that is not the goal. You can reduce in the same way capitalism with the imperialism of the west, and you have the same failure: the rulers won and the colonised countries have to survive with an horrible economy and political situation. I don`t call it the best choice.
So, there is other alternatives of course, but it doesn`t mean a complete opposite thing.
Capitalism made us consumers, owners, workers, but where is the `better` in that?
A religious speaker, for example, will say that to be `believers` is better and at least you don`t worship `work`, `property` or worst, `money`.
Money is a tool but also a physical representation of your power over the others. Where is the equality in that?
``but more seriously, for all practical purposes ultimately SOMEONE (president, prime minister, caliph, martial law administrator, arab sheikh, king, dictator, mard-e-momin) has to have supreme executive authority in soceities``
No. In a small state (of the size of a city for example), you don`t need this SOMEONE. The leader, the hero, the representation of the father (I go too far) is not even an universal and only solution: look at the French revolution for example. The problem is the stability of these other solutions (more than one head).
Just one last thing: even if there`s no example in the past, it doesn`t mean that a new system can`t work. America has his own history, and it`s a mistake to take it for an example. Why not be inspired by its great values, like the great values in Islam, and build a new kind of society?
Thanks
``So: the question is not if capitalism or democracy are better than any alternative. time has proved they are. the question is, HOW can they be made to work?``
I don`t agree (first point).
Let`s begin by an explanation of the two terms(second point):
`Democracy` means, more or less, the power (cracy) to the people (demo). So were is the problem in that? The problem is how the people is represented, and if it is well or not.
The institutions receive the majority of the critics, not the idea that the power is for everyone, maybe for more equality.
What is capitalism? An economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor (thank you yahoo, I was lazy to check somewhere else).
The main problem here, are, like Marx said (can say whatever you want about him, he did a great work pointing out what are the errors and dangers of the XIXth century capitalism), that the profit is not, at least morally, acceptable (ah Das Capital!).
So (third point), if I`m agree with the idea that democracy is the best option right now, because there`s no known better (like Winston Churchill said) if you want to live with a community, like the entire society of a country, I`m not at all agree with capitalism.
I will not use the arguments of the communists, but the idea is that all this economic development doesn`t have any reason to think of the best, socially speaking, for the people. If you want to make it work, you have to reduce his power. So that`s where the syndicats, the non governemental associations and organisms have to act.
Time (last point) didn`t prove anything. The result of communism (because it`s the first in the list of the losers) is only known as the result of a proletarian dictature, a thing that is not the goal. You can reduce in the same way capitalism with the imperialism of the west, and you have the same failure: the rulers won and the colonised countries have to survive with an horrible economy and political situation. I don`t call it the best choice.
So, there is other alternatives of course, but it doesn`t mean a complete opposite thing.
Capitalism made us consumers, owners, workers, but where is the `better` in that?
A religious speaker, for example, will say that to be `believers` is better and at least you don`t worship `work`, `property` or worst, `money`.
Money is a tool but also a physical representation of your power over the others. Where is the equality in that?
``but more seriously, for all practical purposes ultimately SOMEONE (president, prime minister, caliph, martial law administrator, arab sheikh, king, dictator, mard-e-momin) has to have supreme executive authority in soceities``
No. In a small state (of the size of a city for example), you don`t need this SOMEONE. The leader, the hero, the representation of the father (I go too far) is not even an universal and only solution: look at the French revolution for example. The problem is the stability of these other solutions (more than one head).
Just one last thing: even if there`s no example in the past, it doesn`t mean that a new system can`t work. America has his own history, and it`s a mistake to take it for an example. Why not be inspired by its great values, like the great values in Islam, and build a new kind of society?
Thanks
#43 Posted by harimau on December 2, 2003 9:27:40 pm
For those who are interested:
www.blairfacedlies.org
www.blairfacedlies.org
#42 Posted by PunjabiZulu on December 2, 2003 3:59:27 pm
wajahat
I am laughing at you, not with you, like when you try and crack jokes about defaults and stuff like that and blurt out slogans like a parakeet on heat. Read tahmed32`s last post, you just dont make sense and there seems to be a discrepancy between the images you form in your head and what you put into words.
#41 Posted by tahmed32 on December 2, 2003 1:53:34 pm
wajahat #65 i afraid sir but i dont see much logic in your post. if there is something specific i wrote that you wish to question, i will be glad to discuss that further. but just reciting slogans doesnt solve anything nor does it constitute a discussion. anyway, cheers till we perhaps meet again on some other board.
