Blasphemy? That'll be 20 years in prison

[The Romulan Republic]

More to the point, it was inevitable as long as we tried to paint ourselves as the champions of democracy. What we want in Afghanistan is not democracy; it is cultural imperialism.

Maybe we can tell ourselves that it's different from the 18th century. Maybe we can tell ourselves that this time, our culture really is superior in some various objective ways we can describe. But at the end of the day, it's still cultural imperialism. We want them to be like us.

We never really wanted them to have democracy. Except for those of us who were so stupid that we sincerely thought they were already like us, and just needed the freedom to say so.

In the case of Afghanistan I'd say a bit of cultural imperialism is no terrible thing. Basic human rights should be universal. I know its an overused comparison, but if Hitler were alive today, we wouldn't let him claim culture as a defense. Nor do we let some insane cult leader use his "religion" as a defense for rape and murder. Some cultural traditions are unworthy of respect.

[Stark]

Mike's point is the simplistic attitude that if you 'give them democracy' they instantly transmogrify into citizens of an enlightened Western democracy, instead of exercising the democracy you gave them to vote for things they culturally prefer. It's not like it wasn't predictable.

[The Romulan Republic]

Mike's point is the simplistic attitude that if you 'give them democracy' they instantly transmogrify into citizens of an enlightened Western democracy, instead of exercising the democracy you gave them to vote for things they culturally prefer. It's not like it wasn't predictable.

Ok, fair enough. Though how much of this stuff is the will of the majority, and how much is the result of corruption or intimidation I'm not sure we can ever know.

Although, simply giving people the vote isn't the same as giving them democracy. It won't be a secure and lasting democracy unless it has a Constitution and political/judicial system that garuntees essential rights and freedoms.

[General Zod]

Although, simply giving people the vote isn't the same as giving them democracy. It won't be a secure and lasting democracy unless it has a Constitution and political/judicial system that garuntees essential rights and freedoms.

Why not? The notion that democracy has to have any kind of high minded ideals attached to it is an absurd brainbug. Pirate ships in the 18th century were a democracy after all, for fuck's sake.

[The Romulan Republic]

Although, simply giving people the vote isn't the same as giving them democracy. It won't be a secure and lasting democracy unless it has a Constitution and political/judicial system that garuntees essential rights and freedoms.

Why not? The notion that democracy has to have any kind of high minded ideals attached to it is an absurd brainbug. Pirate ships in the 18th century were a democracy after all, for fuck's sake.

I would argue that if you don't protect freedom of expression, then meaningful democracy is unlikely to survive. How can citizens exercise their democratic rights if any alternatives for which they might vote are surpressed and censored? How can their be a political opposition when opposing view points result in prison or death? Granted, every modern "democracy" has some level of censorship. But when its taken to this degree, I am skeptical that anything remotely "democratic" will survive for long.

[Samuel]

No, you said fun, profitable, and 'less intrusive' than other methods, as a justification for why cultural imperialism is good (and not generally doomed to failure due to poor goal-setting). Explain how it's 'fun' or 'profitable'.

Well, the rights part isn't, but getting them buying disney crap and coca-cola fits the bill as for changing their culture.

In other words, it's only bad when somebody else does it? You don't see why this line of thinking is morally bankrupt?

EDIT: in case it wasn't obvious that was in response to Samuel's post.

Hey- Western powers haven't conducted the brutal style cultural change in... 40 years I think? There is a slight difference between taking apart a culture by encouraging them to be like you and obliterating them and banning their former practices.

Also, it appears that the Romulan Republic is arguing for a republic, not a democracy.

[General Zod]

Hey- Western powers haven't conducted the brutal style cultural change in... 40 years I think? There is a slight difference between taking apart a culture by encouraging them to be like you and obliterating them and banning their former practices.

If you consider shelling the fuck out of their cities, killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians and engaging in a number of military operations to be "encouragement", sure.

[Samuel]

Hey- Western powers haven't conducted the brutal style cultural change in... 40 years I think? There is a slight difference between taking apart a culture by encouraging them to be like you and obliterating them and banning their former practices.

If you consider shelling the fuck out of their cities, killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians and engaging in a number of military operations to be "encouragement", sure.

We didn't invade Afghanistan to bring them democracy- that was tacked on with nation building. We invaded them over Bin Ladin. Given the country was in a state of civil war when we invaded, it isn't like we made things hellishly worse.

[General Zod]

Hey- Western powers haven't conducted the brutal style cultural change in... 40 years I think? There is a slight difference between taking apart a culture by encouraging them to be like you and obliterating them and banning their former practices.

