He caused the US to invade Afghanistan. He was used as a justification for the Iraq War. He is used as a justification for Guantanamo Bay. He is used as a justification for drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere. I would say he's done a fair bit more than act as the 'gasoline' there.
I suppose this depends slightly on if you believe in a "great men" or a "social developments" theory of history. Taliban controlled Afghanistan and Hussein controlled Iraq were wars waiting to happen from where I view history. Bin Laden probably made that war happen sooner, but it was most likely going to happen either way. Like I already said, the Taliban, terrorist regime in Afghanistan wasn't something the international community could accept for long. And Iraq, well, in my opinion Hussein should have been long gone back in '91, I'll explain in a bit.
What part of this am I misunderstanding here sorry? In fact, looking at it again, it almost reads like you're saying unless we want to lose democracy and our way of life, conflict and violence is the only solution? And that even repression and violence against the Muslim population of the world isn't enough to prevent the slide into dictatorship in the West? I'm sure I've misinterpreted though, I'd quite like your clarification on this.
I can assure you that events 26 years apart are not separate. The imposition of the Shah had a big effect on the 79 revolution. And 30 years of Mubarak have been a huge contributor of the movement of the population towards the Brothers and Salafis. To look at instances like this in isolation is to be ignorant of Middle Eastern politics.
Sure, I could have been clearer. The two cultures are on a collision course. War can be avoided, but the only way the west can control if there is a war or not is if we concede. If, as I think we should, stand by our democratic and freedom of speech principles there may or may not be wars. That will be largely up to the other side, and of course the revolutionary movements of people living in those countries. With the history of theocratic fascists around the world and their "average surrender without a fight rate" I'm not too optimistic that world peace is around the corner. Hope that was clearer, if not I'll try again
Events in history are obviously not separate. And many of the problems the world currently face have been caused by the ones that are now looking to "save the day". However, those actions were again results of previous actions and no country is blameless. However, while what caused the current situation is interesting and something to learn from, who is to blame is largely irrelevant on how to actually solve the situation. Hitler's rise to power in Germany might not have been possible if not for the very harsh terms of the treaty of Versaille after WW1, at least some blame can most likely be put on the victors of WW1. However, when 1939 (or even 1930) came around that was largely irrelevant. The only really relevant thing was how to get out of a sticky situation.
You can't impose democracy through imported violence. I was against us charging in there and taking Saddam out. It isn't our job to change regimes. I find it surprising that you say this almost as if its a bad thing Saudi was against it, having just witnessed the last 9 years in Iraq following our destruction of that country. And the poor democracy we're leaving behind. Whatever Saudi's policy, I see absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this apparent clash between Islam and the West. So the West (and just about everyone else) intervene on the more Islamic side when the Secular Arab Nationalist invades his Islamic neighbour and then some of the Islamic countries in the coalition (wtf, I thought we were in a clash?) don't want the secular Arab nationalist overthrown. I'm confused as to exactly where this fits in to the West and Islam facing off in an ultimate showdown.
You can import democracy after a war at the very least. And seeing as war is violence, well. (West) Germany, Italy and Japan were all transformed from fascist/military controlled states into democracies after WW2 and have since been doing fairly well. In one of the ironies of history several European countries got their first democratic laws from none other than Napoleon Bonaparte after his invasions, despite him being quite the emperor himself. The violence following the French revolution is well known and there are good arguments that the US revolution would have failed if not for the military help from France. The Soviet Union did fall after "just" losing the cold war (rather optimistically named if you ask people from Vietnam), but I don't think their fall would have been anywhere near as rapid as the 70 years it took had it not been for the external enemy presented by NATO.
Of course none of those situations are entirely analogous to the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan or even Libya. But there are many examples of democracy following conflict, rather than being a result of peaceful transition.
Saddam should have gone in '91. I don't think it's even a close call. He had initiated the Iraq-Iran war that I have seen caused an estimated 1 million deaths. He had of course initiated the Kuwait war. He had gathered and used weapons of mass destruction both on Iranians during the war and on people within his own country! In fact the fear that he might again use weapons of mass destruction on people in his own country resulted in the no-fly zones over Iraq that lasted from '91 until the '03 invasion.
There are 4 internationally accepted reasons why a country may lose it's sovereignty.
1. Invading a neighboring country
2. Violating the Genocide Convention
3. Harboring terrorists
4. Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Any one of these is enough that a country might lose it's sovereignty, that Hussein had violated at least two of these already in '91 is pretty much undisputed. Not going after him at that time was a mistake.
As for the relevance. It's just one of the examples of a clash between a theocratic dictator and "the west". Like I already said, I have no specific problems with Islam on this issue and take as much (or more) issue with North Korea as any Islamic state, although the discussion here has been mainly about the problem with the differing viewpoints of Islamic dictatorships and the west.
Women are oppressed everywhere in the world. Its not a problem isolated to the Islamic world. We've had something approaching a full democracy in this country for almost 100 years now and yet only 22% of our MPs are female and we've only seen fit to entrust one woman with the running of the country. The 'leader of the free world', 44 presidents in, still hasn't even gotten to that stage yet. And won't in the next election. That isn't their opinion at all. I don't think I've ever met a Muslim, regardless of how extreme their views are, who believe it is their 'GHod given right' to colonise the world.
Mate, this wasn't some good vs evil fight. It wasn't a war fought to protect democracy or freedom. It wasn't a war fought to protect Poland or USSR. It wasn't a war fought to help the Jews, or the Gypsies, or the disabled or any of the other groups Hitler killed in the holocaust. It was a war fought to protect our own national interests. To start a war before Hitler and the Nazis became unbeatable.
Well then, you'd be wrong. How is it a clash of cultures? Nuclear weapons are haram under Islamic rules, forbidden. And Iran doesn't speak for the 1.5 billion Islamic 'civilization'. They're protecting their national interests. And the US are protecting their power and hegemony in the region. Its got nothing to do with the West vs. Islam, nor does it have anything to do with Bin Laden. I didn't say that every conflict between a Western state and Islamic one is due to Bin Laden did I? You seem to buy quite deeply into this theory that the West and Islam are fundamentally at odds (fan of Huntingdon?) so how do you see things like the two world wars? Fleeting civil wars in Western civilization before turning attention back to Islam?
[/QUOTE]
The fact that we haven't completed our move towards equality between the genders doesn't mean that I can't say quite bombastically that we have gotten way further than most (or any) Islamic country and that the lack of rights women have in many Islamic countries is a pretty definitive reason for me to able to say that right now our society is better than theirs.
You don't think WW2 was a fight between good and evil? Can you at least say that the world is better off that the allies won? That they are slightly further towards the good end of the scale than the evil compared to the axis? For the Soviet Union it most certainly was a war to protect themselves.
I'm quite certain that not every interpretation of Islamic rules forbid nuclear weapons. I'm also quite certain some interpretations of the Qur'an say that Muslims should colonize the world. Like with most religious texts the difficulty in proving one interpretation as better than others is part of the problem. Iran most certainly doesn't speak for the entire Islamic 'civilization' and I wish those Muslims who disagree with the more extremist Islamic regimes around the world would speak up against them, however, Iran speak for Iran. Like I say, the problem is with the theocratic dictatorships regardless of ideology. There just happen to be quite a few Islamic theocratic dictatorships. Viewing the conflict as a clash of civilizations is an oversimplification, viewing the conflict as a conflict between Islam and "the West" is probably at the very least borderline wrong.
I do believe that the west, or rather the ideas of democracy, freedom of speech and enlightenment and any militant, theocratic, or colonizing interpretation of Islam are at odds.
