The Lesser Of Two Evils

King Baldwin IV, stricken with leprosy, attempts to hold together a fragile peace in Jerusalem in the movie 'Kingdom Of Heaven' by Ridley Scott

An argument offered by one of my readers on A Dark Victory thread yesterday, dealing with the implications of the Hamas victory, gave me cause to clarify some of my own thoughts on the issue of our basic foreign policy following the Vietnam War:

"Arabs may not be ready for democracy, but we're beyond the point where blocking democracy (as we were in fact doing before Mr. Neocon decided to change things) is the lesser of two evils."

It is correct to mention the West's overall policy of giving preference to Arab dictators suppressing their own instead of supporting the numerous moderates who were at various times struggling to establish democracies styled after the West. And there are strong arguments to support that we are now paying the price for such political indulgence over the last three decades in so far as such repression has radicalized millions and strengthened the influence of orthodox Islamic leaders. After all, we made it easy for such radicals to demonize us as such foreign policies were almost always motivated by a dispassionate and cold-hearted focus on the cheapest and most convenient means to secure a steady Oil supply at the expense of human suffering under those various repressive regimes.

The conclusion that "...blocking democracy is the lesser of two evils." is thus consistent with precedent but remains none the less equally flawed as we have had to find out the hard way leading all the way to 9/11. Instead of admonishing the Bush administration for realizing that free and liberated societies in the Middle East and every where else for that matter make for a much more reliable guarantor of long term peace and economic stability, we should in fact praise the courage it took to "...change things" and for the steadfastness of its political will to persevere in spite of such domestic and international adversity. And let me make it perfectly clear that this is not a partisan issue, that these flawed foreign policies are in some ways attributable to a particular administration; they are not, but instead are a reflection of our post modern mentality with its utilitarian philosophies coupled with a profound loss of moral virtues.

To make matters worse, reversing said failings in the past is being made dramatically more complicated by the very nature of Islam. Ordinarily and consistent with all western historical precedent, social and economic repression could always be alleviated by social and economic reform for the all pervading Judea-Christian moral fabric did not stand in the way of progress. Now that orthodox Islam has gained such a strong foothold amongst the millions of disenfranchised, its doctrine and those who have established their political power on the strict reliance thereof, are in fact very firmly standing in the way as so succinctly explained by my reader 'Guest' who is a Professor of Islamic History:

In the American political system, sovereignty resides, officially, with "the people." In the British system, and those modeled after it (e.g. Israel's), sovereignty resides in the Parliament or other representative legislative body. According to political Islam, sovereignty resides with God alone. Fortunately, Allah has made his will completely clear to humankind, through the Qur'an and the Sunna. The legal expression of the Qur'an and the Sunna is the Shari'a, the canon law of Islam. Moreover, the Qur'an has ordered the Muslims to extend God's rule to all of humanity, at least as interpreted by classical Islam: Sura 21, verse 108: "We have not sent you but as a mercy to all mankind." Again, the argument is not whether or not some Infidel such as you or I could possibly find a different meaning to this verse, but, rather, how the Islamic tradition, over the course of 1400 years, has interpreted and does interpret it. Islam is a system of law, a way of living and ordering society. As such, the Islamic law books were always incredibly concerned with enforcement. Now, enforcement had two parts: "al-Amr bi'l-ma'ruf wa'l-nahy 'an al-munkar" ("Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Abominable," which means the duty of enforcing God's rule, by force if necessary inside the Dar al-Islam {"Abode of Islam," that part of the world already under God's rulership- Islam); and the Jihad, the duty of spreading God's rule, by force if necessary, so that it liberates all humanity from the tyranny of the rule of human "whim", as opposed to divine rule, and eventually places all mankind under the beneficent purview of Islamic law. This, by the way, is what is meant by "peace": the messianic, utopian vision of all of humanity, living in harmony with God and their fellows under the Pax Islamica.

And Emanuele Ottolenghi, a Professor of Israel studies at Oxford University, specifically in relation to Hamas:

The appeasers and the apologists are already cuing up to argue that Hamas has already embarked on the road to realism. But unless Hamas reneges on its ideology and endorses a new course, then Israel’s claim that there is no Palestinian partner is vindicated. The resulting Israeli policy of unilateralism is vindicated. Israel’s argument that the Palestinians do not want peace is vindicated. Israel’s argument that Islamists’ nuances and differences of opinion are just tactical, not strategic, is also vindicated. And the prospects of a Palestinian state will become even more remote.

