The Two Romulan States

[Sci]

I would; I don't distinguish between attacking a country and providing safe haven and operating grounds for those who do. So, no, I do not and have never objected to the United States's war in Afghanistan -- though I add that I believe that the U.S. needs to develop a clearer sense of achievable objectives, a willingness to allow Afghanistan to have its own internal conflicts so long as they do not threaten the U.S. or our allies, or constitute genocide/chattel slavery-level human rights abuses, and a game plan to know how to leave when it becomes clear that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations will simply no longer be able to use Afghanistan as a base of operations against the U.S. or its allies.

Also, out of curiosity, would you also accept that given what we know about safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan (both on its Eastern and Western borders), that the U.S., Europe and India have the right to root out these elements by force (even though they're choosing not to exercise that right for whatever reasons) ?

Yes? No? On the fence?

Had a date with a pretty girl last night. 'Twas a bit more important than getting back to you.

Pakistan is an interesting situation. The Pakistani government is trying to help the U.S. root out al Qaeda and the Taliban, but at the same, the Pakistani government only has limited control over many of the tribal areas from where al Qaeda and the Taliban are operating. I do think that the United States has the right to engage in limited incursions into Pakistani territory -- bombing flights over the tribal areas and such that the Pakistani government doesn't control and where they think the enemy is located, though I think that this brings about a concomitant moral responsibility on the part of the U.S. to make sure we don't inadvertently kill innocent civilians.

In general, if the government of a state is cooperating with the U.S. in rooting out political actors that have attacked the United States, then that nullifies the right to invade that state in the name of self-defense. Similarly, I should, in retrospect, have modified the post you are responding to to read, "I don't distinguish between attacking a country and intentionally providing safe haven and operating grounds for those who do." After all, technically, the United States provided a safe haven and operating grounds for the 9/11 hijackers -- inadvertently. Similarly, Pakistan is doing the same for al Qaeda and the Taliban, again inadvertently.

I should probably also add that I think one mitigating factor to the whole thing is that at some point, it would be both prudent and necessary to recognize that if we have good reason to think that those factions comprising the Taliban can be turned against al Qaeda and persuaded not to harm the United States and its allies or to help those harming the U.S. and its allies, that would be preferential and would nullify the right of the U.S. to continue the war against the Taliban. However, the circumstances under which it can be assured that Taliban-aligned factions will not intentionally seek to harm the U.S. would probably be very difficult to recognize. This hasn't stopped the U.S. State Department under President Obama from looking for those opportunities, though -- which I think is a good thing, since if diplomacy can be used to achieve the same objectives that we are using war to achieve, then diplomacy is obviously preferable.

I really hate this term that the right-wing invented. It doesn't really make any sense.

Temper, temper, LutherSloan. There's a reason I put it in quotation marks....

It's still a bad term. Calling the various unaligned Muslim groups that have been enemies of the United States "Islamo-fascists" makes about as much sense as calling the U.S. and Latin America "Christo-mercantalists" or as calling China, North Korea, and Vietnam "Buddho-monarchists."

And the Dominion was pissed becuase the Federation was screwing around in their back yard ie the Gamma Quandrant.

Yeah, but didn't they not even know about them until they were already pissed?

Of course it didn't help that after finding out that the Dominion were pissed, why they were pissed, and the way of dealing with what pissed them off Dax has to go and say the Federation won't stop doing the things that is pissing the Dominion off even though their aware their pissing them off and what the Dominion will do to the Federation if they keep pissing them off, you'd think being an ambassador in her previous life would have lead her to annoying the pissed off militeristic empire that has thoroughly kicked their asses at this point.

Exactly. There is a very defensible argument that the Federation started the Dominion War. The Federation entered Dominion space and space in the Dominion sphere of influence without the Dominion's permission, the Federation refused to stop doing so after the Dominion told them to stop, the Federation allowed the Cardassian Obsidian Order and Romulan Tal Shiar to attempt to commit genocide against the Founders, a group of Federation-aligned operatives then tried themselves to commit genocide against the Founders, and then the Federation mined the Bajoran Wormhole -- which was Bajoran property, not Federation property, thereby committing an act of aggression against Bajor -- to prevent the free travel of persons between Dominion worlds in the Gamma Quadrant and Alpha Quadrant.

