[$tinkle]

after careful reading, democracy seems to be at odds with tribalism; or rather, they appear to be mutally exclusive. surely, wolfowitz, rove, bremmer, & co. factored this in the run-up to war. to understate the obvious, there appears to be resistance to democracy in iraq. However, democracy is flourishing in israel.

is it an 'arab' thing? no: lookit africa.

anyone here have special insight as to how iraq & afghanistan will become democracy-lite, a-la secular turkey? methinks that's a lofty goal, to be had in no less than 10 years.

is it a corollary that the war on terror is indeed a war on tribalism? if so, is this necessarily a bad thing?

 

[Ridemonkey]

I think Bush has created an impossible situation that will only end badly.

 

[golgiaparatus]

I guess Im unfamiliar with tribalism, I thought the war on terror was a war on people that like to blow up other people to make a point?

Oh and RM, yep.
The US needs to have a "dont interfere with the existance of other governments" policy.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus

Oh and RM, yep.
The US needs to have a "dont interfere with the existance of other governments" policy.

So having saddam in charge was a good thing?

 

[Silver]

Don't call Israel a democracy just yet. That's like calling South Africa a democracy 30 years ago...

Unless they pull out of the occupied territories, that is.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
I guess Im unfamiliar with tribalism, I thought the war on terror was a war on people that like to blow up other people to make a point?

these seem to be emphasized in tribalism, to democracy's exclusion:

• honor
• societal placement based upon genealogy
• subjugation based upon gender
• where there's religion, there's fanatacism
• education is secondary (or lower) to the tribal demands
• sexual repression
• judgment heaped upon unwed mothers
• killing their own to preserve/reinstate "honor"
• suppression of the media (where available)
• intolerance
• thought provoking discussion
• absolute morality

but i'm new on this investigation; these keep popping up, however.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
Don't call Israel a democracy just yet. That's like calling South Africa a democracy 30 years ago...

Unless they pull out of the occupied territories, that is.

yes, because Israel and S.Africa is such an apples-to-apples comparison

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by LordOpie
yes, because Israel and S.Africa is such an apples-to-apples comparison

It is right now. Israel is sitting in the West Bank and Gaza, on top of 3 million Arabs in the occupied territories. If Israel keeps them, they either give them full voting rights (democracy) or they don't (which is pretty much apartheid, as far as I can tell.)

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
It is right now. Israel is sitting in the West Bank and Gaza, on top of 3 million Arabs in the occupied territories. If Israel keeps them, they either give them full voting rights (democracy) or they don't (which is pretty much apartheid, as far as I can tell.)

or they could leave, which is what they should've done 50 years ago when they realized it was a bad idea to intentionally enter that land area from Jordan to set up camp and become a pain in the ass.

but we digress from the topic at hand.

 

[Silver]

Who was there first, pray tell?

Jews or Arabs?

There is a third and fourth option, I guess.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by $tinkle
[*]education is secondary (or lower) to the tribal demands

I find this very interesting esspecially in the context of referring to Islam.

In doing some research on the history of Christianity, I learned that we went through a time where intellectual knowledge was though of as "of the devil" and people were essentially told what to think or they were punished by the church. During this time (the dark ages) Judiasm and Islam were the only cultures still studying science, philosophy and the like.

Now it seems "the shoe is on the other foot" for Islam, or at least the sects of Islam that get the most press.

Anyway I thought that was interesting.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
So having saddam in charge was a good thing?

Not saying Saddam was a nice guy or a good ruler. But was it the place of the US to change that? I dont think that it was, I think GW got into a pissing contest and Saddam was an idiot to think that he could piss further than GW. Everyone knows that the pres of the USA can piss REALLY far.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Don't call Israel a democracy just yet. That's like calling South Africa a democracy 30 years ago...

so, when did we become a democracy? after 1964? after the emancipation proclamation? I do see your point, but ask you to consider: did not FW DeClerk & other afrikaners legally view blacks as lesser people, much like we did until ~40 yrs ago?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Silver
Who was there first, pray tell?

