I've heard rumors that Libya may turn into an Islamic Republic. I just have something to say on this

[white_wolf]

If that is the will of the people of Libya then so be it. It isn't our place to impose our version of democracy on other people, hell we aren't even that great at our own democracy. So I say let the people of Libya decide. Secondly, I recently made a post where I supported the notion that Libyans aren't capable of governing themselves. I'd just like to say I skimmed the post I was replying too and I retract that statement. I've never been a believe in the "white man's burden" and I regret that I came across that way. Part of the reason I'm posting this is to admit I was wrong and to clear up any misunderstandings that my have resulted. It was stupid of me to reply to a post without fully reading it, but since I can't delete I'll simply retract it here.

[Warpy]

1. Right, I got slammed for suggesting that we probably wouldn't like

their new government any better than we did their old one, however that's likely to be the case since it will be a very different form from the one that suits us and they're not trying to please us, they're trying to please themselves.

[white_wolf]

2. We may not like it, but it isn't our place to interfere.

If the people there like it and support it,that's all that matters.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Exactly

.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. A little late for THAT, now isn't it?

We sustained a revolution that probably didn't have enough true support to survive on its own, so we've already interfered in the worst way: with the sword.

[joshcryer]

20. Are you really advocating installing a government?

It's unclear where you stand here. It's almost over, I thought you'd be pleased with NATO leaving.

[Mr Deltoid]

32. No, it isnt

Obama can walk away, satisfied.

[SlimJimmy]

12. If that's the case, and I agree, then why did we bomb the living Hell

out of them? Really, their country, their frigging problem. If they want an Islamic government with Sharia law, fine. But don't expect us to pay nearly a billion dollars for them to have that privilege. I'm getting so tired of these illegal actions by our government.

[riderinthestorm]

41. +1 nt

[EFerrari]

13. Apparently not. n/t

[gateley]

4. Agree. I'm just hopeful that they don't have backers like

the Christian Right in the US -- I really want these people to have a fair chance.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. So then would you approve if the majoirty of Americans changed the U.S. to a

Christian Republic?

(I agree that Liban's have a right to make the government they want.)

[white_wolf]

6. I would not support it, but if that was truly the will of the majority then I wouldn't try to stand

in their way. However, I would not stay here. Theocracy's are inherently totalitarian, and honestly I think the term "(insert religion of choice here) republic) is a paradox.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. In general use, a Republic is a state without a king.

We are a Madisonian Republic in which we have a represeantive government formed through democratic elections. An Islamic Republic is a religous Islamic state without a king.

And for the record, I would not stay here if we became a Christian Republic.

[white_wolf]

14. Good point.

I tend to associate republic with a Representative democracy in my head, even though that isn't technically true.

[Odin2005]

39. Yup, many states in the Classical Mediterranean were oligarchic republics, like Rome.

In many of those republics you had no vote if you did not have enough income to buy your own military equipment. Our word "proletariat" comes from the Latin "proletarii", people that didn't have enough income to buy military equipment and thus could not vote.

[RC]

8. What does that have to do with anything?

It is their country. We need to stop already with the meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Why do you think the Meddle Middle East is so unstable in the first place?

[Xithras]

9. Yes, I would.

The nature of a democracy is that it changes to suit the will of its citizens. If the majority of the citizens in this nation elected representatives to Congress who enacted a constitutional amendment to repeal freedom of religion and impose a Christian religious mandate, and they got the states to sign off of it and enact it as a formal amendment, that would be a legitimate democratic action. While I would disagree with it and either move, or work my ass off to get a repeal pushed through, I would absolutely support the right of the people to enact that change.

Free people sometimes make decisions that others don't like. That's the cost of freedom. It's imperfect, but the alternative is even worse.

[lindysalsagal]

11. Islamic republic is one of those terms that has been given negative connotations

through no fault of their own. This is part of the GOP fear spin.

If they have to take orders from Iran, that's not good. But if they can manage to sort it all out and run the place themselves, there's no reason to expect that anything dangerous like terrorism has to be generated there.

Isreal is a hebrew republic, or, something close to it. I'm no historian. Judaism is definitely their state religion, anyway.

[uppityperson]

15. Are you saying there should be a free, fair, vote that all adults can vote in, have their votes coun

and if they vote to turn their country into an "Islamic Republic", then it is ok?

What is your definition of an "Islamic Republic" as there are different ones?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_republic
Islamic republic is the name given to several states in the Muslim world including the Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Mauritania. Pakistan adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. Mauritania adopted it on 28 November 1958. Iran adopted it after the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty. Afghanistan adopted it after the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban. Despite the similar name the countries differ greatly in their governments and laws.

The term Islamic republic has come to mean several different things, some contradictory to others. To those Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa who advocate it, an Islamic Republic is a state under a particular theocratic form of government. They see it as a compromise between a purely Islamic Caliphate, and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception of the Islamic republic, the penal code of the state is required to be compatible with some laws of Sharia, and the state may not be a monarchy as many Middle Eastern states are presently.

In other cases, it is merely a symbol of cultural identity, as was the case when Pakistan adopted the title. In fact many argue that an Islamic Republic strikes a middle path between a completely secular and a theocratic (and/or Orthodox Islamic) system of government.

[white_wolf]

16. Are you saying there should be a free, fair, vote that all adults can vote in, have their votes coun

and if they vote to turn their country into an "Islamic Republic", then it is ok?" Yes that is what I'm saying. It is their country, they can vote however they please and establish whatever government they want.

[uppityperson]

43. What is your definition of an "Islamic Republic" as there are different ones?

If there is a free, fair, etc etc etc vote, I think they can vote whatever they want. However, what is YOUR definition of an "islamic republic" as there are different ones?