If you consider shelling the fuck out of their cities, killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians and engaging in a number of military operations to be "encouragement", sure.

We didn't invade Afghanistan to bring them democracy- that was tacked on with nation building. We invaded them over Bin Ladin. Given the country was in a state of civil war when we invaded, it isn't like we made things hellishly worse.

So it doesn't count if it wasn't our original purpose?

[Shroom Man 777]

Hrm... when the Allieds occupied Germany, they had a process of de-Nazification. Maybe the Americans should've enacted a "de-Talibanization" or a "de-Islamization" process too.

[Edi]

Hrm... when the Allieds occupied Germany, they had a process of de-Nazification. Maybe the Americans should've enacted a "de-Talibanization" or a "de-Islamization" process too.

Do you have any idea of just how fucking stupid is to equate the concepts of de-Talibanization and de-Islamization?

The first might be doable under certain circumstances if you managed to crush the Taleban militarily while protecting the civilians from them at the same time. And even then the Taleban-like attitudes sit very deep in the local populace anyway. For the second, nothing short of carpet nuclear bombing would get the job done.

[The Romulan Republic]

Never mind the fact that the very last thing we want to do if we're to win over the local population is to set ourselves up as enemies of Islam.

[Aaron]

Never mind the fact that the very last thing we want to do if we're to win over the local population is to set ourselves up as enemies of Islam.

It's a little late for that, how do you think the Taliban recruit? They portray us as enemies of their faith and point to air strikes on the locals homes and the burning of their dope crops as proof. Offering them money and food helps a lot as well.

[CJvR]

"de-Islamization"

Might as well go straight to de-population.

Anyone who answers "Yes!" to the question "Are you a Muslim?" is a Taliban.
Everyone who answers "No!" is a smart Taliban...

[Garibaldi]

There is simply no way to instill Western ideas of human rights in the rural provinces. The people of these provinces live in extremely harsh conditions where ancient religious and social traditions (both Islam and tribal codes like the almost hilariously violent Pashtunwali) have been the social glue for centuries. Human rights are the luxuries of a developed, secular society. Outside of Kabul there is no such society in Afghanistan, which is why the long-term plan for Afghanistan was almost as foolish as the plan for Iraq.

I think the most feasible "solution" to the Afghan problem will ultimately be to set up a series of client warlords while keeping a few thousand troops and drones to prop up whoever is elected mayor of Kabul. The warlords would be left alone as long as they kept Islamic militants at bay, with Predator drones as the insurance that they'll keep to their end of the bargain.

[Darth Wong]

In the case of Afghanistan I'd say a bit of cultural imperialism is no terrible thing.

That does not refute the point I made, which is that we do not actually want democracy in Afghanistan. We can't simultaneously say we want democracy in Afghanistan and that we oppose Sharia Law, because there is a straight line from one to the other.

We have to choose: either we want democracy in Afghanistan and we accept that this will lead to Sharia Law, or we oppose Sharia Law and we are willing to suspend democracy to stop it.

[Garibaldi]

We have to choose: either we want democracy in Afghanistan and we accept that this will lead to Sharia Law, or we oppose Sharia Law and we are willing to suspend democracy to stop it.

Frankly I don't think we have a choice. I can think of no Afghani in any position of power who is committed to opposing Sharia so even if we wanted to set up a secular strongman to govern the country I don't think we'd be able to find him. Our real choice is between the traditional Islamic/tribal laws that have prevailed in Afghanistan for centuries or the more virulent, expansionist strain practiced by the Taliban.

[Sarevok]

We have to choose: either we want democracy in Afghanistan and we accept that this will lead to Sharia Law, or we oppose Sharia Law and we are willing to suspend democracy to stop it.

Frankly I don't think we have a choice. I can think of no Afghani in any position of power who is committed to opposing Sharia so even if we wanted to set up a secular strongman to govern the country I don't think we'd be able to find him. Our real choice is between the traditional Islamic/tribal laws that have prevailed in Afghanistan for centuries or the more virulent, expansionist strain practiced by the Taliban.

I think the correct term is Afgan. Now to the main point. Blasphemy law != talibanstan. Blasphemy is one of the touchy feely issues. Even in decent muslim countries it is good idea not to insult islam publicly. But that is kind of irrelevant At this point when lots of people in Afganistan can not find food or a roof over their head I think there are more pressing issues. Getting people fed, housed and employed and ensuring their children get educated is more crucial than whether or not they vote for fundies. Because without the foundations of a developed country laid you will never get that kind of thinking out.