#40 Posted by wajahat on December 2, 2003 12:50:01 pm
tahmed ,
Tahmed zindabad, this obviously is the first battle cry for the tahmed pilot project, I hope you succeed :)
On a serious note, your optimism is based on the long term views that after the blood, the toil, the bodies somehow democracy will prevail and the gringos are infact right everytime. I lack that amount of optimism and base my views on historical examples which are plenty and continue to buildup, palestine, jihadis in pakistan after the Afghan war of the 80s etc. Injustices are strange and we do find ourselves amidst stark choices, Palestine for example is viewed in the US as an Arab problem, whereas me and my ilk, as I am increasingly referred to here at chowk, consider palestine to be a problem of zionist racism and the sordid American power structure. Thus, we find ourselves on two opposite sides. If miracles were true, now is the time to see one.
PZ, I am glad that atleast I am amusing you, you know I am always happy to entertain you. For future entertainment please keep reading :)
Many Thanks
And least I forget, God bless America, Ahmed Chalabi and Sharon. Not that they need it as presumably as Mr Bush declares God is on their side by defaults...Defaults are funny things.
Tahmed zindabad, this obviously is the first battle cry for the tahmed pilot project, I hope you succeed :)
On a serious note, your optimism is based on the long term views that after the blood, the toil, the bodies somehow democracy will prevail and the gringos are infact right everytime. I lack that amount of optimism and base my views on historical examples which are plenty and continue to buildup, palestine, jihadis in pakistan after the Afghan war of the 80s etc. Injustices are strange and we do find ourselves amidst stark choices, Palestine for example is viewed in the US as an Arab problem, whereas me and my ilk, as I am increasingly referred to here at chowk, consider palestine to be a problem of zionist racism and the sordid American power structure. Thus, we find ourselves on two opposite sides. If miracles were true, now is the time to see one.
PZ, I am glad that atleast I am amusing you, you know I am always happy to entertain you. For future entertainment please keep reading :)
Many Thanks
And least I forget, God bless America, Ahmed Chalabi and Sharon. Not that they need it as presumably as Mr Bush declares God is on their side by defaults...Defaults are funny things.
#39 Posted by PunjabiZulu on December 2, 2003 9:28:32 am
wajahat
Man, I really am being to enjoy reading your posts they are funny.
#38 Posted by tahmed32 on December 2, 2003 9:18:51 am
wajahat: you think there is a better alternative to democracy and capitalism, and i agree (my turn to surprise you, i guess).
you dont mention the better alternative, but this is what i have in mind: all political power and material resources of the world (or even of one trial country - i am amenable to a pilot project here) will be consolidated with me (tahmed, i.e.). as you are well aware of my enlightened views, i will no doubt do a great job of ensuring truth, peace and justice prevail. that resources are allocated nicely, starting with widows and orphans.
the above is my concept of a better alternative. ;-)
but more seriously, for all practical purposes ultimately SOMEONE (president, prime minister, caliph, martial law administrator, arab sheikh, king, dictator, mard-e-momin) has to have supreme executive authority in soceities. The question then is: How is this someone chosen? and the only alternative to one-man one-vote has been force of arms. even in iran the mullahs do not allow non-mullah candidates to elections, thus stifling choices. they can hide the fact that they have imposed themselves as rulers through force by claiming to be representatives of God, or by claiming to be nationalist heroes standing up to the west.
similarly, on capitalism: i am not calling for unbridled capitalism. what we need is a careful mix of regulatory framework (that serves as brakes on capitalist excesses that can harm the environment, stifle competition etc.) with private entrepreneurship (which has proved to be the dynamo that has transformed human societies by introduce countless innovations including the computers you and i are using.
the US model has sought to combine the two of course, and to date has proved itself to be more successful in terms of improving the lot of the ordinary citizen than all challengers (the most serious challenge being the communist challenge, which now lies in the same dustbin of history that the communists used to claim would be the fate of capitalism).