[Waiting For Everyman]

17. K&R white_wolf.

There is a weird mindset around here lately. I think we could afford to wait to start the hand-wringing until and unless a problem actually *happens*. We need to give the Libyans and other Arab revos a chance, and stop getting irate over problems we're so dead-sure are going to develop in the future. We also need to stop being so sure that America and the West can never do anything right. What happens when we expect only bad from people - we usually get only bad. It's the same thing. Criticism when deserved is fine, but we need to also give credit where credit's due, or we're not likely to get anything else done that works. It's only logical, and common sense.

I agree we should be open minded about what kind of democracy the Libyan choose (when they get to that point). It's likely to be a bit different from any other, just as people are all different.

[jberryhill]

18. The US turned Iraq into one

Iraq was officially secular. Under their new constitution they are officially Islamic.

[riderinthestorm]

42. +1. nt

[joshcryer]

19. If this is to be believed the "solution" is not a Turkey 1980 style coup.

So you have to respect them as people and trust their decision making, unless you want to be stereotypical and box them in in a racist and islamaphobic way. You look at South Sudan, I know people who called South Sudan a sick conspiracy (Sudan has oil, South Sudan split, it has about 70% of the oil, but they agreed with Sudan to share all the oil profits, something they didn't have to do but that which they did anyway).

This sort of discussion is just not credible at all, imo.

I appreciate your honesty on this.

[white_wolf]

21. I agree fully.

I do respect them and their decision making. This thread was partially a way for me to apologize for my unintentional support of racism in that other thread. As I said, I foolish commented without fully reading the post. We need to let people make their own decisions and choose their own government.

[amborin]

22. remember what happened in Algeria...

[joshcryer]

24. Cuba invasion?

:blush:

[white_wolf]

26. Or remember the time we overthrew an elected government in Chile

and installed a brutal right wing dictator in it's place? Wasn't that awesome? :sarcasm: Yeah, we should really stay out of the regime change business. Let people decide what kind of government they want for themselves. Besides, if we are so dead set on spreading "democracy" we could really use some here in the U.S.

[joshcryer]

28. I'm just glad you're finally appreciating that the rebels don't want boots on the ground...

...and that ultimately that they're not going to let an occupying imperial force actually do "regime change." All we 'did' was let them have a chance at success with less bloodshed (I think that ultimately it would've been a decades long civil war that directly affected Tunisia, Chad, and Egypt, causing even more people to reach for radicalism had we done nothing).

Even conspiracies about the CIA won't bore fruit because once they have internet going again the rumors will spread far and wide and they will be vetted, I bet you. That one guy from Langley needs to watch his back, for instance, because they're not going to put up with this shit.

No boots on the ground.

No bases.

No oil contract renegotiation.

[amborin]

31. "no boots on the ground" really?! what Panetta says:

"The New York Times cited the comments of one US officer, who “said that small teams of American military and other government weapons experts could be sent into Libya after the fall of Qaddafi’s regime to help Libyan rebel and other international forces secure the weapons.”

This was confirmed by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who told the military newspaper Stars & Stripes that any US personnel would consist of specialized detachments, not regular troops. “Panetta said that effort would fall to the larger diplomatic governance effort, which he sees as a function for the State Department and other NATO governments,” the newspaper said"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/liby-a22.shtml

[joshcryer]

35. Yes, it's better clarified as "occupying forces."

The CIA will likely live there forever, as it does in Iran and probably even North Korea. Covert ops and the like are never going anywhere as they'll likely continue to train even after NATO is gone.

That is significantly different from an occupying military force as in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[WinkyDink]

23. Like the Libyan women are going to vote for this?

[grahamhgreen]

25. Then why did we get involved in the first place? What were we trying to impose with our bombs?

And why can't we do it with our words?

Should we be using our blood and treasure to help set up Islamic republics?

[white_wolf]

27. If the people want to vote in an "Islamic Republic" then that is their right.

I personally think we should stay out of the affairs of other nations and let them govern themselves.

[democrat2thecore]

33. Woman-hating religious zealots of so-called, "Islamic Republics."

We shouldn't be spending our tax dollars on the woman-hating religious zealots of so-called, "Islamic Republics." I've never understood the love for this particular religion at a place that hates every other religion (and rightfully so!). It seems like even the atheists here, like me, love to stand up for this particular religion. We should be opposed to state religions everywhere.

[riderinthestorm]

44. + Another +1000000. nt

[The Magistrate]

29. These 'Rumors', Sir, Are Mere Propagandas: Ghaddafi's Left Supporters Grow Increasingly Shrill

[joshcryer]

34. With Respect, Sir, It Has Never Been As Bad As When They Got The UN Resolution

It has been increasingly on the decline and the last few shrill holdouts are merely marginalizing themselves. A year or so from now they'll shut up completely or be banned to go post on Above Top Secret or another conspiracy site.

[demgrrrll]

30. The rumors seem to be popping up on most of the right wing

sites like FR etc.. Do you have any other sites for these rumors? I tried a quick google what I found had a very right wing slant.

[joshcryer]

37. It actually originates in the "left wing" blogosphere, particularly authoritarian communists.

It's no wonder that right wingers use the same talknig points because conceptually they have no fundamental differences outside of terminology (right wingers believe in the almighty corporation entity that acts like a state, authoritarian communists believe in the almighty state entity that acts like a corporation).

[bluestate10]

36. The person that said Libya should become an Islamic republic.

Also stated that that republic would respect it's neighbors, work to heal internal divisions and follow the rule of law.

[Odin2005]

38. To many folks in the Middle East "Islamic" just means "populist".

In many Middle-Eastern countries the only way to safely air your grievances against your government is through religious organizations.

[swilton]

40. How courageous of you to admit you're wrong

I agree with your post - let the Libyans decide - there is already too much Western intervention.