Jews or Arabs?

I'll say the Iraqi's, Abraham was an Iraqi.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by $tinkle
honor, societal placement based upon genealogy, subjugation based upon gender, where there's religion, there's fanatacism, education is secondary (or lower) to the tribal demands, sexual repression, judgment heaped upon unwed mothers, killing their own to preserve/reinstate "honor", suppression of the media (where available), intolerance, thought provoking discussion, absolute morality

Is that the definition of tribalism? Or is that your view of a phucked up muslim society?

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
so, when did we become a democracy? after 1964? after the emancipation proclamation? I do see your point, but ask you to consider: did not FW DeClerk & other afrikaners legally view blacks as lesser people, much like we did until ~40 yrs ago?

The USA is a republic, and has never claimed to be a democracy (How do you like the way I squirmed out of that one? Good question though...and something I'm not really sure of and will have to think about for a bit.)

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Is that the definition of tribalism? Or is that your view of a phucked up muslim society?

oddly enough, nearly everyone of these "aspects" could be viewed on PBS's "Colonial House"; reckon honor killings would be poo-poo'd.

That you've concluded these are adherent to a (hopefully) small part of islam is not an indictment to me, but rather to muslim extremism, no?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Not saying Saddam was a nice guy or a good ruler. But was it the place of the US to change that? I dont think that it was, I think GW got into a pissing contest and Saddam was an idiot to think that he could piss further than GW. Everyone knows that the pres of the USA can piss REALLY far.

Hahahaha Ilike that.

Saddam decided to give up his power when he waltzed into Kuwait thinking no one would challange his move. We pushed him back and stopped short of a bloody battle if he would power down....and allow monitoring. That was good enough for everyone at the time. Saddam decided he was above that aggreement and then the pissing contest began. And yes the president of the united states of america can piss pretty far.

I think people put to much emphasis on the "war on terror" and Iraq. Other than terrorists going in to fight on Iraqi soil. There isn't a conection....unless you cound terrorizing his own people and invading neighboring countries bringing "terror" upon people.

Do people think we would have never gone after Saddam if there was no 9/11 attack? Saddam was running on borrowed time.....he borrowed over a decade worth.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I think people put to much emphasis on the "war on terror" and Iraq. Other than terrorists going in to fight on Iraqi soil.

this does make it the main theater of engagement at present, with the occassional afghani skirmish

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Do people think we would have never gone after Saddam if there was no 9/11 attack?

it certainly greased the skids.

back on topic, lookit the hutu & tutsi a few years back in rwanda & burundi. Heavily steeped in tribalism, wanting nothing to do with democracy. Ok, fine by me - whatever blows your fro back. But someone with understanding - or just an opinion will do fine - explain to me how tribalism gets perputuated in a world where democracy thrives.

and as a follow-on, do you view these environments as fertile for terrorism? (herein lies my suggestion that the 2 are comingled)

 

[LordOpie]

And this pissing contest idea needs to stop.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by $tinkle
That you've concluded these are adherent to a (hopefully) small part of islam is not an indictment to me, but rather to muslim extremism, no?

I like the way you turned it around to try to make me seem like I accidentally slipped up and said something racist without knowing it classic $tinkle post.

Basically your list sounded like a carbon copy of what CNN was saying about the Taliban Government while GW was dumping explosives and fliers on them.

On a comical note, when will the US develop a flier that falls from the sky and reads "this is for your own good" then explodes and levels a city block?

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by LordOpie
And this pissing contest idea needs to stop.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by $tinkle
this does make it the main theater of engagement at present, with the occassional afghani skirmi****

I guess that is one observation....doesn't make the reason for going into Iraq fall on the "war on terror" plight.

certainly greased the skids.

The world would have taken care of Saddam if 9/11 happened or not. The attack on us is less relavent to the Iraq issue than people cry about. The majority of the world was afraid to touch Saddam after 9/11....for fear of looking bad. Not us(US) Saddam was giving the world the finger well before 9/11.