The uniform message that the world gives Hamas should thus be: Take off your veil, and expose your true face for the entire world to see in the naked and transparent light of democracy.

The Bush administration has in fact seen the writing on the wall and in a very short time shifted hitherto firmly established foreign policies by both Republican and Democrat administrations by 180º degrees. Given the enormity such radical shifts entail, the mistakes, which were undoubtedly made, were not only to be expected, but were in effect actually surprisingly modest.

In stark contrast, it must be said without any ambiguity, the continuation of foreign policies basing their central tenet on supporting dictatorships and "blocking democracy" in the Middle East and everywhere else, especially in the face of the threat to our secular societies emanating from orthodox Islamic doctrine, would have been an unmitigated disaster with irreparable consequences to our safety and way of life.

Let's examine the crisis through the lens of the Just War Theory, and see where we land. An interesting experiment, as shown by John Noonan @ The Officers Club:

The JWT is a philosophical compass, orginially designed by two of the most brilliant Catholic theologians --St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas-- as an ethical field manual for Christian soldiers. The driving concept of the theory is that a razor sharp line can be drawn between wars that are just and wars that are unjust.

Philosophers and theologians have further developed the jus ad bellum since the Catholic thinkers of the middle ages laid down the theory's groundwork. As the nuclear age dawned, 20th century thinkers revisited the works of Aquinas and Augustine, using the just war criteria to establish the Geneva convention (and notably the Hague convention in 1907).

Thank you to Pajamas Media.

Linked to Wizbang Carnival The Uncooperative Blogger, bRight & Early, Right Wing Nation, Publius Rendezvous, The Real Ugly American
 

Comments

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

Also, the Greek will inherit the Earth. I have that on good authority.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

Just curious -- do you ever have anything kind to say about anybody?

Blessed are the cheesemakers, for they will be called children of God.

I can't resist, even though I'm perfectly well aware that P is talking about averages and therefore a single counterexample does no damage to his point

Not my point, dude. This is from marketing research done by the people selling the cars. It got written into their advertising.

[Kenny Pierce]

I can't resist, even though I'm perfectly well aware that P is talking about averages and therefore a single counterexample does no damage to his point. But I drive a Chevy Suburban 4x4, so let's see what I learn about myself...

...insecure and vain Baby Boomers...

Well, not quite old enough, and quite a bit more arrogant than insecure and vain, but let's say close enough.

nervous about marriage

Got married four days after graduating from college seventeen years ago, to my present wife.

uncomfortable with parenthood

I have eight children.

lacking confidence in their driving skills

Guffawing.

They are likely to be self-centered and self-absorbed and have little interest in their neighbors or communities

Modesty demands silence here, I think...let's say "close enough."

I suppose sort-of-two out of four ain't bad...

[Kenny Pierce]

P.,

Just curious -- do you ever have anything kind to say about anybody?

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

the article immediately preceding the Hamas piece concludes that drivers of SUV have penis envy, and this includes even the male SUV driver,

According to the auto industry’s market researchers and executives, the average SUV buyers tend to be insecure and vain Baby Boomers, nervous about marriage, uncomfortable with parenthood, and lacking confidence in their driving skills. They are likely to be self-centered and self-absorbed and have little interest in their neighbors or communities (p. 101, "High and Mighty", Keith Bradsher).

[Kenny Pierce]

In the spirit of taking life's lemons and at least getting some fun out of it, I give you the Hatemonger's Quarterly on the recent Palestinian elections. Please note that these people are precisely as serious as are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert; the article immediately preceding the Hamas piece concludes that drivers of SUV have penis envy, and this includes even the male SUV driver, since "Given the choice between an SUV and a Hummer, what man — gay, straight, or Tom Cruise — wouldn’t want a Hummer?"

[Kenny Pierce]

Michael,

Oh, I'm not debating him (hence the lack of logical rigor in my responses); I'm just indulging in some affectionate chain-yanking -- affectionate because despite the somewhat callow and inexperienced way in which PiaToR blunders around hither and yon not even noticing how often he unintentially concedes his opponents' point, and despite the alacrity with which he assumes that those who disagree with him must ipso facto be stupid or immoral, still he seems very sincere and very up-front in how he feels on the issues, and his passion livens up the place. I always have preferred passion to apathy, and whatever he is he ain't apathetic.

But I'm going to have to stop teasing him because I don't think PiaToR perceives it as affectionate.

