Comments on: Come what may

By: Zane

Zane — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:49:32 +0000

Appreciate the sentiments, but here there are no right answers, only the least wrong. “Lawyers and civil rights advocates” are entirely different beasts in that part of the world. Don’t let your noble sentiments lead you into pulling a Jimmy Carter on Pakistan.

By: Jim C

Jim C — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:15:41 +0000

This situation also reminds me of the mess in Palestine. We allowed them to vote in a bunch of radicals intent on the destruction of Israel… and apparently intent on their own destruction as well, as they’ve managed to run an already crappy economy even further into the ground. This has resulted in the starvation of many “innocent” Palestinians, as well as the death of both Israelis and Palestinians.

If a group of people want to elect a bunch of radicals that will ultimately cause their downfall, is it our responsibility to stop them? Or do we just give them enough rope to hang themselves?

Jim C

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:09:07 +0000

I stand corrected, Once a Marine…on quite a whopper of a mistake at that! Eek!

Otherwise, I’m not sure of the point? Do you not think it would be a different country today if our nation wasn’t founded on the concept of freedom, but rather a “democracy” without such guarantees? Turkey is the most western democracy in the middle east, and it has taken 4 military coups in the past 50-odd years to keep it that way.

By: Once a Marine

Once a Marine — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:04:20 +0000

Sorry Liz but the Bill of Rights does not begin with “We hold these truths to be self evident…” That is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration, while important in our history, does not provide a basis for our national government, even if Abraham Lincoln rewrote history at Gettysburg. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was an overt act of treason. It was only right because we won the war (victors always get to write the histor).

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:11:16 +0000

I submit that our nation look a tad different today if the Bill of Rights began…..’We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all people who uphold the principles of Sharia law are equal….’

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:56:32 +0000

This situation reminds me of the Shah of Iran as well. I recently read a troubling poll (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C01%5Cstory_1-11-2007_pg7_4)

“These attitudes may also reflect Pakistani sympathy for at least some Islamist goals. A substantial 60 percent majority believes that “Sharia should play a larger role in Pakistan law” than it does now. Only 26 percent say it should play the same role (15 percent) or a smaller role (11 percent) and 15 percent do not answer.”

If a country votes itself into tyranny can it still be considered a Democracy? German and Iranian history say no. This is a lose lose situation….

but I don’t think ‘standing up for Democracy’ will serve us any brownie points in this case. We don’t want radical Islamists to take over so why pretend that we do. I’d rather see us say what we mean for a change instead of twist our hands and whine unconvincingly about principles that, if applied to a crowd of radicals, would be terrifying. The Taliban wasn’t a democracy in Afghanistan, but it was widely supported. At first.