I have nothing relavent to add to the tribal discussion. So continue........

 

[fluff]

As far as Africa goes, tribalism is a consequence of colonial rule.

Nobody in Africa was heavily steeped in tribalism until the Europeans steeped them in it.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
As far as Africa goes, tribalism is a consequence of colonial rule.

Nobody in Africa was heavily steeped in tribalism until the Europeans steeped them in it.

i disagree.
colonialism didn't start til after the dark ages, when europe was still working out their issues with fiefdoms.

the strongest (african) tribe ruled the nation of many tribes. This has been going on when you guys messed up the shaka-zulu gig.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by $tinkle


back on topic, lookit the hutu & tutsi a few years back in rwanda & burundi. Heavily steeped in tribalism, wanting nothing to do with democracy. Ok, fine by me - whatever blows your fro back. But someone with understanding - or just an opinion will do fine - explain to me how tribalism gets perputuated in a world where democracy thrives.

You do realise that the terms Hutu and Tutsi are artificial constructs created by the Belgians during their colonial rule in a divide and rule kind of strategy. Worked pretty good too. As Fluff said, tribalism is vastly over-exaggerated as a source of conflict in Africa. A lot of what is reported as "tribal conflict" is in reality political differences. Try googling the Berlin conference of 1884 (or 1885) where the European powers divided up Africa into "spheres of influence" often by ruling lines on paper, splitting up different ethnic groups and upsetting existing power balances.

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i disagree.

Of course...

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by sshappy
Of course...

seems to be your stock response.

have any useful input here, slick? follow valve swallower's & fluffer's lead - they have heaps to offer.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
You do realise that the terms Hutu and Tutsi are artificial constructs created by the Belgians ...

so what do they call themselves? And how do they view things?

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
so what do they call themselves? And how do they view things?

Dunno never been to Rwanda but I do know they speak the same language. The Belgians, despite being great beer makers, were particularly nasty colonialists, probably the worst of the Europeans. Their strategy was basically take one group of people (in this case the Tutsi) and co-opt them to help rule the country, give them access to wealth and privileges not available to the other group. Now obviously the other group (the Hutus) are gonna be a little pissed off at this treatment so conflict is (was) inevitable. This is of course a much condensed and simplified version but since it's you Loopie there was no other way but to keep it simple.
Now in his original post Stinkle posited that the historical enmities between different tribes makes democracy an inimitable concept in some situations and he gave the example of Rwanda. I think if Stinkle wants to prove his point he needs to choose a better example than Rwanda

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
seems to be your stock response.

have any useful input here, slick? follow valve swallower's & fluffer's lead - they have heaps to offer.

Just debating at a level you can work at...

I'm working on the name calling.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Now in his original post Stinkle posited that the historical enmities between different tribes makes democracy an inimitable concept in some situations and he gave the example of Rwanda. I think if Stinkle wants to prove his point he needs to choose a better example than Rwanda

not quite.
i never attempted to make a strong case that democracy exists at the behest of tribalism, but rather my observations have suggested such - as offered by tribal factions tween burundi & rwanda. (edit: i consider *-Stans for recent interest)

i'm willing to bend that this may be casual & not causal, but need someone's input on this. Perhaps tribalism is the default aggregation of an arbitrary populous even today...?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Dunno never been to Rwanda but I do know they speak the same language. The Belgians, despite being great beer makers, were particularly nasty colonialists, probably the worst of the Europeans. Their strategy was basically take one group of people (in this case the Tutsi) and co-opt them to help rule the country, give them access to wealth and privileges not available to the other group. Now obviously the other group (the Hutus) are gonna be a little pissed off at this treatment so conflict is (was) inevitable.

so you're saying that the land really belongs to the jews?

thanks for the overview, I know nothing about that region or what the waffle-makers did to them.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
so you're saying that the land really belongs to the jews?

What land? You mean Hollywood?