[Michael Andreyakovich]

Ignore PiaToR, Ken. There's no point arguing with a man who's already made up his mind that you're wrong.

Thank God he never got into debate club in high school; his few friends would have to endure the embarrassing sight of Piator stammering incoherently as he is silenced once again by the judges for hammering away at a point his opponent has already rebutted, eventually evolving into foaming at the mouth and sputtering out accusations of bias and unfairness, then rolling his eyes back up to the whites, swallowing his tongue and falling off the stage.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

And as regards jus in bello, riiiiiiight...

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

As you so clearly point out in your rejoinder, you in point of fact had not proved that point

Cite please. Learn to read.

Major premise: countries that exercise a certain degree of restraint in their power to do violence, have an apparent claim to moral superiority over those that exercise their power of violence to the fullest, unless the country that shows no restraint can justify its actions on a case-by-case basis.

Alas and alak, you have a problem. Hamas is not a country. It has performed criminal acts, subject to criminal sanction. If it *were* a country (i.e. "Palestine"), then you would have to admit that Israel had illegally invaded and occupied said country, which (at the very least) would make Israeli soldiers and possibly settlers fair game.

The US is a country. It has gone beyond merely criminal acts - in engaging in an illegal war of aggression, it has committed war crimes.

You are claiming a moral superiority from jus in bello, when you have failed to establish any superiority from jus ad bellum. In and to the extent that Hamas represent a people fighting an occupation, they have a moral claim superior to a superpower which launches an illegal war of aggression against a much weaker power, a moral superiority that exists prior to consideration of tactics such as terrorism against civilians in fighting these wars.

And your claim to jus in bello merely represents the superiority of means of force available to the US. This sort of thing makes it quite clear what the US's real moral position is.

Hamas blows up the innocent. The US tortures them instead. And occasionally blows them up.

Or do you agree with this guy? ("And there is much to be said for killing foreigners -- even in large numbers -- who are willing to host, hide, feed, fund, and pray for America’s enemies.")

[Kenny Pierce]

My dear Phoenician,

Certainly, you have presented no argument regarding any moral superiority regarding the two groups.

[laughing affectionately] My dear fellow, it's hardly true that I presented no argument about moral superiority, though I didn't trouble to make it terribly explicit. Go back and read the comment again.

In the meantime, I concede that I misspoke about one thing. I said that you had proved that the U.S. military is a helluva lot better at its job than Hamas is. As you so clearly point out in your rejoinder, you in point of fact had not proved that point. I therefore admit that I was wrong, and that I should have said that you had proved precisely nothing at all.

Now, welcome back from your rereading. Did you manage to spot the argument this time? Here, I'll spell it out more clearly for you.

Major premise: countries that exercise a certain degree of restraint in their power to do violence, have an apparent claim to moral superiority over those that exercise their power of violence to the fullest, unless the country that shows no restraint can justify its actions on a case-by-case basis.

Second major premise: countries that recognize and attempt to respect the distinct between combatants and non-combatants, are morally superior to those who do not.

Minor premises: the United States has not killed as many Iraqis as they could, while Hamas exercises its powers of violence to their fullest extent; and United States soldiers make an honest attempt to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants even at some risk to the soldiers' own lives, while Hamas deliberately targets Israeli women and children as a purposeful strategy.

Conclusion: the United States military is morally superior to Hamas.

Now, that moral argument may not be conclusive or even persuasive, but it's hard to imagine that anybody who can read would fail to see that it is at the very least a moral argument.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

ANd, back to the topic, here's a much better perspective on the origins and implications of the Hamas victory.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

Let me make this easy for you. We are perfectly capable of killing two or three million Iraqis, should we choose to; and yet in a full-scale war and in the face of a long-running insurgency we have killed less than 50,000.

Very good. Since 150-200,000 US soldiers have manage to murder about 30,000 Iraqi civilians in the course of an illegal war, and 19 Al Qaeda terrorists managed to murder 3,000 American civilians in the course of an illegal terrorist attack, it follows that Al Qaeda is about a thousand times as competant as the US armed forces.

Certainly, you have presented no argument regarding any moral superiority regarding the two groups.

[Kenny Pierce]

My dear Phoenician,

I apologize for the "child" thing -- it occurs to me that just because I imagine you as being in your late teens or early twenties (because, to put it simply but not in intention sneeringly, you argue like an undergraduate), that doesn't mean you aren't really a spry and testy octagenarian whom I should properly address as "sir" -- or, for that matter, that you aren't a female Church of Canada bishop whom I should address as "Right Reverend Madam." I'm cautiously confident that you're not the Pope, but beyond that I should avoid unjustified assumptions. Therefore I withdraw the "child" bit and apologize sincerely.

