Turkey's Supreme Court just ruled that the election, which produced a Moslem as president, is void. The hatred of US, generated in many by the invasion and destruction of Iraq, was part of the reason for the election of this Moslem leader. Nearly a year ago, I predicted here that the likely final solution in Iraq was a division into three sectors, with considerable local atomony, if not complete independence, and predicted that this would cause the Kurds in Turkey to try to join the Kurdish sector of what was Iraq. - I.e. far from making the region more democratic, the final result of GWB's ignorance and arrogance would be regional chaos - Begining to look like again I was correct. - Sad how many have and will die because ignorant and arrogant US tried to make it a real country from a tribal / religious region, thousands of years old. First: Ignorance of the fact that Iraqi marry their second cousins. This makes large family clans - their first loyalty. Second: Unlike typical Americans, religion is a daily thing, very important to their behavior. - Their second loyalty (to their variation of it.) Third: Lawrence of Arabia / British Foreign Office intentionally created a country called "Iraq" from three mutually hostile clan/religious tribes, (so Iraqi oil would be easier to control). Result: Iraqis have ZERO loyalty (unless on the US pay role) to the "nation" called "Iraq" by foreigners and by locals taking money to serve in its "elected" government. IRAQ HAS NEVER BEEN A NATION, and never will be until the several thousand-year-old pattern of marrying one of your hundreds, if not thousands, of second cousins ends. …” From: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1372152&postcount=10
Another dose of unpalatable democracy in the ME. From secularism to fundamentalism in one easy lesson.
Yes. Like Henry Ford's : "You can have any color model T you like, so long as it is black." US says: "You can have democracy you like, so long as it is one that we approve of." That has been the policy at least since 9/11/73* ------------------------------------ *No, "73" is correct, not an error. That is the day the CIA's agents killed the democratically elected president of Chile. The first of several reason why Chavez is so popular in South American. Chile's current president father's was tortured to death soon after 9/11/73 by these CIA agents, and more than 10,000 others were druged, and then dropped live into the sea from the helicopters the US supplied. - Their crime: - being left leaning voters. Before it ended, more than 50,000 died in this US generated 9/11 (of 1973).
Its interesting how American "gifts of democracy" unerringly end in fundamentalism. Apparently the people choose to have no democracy. How amazing is that! One wonders what pushes them so unswervingly in the opposite direction. Could it possibly be disillusionment with their experience of Western democracy? Nah, that would be way too obvious.
The modern republic of Turkey was founded on secularism by Attaturk. But it looks like the rest of the population doesn't agree. I think they should have their religious president. If s/he doesn't destroy the church/state separation, then no harm done. If s/he does, then they will experience the consequences and decide from that whether next time they'd rather vote in a secular government or a religious one. Hopefully they won't lose all their basic rights. But really, if the majority doesn't want rights . . . can a government impose them?
Yeah thats the problem with democracy, people tend to decide for themselves what they want, and never think about what some outside distant power wants. So selfish.
There were a couple of huge rallies last week in support of secularism - over half a million each time. I seem to recall the army also making a statement that they were prepared to mobilize in support of secular government. I think the perceived concern by secular Turks is that, once having gone religious, they won't be allowed to go back, which appears to be the model elsewhere.
Not really. It has more to do with Turkish economic growth bringing lots of rural people (who are more religious) into urban life, and with it higher political participation. If anything, the Turkish secular parties are more anti-American than the AK party. Also, the president of Turkey is elected by the Turkish parlaiment, so it's hard to read this as a statement about America. It's more a statement about the ascendency of the AK party, which has been in power since *before* the Iraq war. To the extent this is true, it's a very recent phenomenon. Prior to the invasion, Iraq was an extremely secular country, with intermarriage between sects common (1/3 of Bagdad marriages are across Sunni and Shiite lines). If today's Iraqis worry more about sect, it's because of the roving death squads, not because of any long-standing fissure in the society. For someone who keeps railing against the "arrogance and ignorance" of the Americans administering Iraq, you're displaying a lot of hubris here. Iraqis fought as one against the Iranians for almost 10 years. Even if you did have your facts straight, it's extremely presumptuous for you to go around speaking on behalf of the people of Iraq.
I think you could reasonably go back a little further. The Bay of Pigs springs to mind, though you might quibble whether Castro had insitgated a democracy. Good of you to defend their position like that.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that these guys are fundamentalists, or that the United States finds them unpalatable. Gul is a moderate, and is particularly popular in the west for his pro-EU positions. It's only inside Turkey that he's controversial, and then only because of his religion. If there's anything that the US finds unpalatable about the situation, it's the exclusionary nature of Turkish secularism, and the role of the military in upholding it. Secular republicanism is not seen as incompatible with presidents and other public servants being openly religious in America. The AKP is like the Christian Democrats of the Middle East, while the CHP (the secular opposition party) is militant not only about secularism, but also about Cyprus (putting them at odds with the EU) and minorities (i.e., Kurds, who happen to be tight with the US).
I said: "Iraqis have ZERO loyalty (unless on the US pay role) to the "nation" called "Iraq" by foreigners and by locals taking money to serve in its "elected" government. IRAQ HAS NEVER BEEN A NATION, and never will be until the several thousand-year-old pattern of marrying one of your hundreds, if not thousands, of second cousins ends. …” To which you replied: I am not sure exactly what you mean by "hubris." - My dictionary gives one meaning as "confidence." - Yes, I am confident that the above is correct and very important. Another dictionary definition is "arrogance," but that does not seem to apply as I am only giving a description of the existing condition in Iraq, now and for the last 2000+ years! I am not speaking for the Iraqis, only telling what is well known. You imply, if not out right state, that my facts are wrong. - Name one wrong fact above and correct it if you can. I do make a prediction, based on those fact, and it sure seems to be coming true so far. You also said (trying to prove that the nation of Iraq existed. - I think you motivation for commenting.): That is true, but does not make Iraq a "nation" as most understand that term. For example, the Palestinians are at least as unified in their war against Israel* as Iraq was during Iraq/Iran war and have been so for five times longer - does that make them a nation? Iraq (actually Saddam, as Iraq the nation did not exist, except in western minds) was on US pay role to fight Iran as Iran had held many US citizens hostage in the embassy embarrassing the US etc. (and caused the defeat of Jimmy Carter, etc.) I know for fact that US supplied satellite photos to him for attacking the Iranian troop concentrations with poison gas. (His trial never touch on that as that would expose the US role in the gassing of 100 times more people than those for which he hung.) I strongly suspect the US may have even supplied the gas he used. - We were very mad at Iran back then, more so than even today, and then Saddam was the US's "good guy." ---------------------------------------- *There are difference among the Palestinians about the best tactics, but complete (well >95%) agreement that Israel must give back the land (or pay for it) that the creation of Israel displaced them from. More than 99% agree that Israel must be forced back to the 1967 borders, but again disagreement exist as to how to achieve this. (I do not have survey data for these nubers, but the exact numbers are not important to my point - I.e. Being united against an enemy does not make a nation. Also are you suggesting that "disunity" was even possible under Saddam - LOL !) Saddam ruled by force a region, not a nation, as has been often the case in the Mid East. Most who live there are tribal people, not citizens of a nation. Again: If GWB only had understood this, even he is not dumb enough to try to make a nation from a tribal population in less than a generation!