[Garibaldi]

At this point when lots of people in Afganistan can not find food or a roof over their head I think there are more pressing issues. Getting people fed, housed and employed and ensuring their children get educated is more crucial than whether or not they vote for fundies. Because without the foundations of a developed country laid you will never get that kind of thinking out.

Even if you achieve the extraordinarily difficult task of laying such foundations (the success of which is increasingly in doubt), it'll still be generations before you could expect to see any kind of western-style thinking take root, for reasons you yourself supplied. Even in relatively advanced, moderate Muslim nations like Indonesia or Jordan- countries which are light-years against of Afghanistan in terms of development - devotion to traditional forms of Islam is very high.

Blasphemy law != talibanstan.

This is sort of one of the points I was trying to make. Keeping Talibanism out of Afghanistan is a viable goal, but getting rid of Islamic law in general simply isn't possible.

[hongi]

And then says only the ones without sin themselves should actually carry it out, remember.

You're being facetious. The Hebrew Bible doesn't say that at all. The 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' part comes from the New Testament, hundreds and hundreds of years after the death penalty rule was established.

[Samuel]

In the case of Afghanistan I'd say a bit of cultural imperialism is no terrible thing.

That does not refute the point I made, which is that we do not actually want democracy in Afghanistan. We can't simultaneously say we want democracy in Afghanistan and that we oppose Sharia Law, because there is a straight line from one to the other.

We have to choose: either we want democracy in Afghanistan and we accept that this will lead to Sharia Law, or we oppose Sharia Law and we are willing to suspend democracy to stop it.

Plan B. We make a constitution that bans them from enacting Shira law and makes the provisions unchangable.

[Sarevok]

This is sort of one of the points I was trying to make. Keeping Talibanism out of Afghanistan is a viable goal, but getting rid of Islamic law in general simply isn't possible.

You can get rid of most islamic law. Or at least create a modern state where laws about morality only exist on paper instead of being enforced. It is just that there are certain issues, like abortion or evolution in christian states that the deeply religious voting block will fight tooth and nail for. You have your polarizing issues and we have ours, sadly so far our own liberals have not made as much progress due to starting late compared to western states which started modernizing much earlier.

[Hillary]

In the case of Afghanistan I'd say a bit of cultural imperialism is no terrible thing.

That does not refute the point I made, which is that we do not actually want democracy in Afghanistan. We can't simultaneously say we want democracy in Afghanistan and that we oppose Sharia Law, because there is a straight line from one to the other.

We have to choose: either we want democracy in Afghanistan and we accept that this will lead to Sharia Law, or we oppose Sharia Law and we are willing to suspend democracy to stop it.

Plan B. We make a constitution that bans them from enacting Shira law and makes the provisions unchangable.

Are you serious? Even if it were possible to make a provision in the constitution unchangeable, how the fuck do you enforce this once the troops have pulled out?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The only way that Sharia Law has been successfully eliminated from a Muslim country was when a nationalist general in the Ottoman Empire by the name of Mustafa Kemal defeated all the western armies occupying parts of his country and declared a secular republic by force of will, and even that achievement is by no means guaranteed, except by the active intervention of the Turkish Army into politics. Therefore I have to admit that, in retrospect, the opinion that the US should enforce democracy on Muslim countries was particularly sad and ironic; alas, we were so deluded once. They don't want it, and, really, only their epic heroes are capable of ending the Sharia, if they choose. But even then it appears only in a state where, necessarily, the army has the regular and necessary right of intervening to preserve constitutional secularism. Yet the prerequisites for the growth of such a state anywhere else in the Muslim world appear thoroughly lacking.

[Darth Wong]

In the case of Afghanistan I'd say a bit of cultural imperialism is no terrible thing.

That does not refute the point I made, which is that we do not actually want democracy in Afghanistan. We can't simultaneously say we want democracy in Afghanistan and that we oppose Sharia Law, because there is a straight line from one to the other.

We have to choose: either we want democracy in Afghanistan and we accept that this will lead to Sharia Law, or we oppose Sharia Law and we are willing to suspend democracy to stop it.

Plan B. We make a constitution that bans them from enacting Shira law and makes the provisions unchangable.

Imposing a constitution upon them by military force is the same thing as suspension of democracy. And even then, you would need to force local authorities to actually obey these rules. Just look at India, where authorities look the other way when "Untouchables" are tortured, raped, or killed.