said did ring true.
A lot of Arab states suffer harsh dictatorships because it is felt
worldwide that this is the only way to keep the peace in such a
religiously fragmented region. If you don't rule with an iron fist, and
give in to 'equal rights' and everyone having a say, all these states
would devolve into mindless fighting, chaos and anarchy.
I don't know enough about the Middle East to say yay or nay to this, but
sadly it oft seems that there are so many tensions beneath the surface
that without something greater suppressing these tensions, civil wars
would probably break out in every Arab state and last indefinitely.
Is what happened in Iraq a direct result of American intervention, or
would this have happened if by some other means Saddam had been removed
from power. Would the resulting power vacuum have led to the exact same
insurgency, militia fighting against militia etc. . I'm leaning toward
the fact that this would have been the case anyway, as would be the case
if the royal family of Saudi arabia suddenly stepped down.
To me though, this makes the outcome in Iraq much more important. If
Iraq survives as a democracy, without the heavy hand of a dictator
controlling things and without replacing a single Dictator with the
heavy hand of several US troops, then it will show that this sort of
freedom is quite possible in the Middle East.
If however Iraq fails, then what hope would any of the other countries
have of the equal rights and freedoms which democracy promises?
-Gel
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 3/5/2004
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