Getting caught up on this thread and stumbling onto the Benedict Arnold references, I was so tempted to bring up the idea that maybe - from the Canadian POV - we owe Benedict more than a few for helping make sure we could simply be Canadian. Probably wasn't anywhere near his intentions at the time, but he helped make it happen for us.

Oh, and one of those things the Americans-not-quite-yet were objecting to was the guarantee to the Quebecois-to-be that they could go on being Catholic after being handed over by France to the UK. And we've already covered the First Nations.

Right.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled Typhon Pact strategic/tactical/diplomatic/ethical response debate. Particularly the Romulan schism in progress...

One of the important things to remember about the Thirteen Colonies and their reasons for rebelling against the Crown was that, well, they were thirteen separate colonies. They did not all have the same objectives when they rebelled; the different regions of the Colonies each had unique grievances against the Kingdom of Great Britain; really, the only grievance that all of the Colonies/States held in common was that none of them wanted to be taxed without representation in Parliament and that they all felt the British government had betrayed its traditional practice of "salutary neglect" and was interfering in their internal affairs.

It was to the point where uniting the Thirteen States into a regional confederation called "the United States of America" was extremely difficult. Up until the adoption of the Constitution, in fact, the United States was not a state, it was thirteen different states -- and Vermont, which didn't join the U.S. until after the Constitution -- with their own agendas. When people said, "My country," they meant, Virginia or Massachusetts or what-have-you, not the United States.

In fact, if you read the Declaration of Independence, it is not a declaration of the existence of the single state called the United States of America today; it is the declaration of the independence of thirteen separate states (in the international sense of the term, not in the U.S. sense of the term), each of which should, the Declaration claims, be taken as unique, sovereign, and equal to any other state such as the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Kingdom of France, the Dutch Republic, etc.

So, just bear in mind that even the grievances of politically powerful states in the American confederation shouldn't necessarily be taken as universally-held. (Though I can't say I've researched the Quebec angle on this.)

 

[William Leisner]

Had a date with a pretty girl last night. 'Twas a bit more important than getting back to you.

Where's your sense of priorities, man?

 

[rahullak]

Also, out of curiosity, would you also accept that given what we know about safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan (both on its Eastern and Western borders), that the U.S., Europe and India have the right to root out these elements by force (even though they're choosing not to exercise that right for whatever reasons) ?

Yes? No? On the fence?

Had a date with a pretty girl last night. 'Twas a bit more important than getting back to you.

Pakistan is an interesting situation. The Pakistani government is trying to help the U.S. root out al Qaeda and the Taliban, but at the same, the Pakistani government only has limited control over many of the tribal areas from where al Qaeda and the Taliban are operating. I do think that the United States has the right to engage in limited incursions into Pakistani territory -- bombing flights over the tribal areas and such that the Pakistani government doesn't control and where they think the enemy is located, though I think that this brings about a concomitant moral responsibility on the part of the U.S. to make sure we don't inadvertently kill innocent civilians.

In general, if the government of a state is cooperating with the U.S. in rooting out political actors that have attacked the United States, then that nullifies the right to invade that state in the name of self-defense. Similarly, I should, in retrospect, have modified the post you are responding to to read, "I don't distinguish between attacking a country and intentionally providing safe haven and operating grounds for those who do." After all, technically, the United States provided a safe haven and operating grounds for the 9/11 hijackers -- inadvertently. Similarly, Pakistan is doing the same for al Qaeda and the Taliban, again inadvertently.

I should probably also add that I think one mitigating factor to the whole thing is that at some point, it would be both prudent and necessary to recognize that if we have good reason to think that those factions comprising the Taliban can be turned against al Qaeda and persuaded not to harm the United States and its allies or to help those harming the U.S. and its allies, that would be preferential and would nullify the right of the U.S. to continue the war against the Taliban. However, the circumstances under which it can be assured that Taliban-aligned factions will not intentionally seek to harm the U.S. would probably be very difficult to recognize. This hasn't stopped the U.S. State Department under President Obama from looking for those opportunities, though -- which I think is a good thing, since if diplomacy can be used to achieve the same objectives that we are using war to achieve, then diplomacy is obviously preferable.

