Might For Right

As the free world unites in its battle against terrorism, we will have a chance to take the war against terror and despotism to each country where it has a home and root it out. Perhaps the world will take enough of a proactive stance to depose Saddam Hussein, Muammar Khadafy, and a few others, and replace them with democratic-style governments (not yet but anti-terror sentiment is growing around the world). It would be a large project but one for which the time may be nearing. It could be the next project of the free world, for the future world.


As for the other Islamic countries which are not ruled by despots but are still mired in centuries-old traditions, they can stand by and watch. After China is isolated as the only non-democratic country on Earth, they can be converted through the carrot and stick approach, and finally their decades of egregious internal human rights abuses will draw to a close.


After all it is just a matter of time before democracy becomes the only form of government on Earth. Maybe the time is nearing for the free nations to join together and speed the process up a bit.


Might doesn't make Right, but Might for Right is generally a good thing. I don't think there is any question that we are right on these matters. Perhaps the time when the free world will unite against not only terror, but also against totalitarianism and despotism, is soon to be at hand.


Is all this too radical an idea to possibly work, or could it actually be feasible? Just wondering.

For those who might object to the scenasrio I am proposing on the basis that in involves violating another country's soivereignty or smacks of U.S. imperialism, I waill just point out that by and large the Afghani people are happy we are helping them riod their country of the foreign fighters and the oppressive Taliban. It also appears that a democratic-style Afghan government will eventually fall into place.


Similarly, the people who do not live in democracies and who are oppressed by despots would likely be happy also if we helped them rid themselves of the Saddams, and they could establish a representative government in the style of a democracy.

A central aspect of fundamentalist militaristic Islamism is obedience to the ruling (religious) elite. It is not compatible with democracy. I fear that a growing majority of citizens in some Arab totalitarian regimes may adhere to this fundamentalist form of Islam. If so, their terrorist governments would need to be replaced by pro-western governments which, though less repressive than their current government, may not be more democratic.


The next logical step would be to use their schools and media to teach western values of freedom, tolerance, and peace rather than Islamic supremecy, expansion, and obedience. This could prepare their people for democracy.


The only justification for such imperialistic actions is self defense. The goals of militaristic fundamentalist Islamism are the defeat of the west, expansion of fundamentalist Islamic rule, and the forced conversion or elimination of non-Moslems.

Good points, Michael.


I think those Islamic regimes which are terrorist/totalitarian do need to be replaced; the self-defense motif can reasonably be invoked at this point by the Western world; and if the free world bands together with enough solidarity we can get rid of Saddam and a few others of the world's worst leaders. Concerted goals and efforts would make the process far easier.


I don't favor such things except in extreme circumstances. I think such extreme circumstances have arrived and are in the process of gaining momentum. There is simply no compatible solution for us with a philosophy which preaches that the Western world should be destroyed, that non-believers should be killed, that supports terrorist attacks and glorifies dying for the cause, and that has an highly aggressive approach to furthering these aims. The biggest dangers are yet to come as the availablity of weapons of mass destruction grows.


Also, although Saudi Arabia is not a terrorist state nor a truly despotic regime, they need to stop teaching SO MUCH fundamentalism in the schools--I think I read that 1/3 of the standard curriculum consists of Wahhabism, a very strong form of fundamentalism with an anti-American slant. No wonder there are so many young militants emerging from Saudi Arabia. The government needs to realize the future implications of this, and to reduce the emphasis on these teachings, although this may be difficult for them to do. A diplomatic effort should be undertaken to explore this topic further with the Saudis, because their current school teachings are going to put their whole country on a collision course with the West.

Is it possible that Saddam and Kadafi are not as fanatical about expanding Islamic rule as many of their countrymen? Assuming neither was involved in recent terrorist events, it appears they haven't messed with us since we bombed them. If they are motivated primarily by personal glory rather than the glorification of Allah, then perhaps the threat of military action may be sufficient to keep them in line.

Yes, I think Saddam and maybe Khaddafi are primarily interested in themselves and their rule, not in expeanding Islam. Saddam at least is the big danger because he absolutely WILL have nuclear weapons before long if he is not stopped, and he then will of course use them against Israel or his neighbors or us or sell them to terrorists. He is truly a brutal bastard who rules his own people with two iron fists and cares nothing if they starve while he pumps his military machine up. So even if he had nothing at all to do with terrorists he would be well worth removing and the average Iraqi could then breathe a little easier. However he really is involved with terrorists; Iraqi Intelligence is known to have met with al Qaeda operatives on multiple occasions.