So: the question is not if capitalism or democracy are better than any alternative. time has proved they are. the question is, HOW can they be made to work? This is particularly significant for us pakistanis - next door we see how india has in a slow but steady manner built upon its commitment to democracy to start moving its 1 billion people forward. we in pakistan have been fooling around with islamic ideology and martial law adminsitrators who promise to fix everything - and as a result we are still at square one.
finally: as for the US having the power to fix the world - i think you overestimate (as many people in pakistan do) the power of the US. it is after all one country only with a population only about twice the size of pakistan and with vast commitments - advancing the frontiers of science, medicine, technology.
the biggest cost of 9/11 has in fact been the diversion of resources from medical research to that of fighting terrorism (whether using the correct strategy or not is besides the point). this is the real cost to all humanity that the islamist terrorists have caused. so let us stop treating the US as if it had godlike powers and unlimited resources, since it does not. lets just be glad we have more and more nations on earth (in europe, india and china) that are beginning to see the path forward for humanity is the one the US started on two hundred years ago. we muslims can either join the rest of humanity on this path, or we can wander around in the forest bad mouthing the US and other nations (including india and israel) that are already on this path.
you dont mention the better alternative, but this is what i have in mind: all political power and material resources of the world (or even of one trial country - i am amenable to a pilot project here) will be consolidated with me (tahmed, i.e.). as you are well aware of my enlightened views, i will no doubt do a great job of ensuring truth, peace and justice prevail. that resources are allocated nicely, starting with widows and orphans.
the above is my concept of a better alternative. ;-)
but more seriously, for all practical purposes ultimately SOMEONE (president, prime minister, caliph, martial law administrator, arab sheikh, king, dictator, mard-e-momin) has to have supreme executive authority in soceities. The question then is: How is this someone chosen? and the only alternative to one-man one-vote has been force of arms. even in iran the mullahs do not allow non-mullah candidates to elections, thus stifling choices. they can hide the fact that they have imposed themselves as rulers through force by claiming to be representatives of God, or by claiming to be nationalist heroes standing up to the west.
similarly, on capitalism: i am not calling for unbridled capitalism. what we need is a careful mix of regulatory framework (that serves as brakes on capitalist excesses that can harm the environment, stifle competition etc.) with private entrepreneurship (which has proved to be the dynamo that has transformed human societies by introduce countless innovations including the computers you and i are using.
the US model has sought to combine the two of course, and to date has proved itself to be more successful in terms of improving the lot of the ordinary citizen than all challengers (the most serious challenge being the communist challenge, which now lies in the same dustbin of history that the communists used to claim would be the fate of capitalism).
So: the question is not if capitalism or democracy are better than any alternative. time has proved they are. the question is, HOW can they be made to work? This is particularly significant for us pakistanis - next door we see how india has in a slow but steady manner built upon its commitment to democracy to start moving its 1 billion people forward. we in pakistan have been fooling around with islamic ideology and martial law adminsitrators who promise to fix everything - and as a result we are still at square one.
finally: as for the US having the power to fix the world - i think you overestimate (as many people in pakistan do) the power of the US. it is after all one country only with a population only about twice the size of pakistan and with vast commitments - advancing the frontiers of science, medicine, technology.
the biggest cost of 9/11 has in fact been the diversion of resources from medical research to that of fighting terrorism (whether using the correct strategy or not is besides the point). this is the real cost to all humanity that the islamist terrorists have caused. so let us stop treating the US as if it had godlike powers and unlimited resources, since it does not. lets just be glad we have more and more nations on earth (in europe, india and china) that are beginning to see the path forward for humanity is the one the US started on two hundred years ago. we muslims can either join the rest of humanity on this path, or we can wander around in the forest bad mouthing the US and other nations (including india and israel) that are already on this path.
#37 Posted by tahmed32 on December 2, 2003 9:18:51 am
Subroto #36 yes indeed. Saddam the Archaeologist. Not only did he preserve existing archaeological treasures, he created new ones for scientists to discover a thousand years from now: the mass graves you mention. also his 32 palaces in baghdad, which no doubt will become the 8th wonder of the world. saddam idols will be prized possessions of any museum, just like greek statues are today. :-)
#36 Posted by wajahat on December 2, 2003 7:17:08 am
#33 Tahmed
My pleasure to present your viewpoints in advanced, I feel its also due to the fact that we have had these conversation or tangents of these conversations in the multitude, which has enabled me with a foresight of your reply :)
Moving on, Imperial experiments as you repeat in Germany and Japan are a product of World Wars where both the countries subdued after a huge war effort by a Number of nations uniting against both germany and japan. Both countries gave the ``percieved`` west a huge fight before ending up in the clutches of the United Nations(which is now irrelevant to your president). Japan is a model of advancement in our world because of its technological advancements. Germany again is known for its technological advancements. Both countries demonstrating that once subdued in war , Capitalism can surge into the veins of the people and a few decades later the only difference between tokyo in Newyork would be the language.