Hope you enjoyed your date.

So yes, you have reasoned well about the situation on the Western border and its agreeable.

Does the same reasoning also apply to harboring of terrorists who have attacked India? In a recent interview Admiral Mike Mullen himself said that Pakistan's ISI is involved in supporting insurgents and banned terrorist organizations (by the US, UN ) such as Lashkar-e-Taiba continue to have support in Pakistan. So does India have the right to root out terrorist elements from Pakistan by force (even though they prudently choose not to do so?)

 

[Sci]

Does the same reasoning also apply to harboring of terrorists who have attacked India? In a recent interview Admiral Mike Mullen himself said that Pakistan's ISI is involved in supporting insurgents and banned terrorist organizations (by the US, UN ) such as Lashkar-e-Taiba continue to have support in Pakistan. So does India have the right to root out terrorist elements from Pakistan by force (even though they prudently choose not to do so?)

Actually, I think India is facing a nearly identical situation as the U.S., because it's commonly known these days that the ISI is essentially a rogue organization that the Pakistani government only has a limited ability to control -- the ISI having been staffed with so many Muslim fundamentalists throughout the 1980s that it essentially doesn't answer to the Pakistani government anywhere other than on paper.

There are reports that the ISI has been involved in helping out al Qaeda and the Taliban in western Pakistan, too.

My attitude is essentially the same: The Pakistani government didn't do it or want it done, and the ISI is little more than another rogue organization whose actions the Pakistani government should not necessarily be held responsible for.

There's also another consideration that I didn't think about (because I was thinking from a particularly U.S./superpower perspective): Whether or not a war to root out terrorist organizations from a foreign state would actually benefit national security for a state or would, in fact, do more harm to national security than anything else.

For the U.S., it's pretty cut and dry: If we can work in partnership with the Pakistani and Afghan governments to root out terrorist organizations from their states, while still respecting their sovereignty, we'll have denied a staging ground to terrorists while not alienating the Pakistani and Afghani peoples.

For India, on the other hand, any such attempt would inherently provoke a larger, more conventional war, inflaming Pakistani grievances against India. Such an attempt would most probably end up with far more Indian and Pakistani civilians dead than if such an attempt was not made; the costs, in other words, would greatly outweigh the benefits.

And I cannot say that I think that the Indian government has the right to cause a war that would kill huge numbers of their own people.

So, para mí, I would argue that India has no more right to invade Pakistan than the U.S. does -- less, really, since the people of the United States don't have to seriously worry about a major conventional war with Pakistan.

 

[rahullak]

^
So the US and India technically have the right to use force to remove extremists from Pakistan (based on attacks on both countries originating from there), but don't choose to exercise that right, only because it would result in further deterioration of the situation and there are other diplomatic options available. Correct?

 

[Sci]

^
So the US and India technically have the right to use force to remove extremists from Pakistan (based on attacks on both countries originating from there), but don't choose to exercise that right, only because it would result in further deterioration of the situation and there are other diplomatic options available. Correct?

No, I argued that the fact that the Pakistani government did not support or condone those terrorist attacks (in consequence of my argument that the ISI is essentially a rogue agency that the government cannot control) and has cooperated in fighting those agencies, combined with the fact that for India the consequences of attempting to remove extremists from Pakistan would be devastating, removes the right of India and the U.S. to use force to remove extremists from Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government.

 

[rahullak]

^
That would correct if it were entirely true that the ISI is a rogue agency and that the Pakistani government has no knowledge of the actions of the ISI. As I understand it, the Pakistani military (of which the ISI is a part since the head of ISI reports to the head of the military), essentially has acted throughout history and is still capable of acting independently of the elected Pakistani government, even going so far as another military coup d'etat if the Pakistani government were to act against its interests.

So either the Pakistani government was aware of the rogue actions of the ISI and was unable or unwilling to act against it, or the government was unaware of these actions and still had no effective control or authority over the military.