[Kenny Pierce]

Phoenician,

Well, you've just proved that the U.S. military is a helluva lot better at its job than Hamas is. Are you under the impression that that's a bad thing?

Let me make this easy for you. We are perfectly capable of killing two or three million Iraqis, should we choose to; and yet in a full-scale war and in the face of a long-running insurgency we have killed less than 50,000. Hamas would be delighted to kill every Jew in the whole wide world if they could; but the best they can do is blow up a few shopping centers and buses every now and then.

In short, you mistake incompetence for moral superiority. It is a mistake many liberals habitually make when engaged in self-contemplation.

[sigh] I'm sorry, I keep trying to keep my tongue out of my cheek when replying to you (mostly I manage this by not replying), but, oh, Lord, child, you're a better straight man than Ed McMahon...

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

How many Israelis has Hamas killed in the course of resisting the Israeli occupation and subsequent terrorist campaigns against Israel proper?

How many Iraqis has the US killed in the course of the illegal war and subsequent occupation?

I believe the US position on the latter question is at least 30,000, by the Pentagon's accounts. I'd be surprised if Hamas had killed 30,000 Israelis.

[Angel]

What absolutely astounds me is that pple actually talk bout Hamas and Fatah as tho they were orgs operated by rational, humane leaders..sigh.

[Liquid]

I am sure many of you have already read this but for those of you that have not, this is an excellent article and is so spot on!
Check out Symposium: Purifying Allah's Soil

[epaminondas]

Begining with the Abu Musa riots in Jerusalem in 1919, a moment like this was inevitable.
This election is relevant only for what we and our 'allies' do.
Both the PLA and HAMAS have had, and will always have the same outcome in mind. Thus the 2003 poll which showed that 58% of palestinians wanted to keep the struggle going even if it meant no peace for generations. And the PLA certainly never had enthusiam for disarming HAMAS
The only decision now is whether we and others will give aid to the same people who blow up jews who don't see the benefit of either being dhimmis or swimming for Cyprus. Note that aid given now puts the american or other taxpayer in exactly the same moral position as the saudi who gave money knowing its purpose. I have to wonder what reaction to that would be.

For better or worse the jews (and we) have discovered ourselves in a religious struggle as well as a political one. They and the outcome are inseparable. HAMAS cannot relent of the meaning of the Quran, nor of its meaning for what they consider the muslims' waqf (Israel).

The palestinians for whatever reason we WISH to believe or not, have freely chosen like their forefathers for a century, rejection, animosity and war. While one can argue about the PLA = corrupt COSA NOSTRA, one also has no doubt about what HAMAS meant for peace with two states. There will be none. That was the free choice of the palestinian people, who like all in democracies, are responsible for their actions.
I respect that they made their decision. Now they must be responsible for it.
There is nothing to discuss with them at this point. Maybe there will be one day, but in almost 100 years the unified response has been rejection of peace.

[tankerboy]

Alexandra,

Driving Britain out of N. Ireland = destruction of Israel in this case because the Israelis have no where else to go. The political aims of the two may differ in their verbiage. I doubt Hamas thinks they are going to destroy Israel in a day.

Now that the government of the dysfunctional PA has fallen into their lap they are going to push the smoother talking heads to the front to keep getting money (infidels are allowed to pay their tax to believers) from easily duped Westerners but the terrorist machinations will continue behind the scenes. We are going to start seeing starving Palestinian babies on the TV and Europe will crumble first. I think we will see that the Hamas "Sinn Feiners" will be less smooth than Arafat when it comes to duplicity but they will be duplicitious nonetheless.

[Liquid]

Alexandria, Thanks for the explanation of the The Enabling Act and how Hitler used it...I am going to bookmark this for future reference! Good stuff!

[Alexandra]

Tanker,

I wrote about this a short while ago Sharon Is Out And Hamas Is Still Out An excerpt:

The political calculus for those in the West who support the inclusion of Hamas in the governing mainstream is that it may lay the foundation for a similar political evolution as experienced with the Sinn Fein organization, Ireland's political wing of the IRA.

