Replies

Pat's reasoning is appealing for sure. We have been supporting elections in an area that is controlled by a series of theocracies that have contolled the lives of these people for hundreds of years. The political structure in these Islamic countries has been established in order to facilitate control by the religious powers.

We have been successful in overturning dictators/political leaders such as Saddam. Essentially, he was a secular leader. However, how much luck have we really had limiting the control and influence of the religious leaders. Almost none. Take Al Sadr in Iraq. This man was leading a revolt! He was directly responsible for loss of American and Iraqi lives at the hands of terrorists. But, in the end, he becomes part of the political process. We couldn't take him out.

I guess my point is that it is very risky to try to spread Democracy on the political front without altering the religious impact. And my friends, we haven't found a way to do that. Don't get me wrong - I think it's great that these people have embraced their God-given right to self-determination. But, if we want these people to not support terrorists, we have to find a way to overcome the impact of these religious leaders.

This is a very hard subject to get your hands on. In the end, I don't know which option is the best to take. Should we just get rid of the bad guys and rely on the hope that the people will make the right decisions, or should we work to change the hearts of the people so that they will get rid of the bad guys on their own.

I don't know which is right. I know that the attack on Iraq was absolutely necessary. We have to have the courage to get rid of killers and butchers like Saddam. But, after that, I don't know what is the best way to help the people set up their political structures.

Any ideas?

This is not a if...then construct along the lines of "We endorsed free elections so we must accept the result." The process is a good thing, but actions have consequences. Citizenship (and voting) also entails responsibility. Somebody likened Hamas to the Nazis, above. Hoping to avoid oversimplification, I just note, BOTH won at least one key popular vote. Maybe even for roughly similar reasons. I assume you are not saying we therefore should have accepted everything the Nazis proceeded to do.

In the case of Hamas, they have publicly and loudly proclaimed their desire to see the end of Israel and their support of terrorism. Palestinians elected these jokers in full knowledge. They will undoubtedly reap accordingly. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Frankly, offering Hamas a chance to recant (which wouldn't be worth the breath required to claim it) is probably overly generous. Carpet bombing seems far more appropriate. I see absolutely nothing with condemning the Hamas government nor the Palestinian people suffering for their decision.

Should we just get rid of the bad guys and rely on the hope that the people will make the right decisions, or should we work to change the hearts of the people so that they will get rid of the bad guys on their own.

We can't change the hearts of the people, not this way. We don't have the will to nation build ala MacArthur.

So yes, get rid of the bad guys, but only that, and only when they pose a clear danger of another 9/11.

But, in the end, he becomes part of the political ~~process~~ problem. We couldn't take him out.

Actually it's more we didn't take him out. I still wonder, why?

we have to find a way to overcome the impact of these religious leaders.

Impact is a useful word, so many meanings. Impact maintenance, center of impact. If there are enough martyrs, individual martyrdom becomes meaningless.

We have to have the courage to get rid of killers and butchers like Saddam.
Any ideas?

Summary execution has always had a short/sweet ring to it. Works well on traitors, tyrants, deserters,and terrorists. While Private Slovic was the only deserter executed in WWII, there were 46 allied rapists executed/shot by firing squad. The farcical trial of Hussein is unnecessary.