Be careful of what you wish for

[kandrathe]

Hmmm, so you think that Iraq without Saddam might devolve into a Yugoslavia without Tito? Maybe.

I can see how the Kurds in the North would press more strongly for a Kurdish state to be composed of parts of what is now Iraq, Iran and Turkey. I think that case has merit.

Then there is the Shi'a majority in the southern swamp regions which will want to annex to Iran, and maybe they should.

I found this article relating to this topic interesting;

The Coming Transformation of the Muslim World

[WarBlade]

Even without the ERA, women's role in American society, opportunities for self determination, and personal sovereignty are THE model for the rest of the modern world, including our lovely NATO allies.

LOL

*Cough*

How does a nation that doesn't allow women's voting rights nationwide until 1920 claim to be "THE model for the rest of the modern world" (including the Nato allies)? (At least I think is was 1920 - Not sure)

On the contrary, American society is so at odds with the rest of the modern world that the instances where America is accepted as any kind of role model are very few and very far between, in my experience.

[Occhidiangela]

Let me tell you, our women's suffrage followed right closely on the Brits, and when it comes to women in government and the military, we are light years ahead of our NATO allies.

I speak from experience, do you?

Who the hell lead the charge on the creation of the UN? Who chose to treat their defeated enemies as future allies and trade partners, rather than as victims to despoil?

You want to talk about prudery? Go for it. Plenty here.

You want to talk about women actually getting out of the kitchen? Eat my dirt.

[WarBlade]

Let me tell you, our women's suffrage followed right closely on the Brits, and when it comes to women in government and the military, we are light years ahead of our NATO allies.

And your first female President was?

Seriously Occi. The standing of women in government in the US is not something I'd crow about. And "closely following the Brits" hardly qualifies one to claim they they led the world on the sufferage issue either.

[Occhidiangela]

. . . And Dame Thatcher made it on merit. If a woman of her quality ever shows up here, I suspect she will get elected. Let's see, the first female prime minister in Italy, Germany, France is . . . Not there yet! SO your point is WHAT? The first female Prime Minister in Japan is . . . nowhere. Oh, you folks found one. Wonderful, and New Zealan influences the world how?

Of course, being a Kiwi, how would you anything about the stupidity of tokenism? You have how much racial diversity? Let's see, the expat Brits/Scots/Irish, the Maoris . . . and who else? Enlighten me, I may have missed a few.

And since you want to play games with America, lets play "Bait the Kiwi."

Your nation got out from under the British Crown when? When did you take the Queen's picture off of your coinage? Maybe that's why you all voted in a lady, you wanted your own queen.

When women are Governors of states, as our Texas Governor Anne Richard's was here in Texas back in the late 1980's, with a GNP and population greater than your entire nation, I have to wonder what you are so proud of?

Try going back to the American missionary movement of the 1800's, while you docile little colonials were still servants to the Crown. When the women of America went forth into the world on missionary endeavours that built them political ties that then empowered them eventually to the point that suffrage was passed here. And as Shadow pointed out, that is 7 years ahead of the Commonwealth's North American chapter.

Sorry, I had forgotten how vital to the spreading of Western Culture New Zealand was.

Could it be that you all were too busy on your islands, sending off young men to serve the goals of The Imperial Crown, pouring their blood all over Gallipoli, Crete, and Northern Africa, before realizing that maybe you were being used?

It is not the critic who counts, it is the man in the Arena.

Show up in The Arena, one day, or be content sit in the stands and bitch.

The scrum half for the A-side can ignore the complaints of the short side wing for the D-side in any Rugby club.

[ShadowHM]

And as Shadow pointed out, that is 7 years ahead of the Commonwealth's North American chapter.

That is not what I said.

I said it was 1927 before women were 'persons' in Canada (and my cross-checking now shows that I got the date wrong). We got the vote earlier than that. Provincially, the dates ranged from 1916 to 1940. Federally, it was 1920, the same year as the U.S.A. and two years after Britain.

The persons issue started with the “Famous Five” Alberta women who fought to have women constitutionally declared “persons” and therefore eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate. That came in 1929.

But women got the vote in New Zealand long before that - 1893, in fact. Perhaps WarBlade does have some history to be proud of in that respect?

As for female heads of state, this is what I found.

http://womenshistory.about.combrary/wee...y/aa010128a.htm

[WarBlade]

SO your point is WHAT?

My point was that you came out with a claim that was both boastful and quite easy to prove incorrect. I called you up on it.

And where did the rest of your vitriolic responses go? More boastful rantings of less than 'nyah nyah' calibre schoolyard taunting. Note that I'm not usually one of the more susceptible to dropping angered replies to troll posts at LL, so I'm intrigued by this game of "bait the Kiwi".

If you have something useful to ask that isn't wrapped in exceedly bad "we are greater and mightier than thou" rhetoric, then lets see it. Otherwise, your opinions and claims will continue to carry no weight.

[Occhidiangela]

Beyond the obvious baiting. That was ungracious on my part. I was going to edit some of it, but have decided other wise. Let it be shown that your baiting me got me to bite.