The only problem with this scenario is that the conflict in Ireland is of an entirely different nature and make-up. The IRA's longtime goal has been to drive British forces from Northern Ireland and reunite the province with the predominantly Catholic Irish Republic. In contrast, Hamas' sole raison d'être is the destruction of the Israeli State. So, if the comparison is to have any credibility, the declared goal of the IRA and Sinn Fein ought to have been the destruction of Britain, no less.

Portuguese and Rick (Ugly American),

Hitler was democratically elected

Hitler's so called extant parliamentary majority was much exacerbated if not achieved through the un-constitutional preventative detention of the Communist deputies, carried over from before the elections. The manner in which Hitler excluded them and their mandates from parliament revolved on an Interior Minister settlement with the Reichstag Elders.

This amounted to a change of procedure categorizing them as voluntarily absent and achieved thereby the necessary long-term Hitler aim of legal appearance for NSDAP policy of subverting democracy from within.

The Enabling Act was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) mid-1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

With this combination of legislative and executive power, Hitler's government further suppressed the remaining political opposition. The SPD (The Social Democrats) was banned but not before itself assenting to Communist party proscription. All other political parties crumbled and dissolved themselves thereafter.

The political turning point for Hitler came when the Great Depression hit Germany in 1930. The Weimar Republic had never been firmly rooted and was openly opposed by right-wing conservatives, Communists and the Nazis.

Hitler appealed to the bulk of German farmers, war veterans and the middle-class who had been hard-hit by both the inflation of the 1920s and the unemployment of the Depression.

His popularity was unquestionable when it came to the vote of the people, their mantra sold, there is no point in believing otherwise as a result of what we know today.

Soon after, president Paul von Hindenburg died. Rather than holding new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferred the role and powers of the head of state to Hitler as 'Führer und Reichskanzler' (Leader and Chancellor).

So in effect he became supreme commander of the military, which swore their military oath not to the state or the constitution but to Hitler personally. In a mid-August plebiscite these acts found the approval of 90% of the electorate. Combining the highest offices in state, military and party in his hand, Hitler had attained supreme rule that could no longer be legally challenged.

He was a master strategist and tactician. Machiavellian to the last, and a master orator, all of which you can put in front of his main title, that of 'a psychopath'.

[tankerboy]

I think the election of Hamas is a good thing for the Middle East peace process. All the cards are on the table. Either peace will result or Israel will be justified to wall off the Palestinians and create a "Two State" solution through separation.

Fatah was a worthless, corrupt organization that served to provide cover for terrorists within the PA territories. They had hoodwinked the world into giving them money through skillful manipulation of the "victim complex". I think Hamas was a bit surprised at their victory because they can't hide behind Fatah. They are the government. What does or does not happen is their direct responsibility. If they act as "partners" in the peace process then good for them. If not, Israel is more than justified in building their wall and calling it a day.

I am concerned that Hamas is going to create a "Sinn Fein" type organization to be their political wing while continuing their terrorist activities with their "IRA" wing. The world should not allow them to separate their political and military self. They are the government. They are responsible. The Palestinians bought their ticket and they knew what they were getting into.

[Nasty_Ninety]

I don't get it, where did people get the idea that "democracy" defined as "the majority rules" is a good thing? An Ultimate goal that all nations should strive for? The Bolshevists called the Communist form of Government that they installed in the 1917 Revolution in Russia democracy. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the end results of the Communist "Democracy" that started in 1917. In the case of Hamas's overwhelming victory in the Palestinian elections, I would have to say that we should see it for what it really is... that Palestinians want a terrorist ruling body! Who in their right mind (especially in western nations) would rejoice in something like this and call it "democracy"?!?!?

[Liquid]

Hmmmm...I think it will take more than any form of democracy. First of all they have a koran in one hand and a hamas flag in the other, they might drop the flag but they will NEVER drop the koran. AND that is where the real culprit lies!

[The Ugly American]

Portugal throughout the tired meme that "Hitler was democratically elected". While that may be technically true, he did so by his thugs threatening and committing violence against anyone that opposed them. The German people may have realized their mistake and voted him out if Hitler had not changed the laws to prevent that.

Being a classic "Liberal" I support the democratic process even when it results in the likes of Hamas.

I have a firm belief in humanity yet I do realize that the people of the middle east in general and Palestine in particular have been indoctrinated with racial hatred for the Jews for the last 60 or so years.

Through democracy they will overcome this. It is certain to be painful. There may be open war and many many thousands killed before the people of Palestine come to their senses but it will be their choice and their responsibility for what comes.