Granted, the consequences of taking any forcible action would be devastating to all and further destabilize the region (China wouldn't just standby) and this is why India did not retaliate in any manner (save for diplomatic pressure, which is more easily repelled) after the Mumbai attacks.

EDIT: Additional information on terrorist ties in Pakistan: News report in the New York Times

 

[Rush Limborg]

It's still a bad term. Calling the various unaligned Muslim groups that have been enemies of the United States "Islamo-fascists" makes about as much sense as--

...as calling them Muslim groups...wouldn't you agree?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It's still a bad term. Calling the various unaligned Muslim groups that have been enemies of the United States "Islamo-fascists" makes about as much sense as--

...as calling them Muslim groups...wouldn't you agree?

I think its quite clear he wouldn't, Rush...

To be honest, I'm very confused as to why you think that first label makes sense at all, yet alone why it makes as much sense as the second, which is, you know, an actual description...

 

[Myasishchev]

You know this is all fascinating, but what the heck does it have to do with the currect status of the Romulans?

Maybe I should've used a different analogy. : /

 

[Sci]

It's still a bad term. Calling the various unaligned Muslim groups that have been enemies of the United States "Islamo-fascists" makes about as much sense as--

...as calling them Muslim groups...wouldn't you agree?

I used the term "unaligned Muslim groups" as shorthand for "groups arising from predominantly Muslim cultures." I see now that I should have been clearer in my turn of phrase.

Lest you read more relevance into the fact that they happen to come from predominantly Muslim cultures, bear in mind that the fact that many of them are predominantly Islamic is actually irrelevant. As noted above, Saddam Hussein was actually a secular leader who suppressed religious freedom, even Islamic worship. His idol, actually, makes for an excellent comparison:

Russia was still predominantly Christian during the era of the Soviet Union, but that doesn't mean that the Soviet Union, with its official state Atheism, had all that much in common with, say, the Third Reich. And neither the Third Reich nor the Soviet Union had particularly much in common with the Holy See -- even though the Third Reich's ally, the Kingdom of Italy, was of course as closely associated with the Vatican as ever, what with its predominantly Catholic populace.

In other words: The fact that many of these enemies come from Islamic cultures doesn't mean that they actually have religion in common. Saddam Hussein, as noted above, was not motivated by any uniquely religious or Islamic concerns; he was a secular leader motivated by a desire for his own power. Osama bin Ladin, on the other hand, is an Islamist, an extremist and fundamentalist Muslim, who wants to establish an extremist Islamic theocrac. Their two goals could not have been more in opposition.

In sum: Characterizing them all on the basis of coming from predominantly Muslim cultures is a bit like characterizing all of the European countries the U.S. has been at war with throughout its history on the basis of their predominantly Christian cultures. No one would rationally argue that the fact that the U.S. was been at war with the British, French, Italians, Spanish, and Germans throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries means that the United States was an enemy of Christianity, nor would anyone have called its enemies "Christo-monarchists." Ergo, there is no rational reason to characterize current American enemies on the basis of having come from predominantly Muslim cultures -- especially since the U.S. has plenty of Muslim allies.

Further, the philosophy espoused by many Muslim fundamentalists bears little if any relation to Fascism, which was a European political philosophy characterized by extreme nationalism, single-party statehood, opposition to class conflict (blaming both liberal democracies and socialist movements), opposition to liberal democracy and to socialism and to communism, the suppression of civil rights and liberties, and significant political unity with corporates.

Islamism, on the other hand, is a set of ideologies characterized by a belief that Islam constitutes not only a religion but a political system, the enforcement of strict interpretations of sharia law, pan-Islamic identity and unity, the elimination of non-Muslim influences upon the Muslim world, and, in some strains, the establishment of a worldwide extremist, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.

Islamism is much more comparable to extremist Christians who want to establish a Christian theocracy than it is to European Fascism.

 

[Cicero]

so, Islam actually believes in freedom of religion, despite the requirement that you only believe in Allah and His prophet Mohammed? or did i just totally read that wrong?

I probably expressed it poorly. Islam believes that only God has the right to tell individuals what to do. I didn't say freedom of religion; I'm talking about a different issue, the ethics of rulership and authority as it relates to Islam (a word which literally and fundamentally means submission to God, and therefore excludes submission to any human). Islamic belief is that government is legitimate only to the extent that it supports and facilitates the individual's practice of Islam and does not interfere with it or attempt to co-opt the individual's submission (as in, for instance, a cult of personality).

