Be careful of what you wish for

[Occhidiangela]

Or hadn't anyone noticed?

What has the Shiite side brought to the modern world? They are a critical Iraqi demographic whose development concerns me, and they aren't even the most reactionary. But that was the power base of the Islamic Repbulic in Iran, where the fate of "progressives" remains to be seen.

And have you forgotten the Taliban in Afghanistan, who sent women there backwards, or did you miss that bit of news? There is most definitely a powerful move to go backward.

The American internationalists, building on such high ideals as the UN stance on human rights have pursued agendas that promote the betterment of social status of women the world over, acvocating planned parenthood and other progressive agenda. Do you sincerely believe that such moves are NOT seen as a threat to the old schoolers? When people pretend that the WTC was about oil and Meccah, I really think they miss a deeper truth. It is partly about the poisoning of the world's airwaves with the Ho's on MTV.

I would like to share your optimism that there are more progressives than not, and surely would hope that the progressives, such as those who keep Turkey modern in fact as well as in theory (Turks are not Arabs) will prevail.

Who has the power, though, to make change in the Mideast, once the die is cast for change, as I alluded to in the top post.

A progressive like the King of Jordan? He has no power.

Leaders in Egypt, where Coptic Christians have been slaughtered (albeit not by the government) as recently as a few years ago, when for years they were left well enough alone? Future shock and reaction is what seems to be happening.

Syria? Maybe, as their dictators lean toward modernism in the mode of Hussein.

Saudi Arabia, home to very conservative Muslims who are part of the problem with setting the clock back to medeival times? There are progressives there, wealthy ones, but do they really hold the power?

Are the progressives allowed in Pakistan only at the suffrance of a militarily backed ruling party? Is that what the future holds in Iraq? SUch a state of play is the 'meet the new boss problem' all over again in Iraq.

The very progressiveness of Western culture is what is seen as the enemy. The war is not about turf, it is about "how does the world work." (I will let Israel rest for the nonce.) The reaction, similar to the reactionary movement, well funded, that threw the Shah of Iran out and ushered in the veils in Teheran and Kabul, is where support for Hezbollah, Abu Nidal, Hamas, AL Qaeda, and others gets real cash. Real money. And money drives politics in many places. Money makes terrorist training camps possible. Money funds reactionary muslim schools. Money makes terror bombings in Kenya and Tanzania possible.

Have you read Erich Hoffer's "The True Believer" Those sorts are who is contesting "how the world shall work." And while Mr Spectre's post has hyperbole, the clock moving backwards is what some of the forces at work aim to achieve.

No, the progressives and moderates being around hardly guarantees that their move forward will prevail, as moderates, like Massoud in Afghanistan, and Kerensky(the Russian who ran the first Duma before Lenin tossed him aside) are often cast aside by the True Believers. You could see the same effect in the aftermath of the French revolution, which brought not just an end to "the ancien regime" but also the Terror and a nother despot, Bonaparte, who was revealed in time as "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, but less popular with his neighbors." He exported the French Revolution to the rest of Europe, for better or for worse, (many feel for better). There are those in Iran, and in the Arab world, who wish to do the same with a Reactionary movement.

My reference to the 'Borgia popes' was a nod to the Christian fundies, whose voice is particularly loud in my own country.

(Edit: Finally remembered Kerensky's name while watching CNN coverage of weapons inspection report.)