I respect your views and your optimism for a better future, but the only thing that i do not agree with is the notion that western democracy & capitalism is the best alternative to all the problems in the world. I do not agree with you on that. You simplify things and nations and cultures on the basis that everything can become better if it adopts the western methodology, You ignore the power and importance of regional identities and how they are formed on the basis of collective prejudices. The Arabs today in the petrol rich shiekdoms if we ascribe to your views have the biggest chunk of western lifestyle and instutions available to them yet their behaviour is ugly and more backward than it was in the time of Huzoor PBUH. There is a very definitive problem mr ahmed when a prescribed form of democracy is imposed upon nations, it creates inequality and digressions. The repression gives birth to fundametalism, as men hate without question based on collective prejudices.
My only contention with your views is that if by Miracle in America a government comes in the next election that respects and uses it powers to nourish democracy from the roots , this world might become a different place. America has the power to change the fate of this world, yet its misusing its power to create plunders all over the world, arab, southeast asia, south america.
Today we have the leaders of the free world calling everyone in iraq who fights a terrorist, and I cannot accept any peripheral arguments by the Imperialist defenders and apologist that we need this to get to somewhere better. Better for whom, What happened in Afghanistan?
Intolerance, violence and war will only be answered by sabotage, gorrilla warfare and violence. You bomb a nation to bits and then expect it to lay down flowers whilst you enter as victors is a very old roman adage which is still ascribed by the Imperialist.
PZ come up something original for a change, thanks.
My pleasure to present your viewpoints in advanced, I feel its also due to the fact that we have had these conversation or tangents of these conversations in the multitude, which has enabled me with a foresight of your reply :)
Moving on, Imperial experiments as you repeat in Germany and Japan are a product of World Wars where both the countries subdued after a huge war effort by a Number of nations uniting against both germany and japan. Both countries gave the ``percieved`` west a huge fight before ending up in the clutches of the United Nations(which is now irrelevant to your president). Japan is a model of advancement in our world because of its technological advancements. Germany again is known for its technological advancements. Both countries demonstrating that once subdued in war , Capitalism can surge into the veins of the people and a few decades later the only difference between tokyo in Newyork would be the language.
I respect your views and your optimism for a better future, but the only thing that i do not agree with is the notion that western democracy & capitalism is the best alternative to all the problems in the world. I do not agree with you on that. You simplify things and nations and cultures on the basis that everything can become better if it adopts the western methodology, You ignore the power and importance of regional identities and how they are formed on the basis of collective prejudices. The Arabs today in the petrol rich shiekdoms if we ascribe to your views have the biggest chunk of western lifestyle and instutions available to them yet their behaviour is ugly and more backward than it was in the time of Huzoor PBUH. There is a very definitive problem mr ahmed when a prescribed form of democracy is imposed upon nations, it creates inequality and digressions. The repression gives birth to fundametalism, as men hate without question based on collective prejudices.
My only contention with your views is that if by Miracle in America a government comes in the next election that respects and uses it powers to nourish democracy from the roots , this world might become a different place. America has the power to change the fate of this world, yet its misusing its power to create plunders all over the world, arab, southeast asia, south america.
Today we have the leaders of the free world calling everyone in iraq who fights a terrorist, and I cannot accept any peripheral arguments by the Imperialist defenders and apologist that we need this to get to somewhere better. Better for whom, What happened in Afghanistan?
Intolerance, violence and war will only be answered by sabotage, gorrilla warfare and violence. You bomb a nation to bits and then expect it to lay down flowers whilst you enter as victors is a very old roman adage which is still ascribed by the Imperialist.
PZ come up something original for a change, thanks.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- rf786: Dear Naeem Randhawa By your... 30 Days in Afghanistan
- pavocavalry: to add further the... 30 Days in Afghanistan
- harimau: Wow!!! This article explains why... Mohajirs Are People Too
- pavocavalry: i have lived in... 30 Days in Afghanistan
- ahmedmadani: 259. 260. 261 Interesting... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- arjun_6: #245 Posted by... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- Ras: All, I want to reiterate... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- Urstruly: Re: # 245 Ras The... Persecution of Religious Minorities