But as a matter of fact, the Qur'an explicitly commands tolerance of Christians and Jews, fellow "People of the Book." In medieval times, when Europeans were persecuting the hell out of Jews, they fled to the Mideast where their right to practice Judaism unmolested would be guaranteed -- so long, admittedly, as they paid their taxes. One could argue there was intolerance in that only non-Muslims were required to pay taxes, but that's exactly why Muslim states generally didn't practice forced conversion -- because doing so would deprive them of tax revenue.

So yes, basically, Islam teaches that it's not the place of the state to intervene in people's religious lives. Islam means willing submission; a conversion that isn't voluntary on the part of the individual is not true Islam. Believing in Allah and his Prophet is not a "requirement" in the sense you imply. It's the one and only requirement for being a Muslim (beyond that there's immense diversity of practice), but it must be a voluntary choice, not something compelled by the state or the military or anything else. And any Muslim faction that claims otherwise is misunderstanding the tenets of the faith.

I wrote a college research paper on the subject which might be illuminating:

http://home.fuse.net/ChristopherLBennett/History/CONVERT.htm

You might have missed a response I made to a post of yours earlier, so I'd like to re-post it:

I think part of the problem Westerners encounter in understanding Islam is that some Muslims have transported nominally impoverished-nation cultural concepts into liberal, prosperous countries. We aren't prepared to accept the repressive notions in our countries, and then often encounter a religious element to responses to our complaints.

That the religious element is fraudulent isn't material to our experience, though it would be to our understanding. On the other hand, what is Islam? Is it written doctrine or common belief? I don't know whether the common Muslim (worldwide, that is) believes that Islam requires oppression, that it forbids it, or that it does neither. But if common Muslim belief thought it required, would it be Islam?

(Oppression is considered from the modern Western perspective.)

 

[Rush Limborg]

To be honest, I'm very confused as to why you think that first label makes sense at all, yet alone why it makes as much sense as the second, which is, you know, an actual description...

Just using a term which I'm reasonably certain many people are familiar with.

The use of the term "Fascist", in this context, indicates near-total (if not fully total) government control over the day-to-day activities of the people. Though this definition is not specifically accurate, it is close enough to be used as shorthand for the concept stated. It is a more familiar term in common vernacular than the more accurate term "statist".

"Islamic" was used the same sense as Sci's use of the term "Muslim". Iraq is a traditionaly Muslim culture--as are Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

While vernacular is often not stricly accurate, you must admit--it is effective in getting one's point accross.

Provided, of course, that one's audience does not take the terminology too literally.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Provided, of course, that one's audience does not take the terminology too literally.

I'm a lost cause when it comes to that, my friend.

 

[Sci]

To be honest, I'm very confused as to why you think that first label makes sense at all, yet alone why it makes as much sense as the second, which is, you know, an actual description...

Just using a term which I'm reasonably certain many people are familiar with.

The use of the term "Fascist", in this context, indicates near-total (if not fully total) government control over the day-to-day activities of the people. Though this definition is not specifically accurate, it is close enough to be used as shorthand for the concept stated. It is a more familiar term in common vernacular than the more accurate term "statist".

Actually, it would be far more accurate to refer to the extremist Muslim fundamentalists who seek to establish a totalitarian Islamic theocracy as either Islamists -- Islamism being distinct from Islam, as Christopher notes -- or as, well, "extremist Islamic fundamentalist theocrats."

Fascism is a term that is too often used in the place of either autocracy or totalitarianism or dictatorship. Its abuse should not be encouraged.

"Islamic" was used the same sense as Sci's use of the term "Muslim". Iraq is a traditionaly Muslim culture--as are Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

The problem is that the conjunction of "Islamic" and "fascism," first off, implies that there's a uniquely Islamic element to that supposed "fascism." There is not. As noted above, for instance, there's nothing particularly Islamic about Saddem Hussein's dictatorship. His was a secular dictatorship that happened to be from an Islamic culture.

