Thursday, April 05, 2007

A new perspective!

Here a piece by our friend Slavik Mike that brings a rather innovative and very interesting perspective to the Middle East conflicts and how to solve them.

Enjoy, and thank you Mike!

So for your consideration, an epiphany on the whole matter:

I've grown tired and ultimately no longer interested in playing out the status quo blogosphere tit-for-tat right vs. left comment battle.

I say "right" to refer to March 14th and the broader population that actually thinks a secular peaceful

Middle East (ME) composed of law abiding nation states is a great idea.

I say "left" to refer to those others that like the concept of people being free of oppressive governments, but find themselves caught on the backs of their heels forced to defend the actions of their tyrannical governments and foreign interlocutors as a way of standing up to what they view as Western imperialism that seeks to wipe out their culture and heritage.

If I've proscribed the wrong labels, I apologize, I'm going by the definitions they carry in North America.

And for those who consider themselves loyal to a ME ruled under purely Sharia law and love the idea of an

ensuing bloody apocalypse, well, you're not going to be a fan of the following:

I had the idea that there is obviously some common ground that both our extreme positions co-occupy that are on our mutual wish list for change as far as the ME goes.

The problem of the region is that even if you do nothing, despots just grow bolder and try to create problems and if you kick them out, say Assad from Syria or Mubarak from Egypt, the more fanatical elements take over such as the Muslim Brotherhood formerly in the government, with its violent offspring of Al Qaeda, etc. wreaking covert and overt havoc throughout the land.

The native people are screwed either way. Neither appeasement (left) or concentrated force (right-unless

you've got the stomach for the body bags) seems to be very successful.

I'm assuming we both hold to the need and essential right of women in the region (and in the rest of the world) to be allowed to live freely and more than simply as mute 2nd class citizens and baby factory concubines.

It's the absence of an actual "presence" of women in the ME that has made it so chaotic, in my opinion.

The US's Wild West of the 19th century had tons of religion but didn't see a pacifivity occur until the

women began crossing the Mississippi from the East to offset the 90% male population that roamed the American Frontier.

I speak merely in the theoretical, tendering a hypothetical idea, of course, but wouldn't a greater good be created by combining the right and left blogosphere's total energy on what amounts to a common goal with beneficial results for each of our sides than to continue to squander our time in cyber space hurling insults and news clips at one another?

The advantages for the left would be:

1) A campaign (when successful at full steem) that would provide an alternative to the west's perceived war machine, since the bombs that are dropped also kill women as they do fanatical jihadi men.

This would allow countries like Iran and Syria to under go a smooth internal reform instead of a violent foreign regime change. This allows also for a maintenance of ethnic identity instead of a Anglo-Saxon imposed one. India seems to be doing fine maintaining it's cultures despite being a democracy.

2) A weakening of traditionally Western backed government's such as the House of Saud, Egypt and Jordan's ruling parties because, they too, are guilty of such grave violations as Tehran.

3) As pressure mounts, general human rights will be put in place on the road to full women's rights in attempts to pacify the people but keep women from gaining full citizenship rights (e.g. "We'll stop stoning, but we can't let women's testimony be equal to that of a man's in court", and they'll continue caving in until full rights are restored to all).

The advantages for the right would be:

1) A liberalized female populations means the opportunity for casual sex which the current ban on such norms fanatics use to redirect all that "energy" towards hate and murder promising that despite not being able to get laid now, they can get dozens of naked chicks in the here after granted that they don't mind shooting up some amphetines and driving an explosives wired car into a crowded market place.

A madrassa is far less likely to turn out high caliber suicide bombers if it's co-ed.

2) A lack of violence leads to economic growth through tourism, manufacturing (although China's really got

this one nailed down), etc. since right wingers love to make a buck.

And it's good for the local populations who endure unemployment rates that range from 20-50% depending on the country.

3) The West overall enjoys being happy and we would much rather spend our time living our own lives instead of worrying about getting dragged into centuries old conflicts that bear to close a resemblance to our own Protestant Catholic religious wars of hundreds of years ago.

Your side can still be "Pinko-Commies" and you can still refer to us as "Capitalist Pigs"

But, ultimately, would it not be a greater gesture to work together and accomplish some of our mutual core

objectives?

Eternal back and forth bickering about "Spineless Appeasement Surrender Monkees" and "Heartless War Mongering Child Killers" doesn't help those women continually being forced to endure female circumcisions and arranged marriages in the darkest depths of Middle Eastern society.

Just a thought.

(And for those that want to complain about Israeli Apartheid in relation to this proposition, stop blowing yourselfs up and follow the successful non-violent resistance tactics used against South Africa's Apartheid that brought that system down instead of the futile violent tactics of Ireland's I.R.A.)

Post a Comment