[Kenny Pierce]

Terms such as "appeasement" and comparison's to Hitler's Germany are beyond absurdity.

So are terms such as "ethnic cleansing." Oh, wait, I'm sorry, were you talking about Hamas's plans for Israel? My bad. I stand corrected.

[Kenny Pierce]

Joseph,

Congratulations. Fifteen sentences and not a single hint that the Palestinians' own behavior and choices might have had anything at all to do with their current predicament. I wonder...if it had been Chinese living in Palestine when the Jews got there, rather than Arabs, d'ya think the Chinese and their leaders would have spent the last half-century managing the situation in such a way as to find themselves reduced to a situation in which their options are, in your words, "none of none"?

I begin to fear, Joseph, that there is little room for you in rational society. And if you're going to keep throwing out limp-wristed little hints at paranoid anti-Semitic global conspiracy theory, I doubt there's likely to be much room for you in polite society, either.

[Joseph Marshall]

I suppose it was inevitable that my good conservative friends would get a prime case of the vapors over the Hamas victory. But it's time to calm down and note that the actual situation in Palestine has not budged an inch.

The Israeli choices are still one of two: either impose "disengagement", which is essentially the solution that white South Africa tried with black "homelands", or ethnicly cleanse all of the Palestinians from the occupied territories. This is what those choices always have been, though Arial Sharon was the first to realisticly face this fact.

The choices of the rest of the world are still one of one: to allow Israel to do whatever it pleases in the occupied territories no matter what opinions they may hold about it, or what mere noisy nuisances they may make of themselves with those opinions.

This choice is essentially imposed on the world by the United States, and I don't see that piece of our foreign policy changing anytime soon, no matter what party is in power here, as it has not changed since 1967.

People truly interested in the health of our democracy might conceivably end up asking themselves why this is so. But they won't ask it very loudly and of too many other people. They haven't since 1967--and there are very good reasons for this--so good, in fact, that it is probably better to leave the matter there.

And the choices of the Palestinians are still none of none. They still have no capacity to make serious war against anybody, their capacity to infiltrate Israel with suicide bombers has severely diminished, and there is no likelihood at all that any Islamic state anywhere will ever offer them any serious help.

By the by, I really don't think anyone, even if they are Palestinian, would consider an Iranian offer to nuke Israel "serious help" to fellow Islamics living nearby or downwind.

So all the Palestinians can really do is to sit and wait to see whether they will be ethnicly cleansed or not, and, if not, how high and how deep the new walls which suround them will be.

Electing Hamas is merely a rude gesture made by people who have never been anything but totally impotent in the face of vastly superior military force and a willingness to use it.

Terms such as "appeasement" and comparison's to Hitler's Germany are beyond absurdity.

[Dumb Ox]

Dear Alexandra,

Thoughtful and insightful as always.

I would add only a couple of point that I think are relevant. Western support for authoritarian dictators took place not only because of utilitarian and machiavellian attitudes of the political class in the Western world, though such problems are more pronounced in some countries than others. The Cold War left little room for neutral countries, as the Soviets, Chinese, and Cubans constantly sought to infiltrate and take power wherever they could.

Now there is a new context, not merely the fall of expansionistic communism. Which had made change possible. It is the availability of WMD technology and the dangers of assymetrical warfare that makes change necessary.

Radicalized folks in those countries now pose serious dangers to stability and to any Western supporters of their oppressive governments.

I think the Hamas election will prove to be a positive development in the long run.

All the best,
D. Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com

p.s. I've added a link to you in my sidebar links...

[Paul of York]

Ultimately though, no matter the political system, all countries, all peoples must eventually accept Islam. So there can be no peace for other forms of government? Why try? It seems a violent struggle will come, no matter.

I apologize very much but the caption for the picture struck the dark side of my humor when I first read it, I'm sorry:
"stricken with leprosy, attempts to hold together" it just struck me, wrongly, yes.

[Portuguese]

I live in a democratic country and I believe in democracy, but I just wanted to remind everyone that Hitler was democratically elected. Still, I agree democracy is the lesser of two evils.

[Snippet]

Just to clarify, I said that We are BEYOND THE POINT where we could think of blocking democracy as the lesser of two evils. My sentences tend to be too long, and my point sometimes gets obfuscated.

I now (like you, if I understand correctly) have arrived at the conclusion that DEMOCRACY has become the lesser of two evils.

Not, unfortunately, a path to peace anytine soon, however.