By contrast, there is a uniquely Islamic feature to Islamism. But equating Saddam Hussein's Bath Party with Islamism is completely inaccurate; they are distinct political movements with conflicting goals.

While vernacular is often not stricly accurate, you must admit--it is effective in getting one's point accross.

The vernacular is COMPLETELY inaccurate, and the only thing that "Islamo-fascist" accomplishes is to inaccurately sweep all all these different political movements in the Islamic world together in what comes across as a very bigoted attempt to say, in essence, "They're all the same." It is stereotyping, pure and simple.

You may not mean to to come across as bigoted, but that's how it comes across. Because they are not all the same. Our enemies are unique, varied, and often opposed, and it's important that we not write them all off as being cut from the same clothe when they are not -- "Know your enemy, and know yourself" and all that.


To say nothing of the fact that by characterizing them in religious terms -- "They're all from Islamic cultures so we'll lump them all together" -- risks creating an impression in the minds of others that opposition to the United States is something inherent in Islam, which it is not.

Provided, of course, that one's audience does not take the terminology too literally.

You mean, provided that your audience doesn't demand accuracy, fairness, and a refusal to stereotype.

 

[rahullak]

Indeed during the Iran-Iraq wars, the secular Arab states rallied around and supported Iraq because they did not want the Islamic revolution that struck Iran to spread to their countries.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Provided, of course, that one's audience does not take the terminology too literally.

You mean, provided that your audience doesn't demand accuracy, fairness, and a refusal to stereotype.

For what its worth, I'd like to say I'm NOT a lost cause there. . I'd just like to clarify I'm behind you on this one, Sci. Your political knowledge and insight is as impressive as ever.

 

[Myasishchev]

Indeed during the Iran-Iraq wars, the secular Arab states rallied around and supported Iraq because they did not want the Islamic revolution that struck Iran to spread to their countries.

That and they feared a Persian/Shi'ite predominance in the region in the case that Iraq became badly destabilized.

Which is sort of the status quo now, afaik.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Fascism is a term that is too often used in the place of either autocracy or totalitarianism or dictatorship. Its abuse should not be encouraged.

The definition of Fascism:

(From http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism)

n.

1. often Fascism
   1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
   2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

I used the second definition.

And...wasn't Saddam's Iraq simply of a different religious faction than that of most Arab nations?

You mean, provided that your audience doesn't demand accuracy, fairness, and a refusal to stereotype.

Must we make this personal, Sci? The use of slang is hardly a sign of unintelligence. (Diction is another matter....)

I apologize for any...confusion I might have caused you, but still....

 

[Sci]

And...wasn't Saddam's Iraq simply of a different religious faction than that of most Arab nations?

No. Saddam Hussein and his government was made up of tribes that follow the Sunni tradition of Islam, but most Muslims throughout the world are Sunni. However, Iraq and Iran are both majority Shi'ite, and the particular sect that controls the Iranian government is Shi'ite.

Saddam and his government were secular and his idol was Josef Stalin. But tribalism being tribalism, Saddam's government also instituted Sunni dominance over Shi'ites. But that had more to do with tribalism than religion; just like the Unionist-Republican conflict in Northern Ireland wasn't actually about religion even though "Protestant" and "Catholic" were conveiniant shorthands for "advocates of continued union with the United Kingdom" and "advocates of joining the Irish republic."

You mean, provided that your audience doesn't demand accuracy, fairness, and a refusal to stereotype.

Must we make this personal, Sci?

I tried very hard not to, but when you lump in Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin together as one bloc when they weren't -- it's about as accurate as lumping in Stalin and Hitler as one bloc, or as lumping in 18th Century Britain and France as one bloc -- then it's hard not to conclude that you're engaging in some stereotyping, even if unintentionally.

I apologize for any...confusion I might have caused you, but still....

It's not a matter of anyone being confused, it's a matter of you using a completely inaccurate piece of terminology whose only function is the ideologically-motivated desire to lump in unrelated factions into one non-existent group -- and there's really no explanation for trying to lump in groups as hostile to one-another as al Qaeda, Iran, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq other than a desire to stereotype Muslims as being somehow all the same.