As you seem to have missed the point in the noise, tokenism is irrelevant, and tokenism was your counter: "who had a lady president." Turkey and Pakistan, so what? That says nothing to the actual social conditions in my country, or the example that has set for about past 50 years. We move forward. Those I hold in utter contempt are trying to set the clock backward. That is why I hold them in comtempt. If you admire them for that, all of their token female presidents are so much window dressing for those of you who wallow in your token symbols. Dame Thatcher was no token, she was the real deal.

Governor Richards, by the way, took on a bigger job than your prime minister, by some measures, but a lesser one by other measures. You don't seem to realize when you have been answered in kind.

A listing of the Maori heads of ministries, such as your defense and foreign ministries would be most enlightening, or you once again sit as a pot screaming at a far cleaner kettle.

Going to make an attempt at the C-side prop?

[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.)

[Jonathon Spectre]

Think of the Arab world centuries ago, one of humanity's brightest lights in mathematics, science, and trade. Now imagine a pair of knotted claws closing down around that Arab world, stifling all intellectual honesty and development.

(Guess what the claws represent?)

The state of nearly all Islamic countries today is a disgusting disgrace. Because of ravings to the moon god, the entire Arab world has spent the last couple of centuries humiliating women and arguing about such incredibly important things as just how much humiliation they should indeed impose.

It's no wonder that immigrants are flocking by the hundreds of thousands to Islamic countries and that the Middle Eastern Arab countries are the world's finest examples of technological progress, human rights, and military prowess.

JS

[WarBlade]

As you seem to have missed the point in the noise, tokenism is irrelevant, and tokenism was your counter: "who had a lady president."

Tokenism? As in having a female figurehead as a token gesture? I still don't quite grasp your meaning with that.

No, I slipped that question in to query your position of "when it comes to women in government and the military, we are light years ahead of our NATO allies". It was incidental at best and quite frankly I find the notion that America's style of government being light years ahead of it's NATO allies quite a surprising claim. I look at your electoral system and see something similar to one my country abandoned years ago and Norway and Germany even earlier still.

Turkey and Pakistan, so what?  That says nothing to the actual social conditions in my country, or the example that has set for about past 50 years.  We move forward.  Those I hold in utter contempt are trying to set the clock backward.  That is why I hold them in comtempt.  If you admire them for that, all of their token female presidents are so much window dressing for those of you who wallow in your token symbols.  Dame Thatcher was no token, she was the real deal.

Turkey and Pakistan? I think you were replying to someone else there. :unsure:

As for Dame Thatcher, she has some similar qualities to my current Prime Minister and many have remarked on similarities. I would call Helen Clark "the real deal" too and certainly nothing resembling a tokenistic (is that the word? ) attempt to install a female figurehead. Jenny Shipley before her was also a powerful figure, although not one I'd ever vote for.

A listing of the Maori heads of ministries, such as your defense and foreign ministries would be most enlightening, or you once again sit as a pot screaming at a far cleaner kettle.

I'd have to research the names . . . I have no idea which of them would claim Maori ancestry aside from some of the more prominant figures.

I can offer the party lists where some names might give a clue, but Maori people like Dover Samuels with european names are as much the norm as the Maori names like Hekia Parata. Other names stand out too like a rastafarian politician called Nándor Tánczos and various "Wong"s and "Wang"s etc. so I really wouldn't even want to begin to guess which ethnic minorities our politicians belong.

This perhaps does highlight an element of tokenism though. NZ is divided up in voting regions as one would expect. It also has a number of Maori electorates overlayed with the ordinary electorates ensurating that Maori interests have a voice depending on region. Maps can be found here. Maori people have the option of choosing to vote by Maori electorate. Most prefer to vote according to the ordinary electorate boundaries IIRC.

How close to a token gesture the Maori electorates ever become (if anything) is not really for me to say - I don't really know either way. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of complaints that I know of so I can only assume the status quo is acceptable to most.

[ShadowHM]

(Guess what the claws represent?) 

Maybe European Imperialism of the past 400 years?

With a dash of good old Christian 'stomp on the infidels' thrown in?

And some of that practical foreign diplomacy called "Support the devil if he does what you want" ?

Or did you have some other answer in mind?

[Occhidiangela]

The current leader of the House Democratic Party is Nancy Pelosi. That is the analogous position of Dame Thatcher, who was the head of her party when it gained the majority in the commons. In the Brit system, that leads to prime ministership when you get the majority, whereas in our system you have to jump yet another hurdle, be ye man or woman. The Parliamentary system brought the world Hitler, lovely, and is used as well in modern day Italy, where there have been over 50 changes in government in the past 50 years. Hardly what I would call a governmental model whose effectiveness is universal in being able to sustain a vision and leadership. We'll keep our system, thank you very much, enjoy yours.

As to the military, try RADM Grace Hopper, who in the early 1980's (or was it 1979? I forget) earned flag rank. RADM Hopper retired a few years back, you may remember her for her invented computer language, and for having introduced the term Bug into the lexicon of computerese. Look at the current list of flag officers and you will find women in all four services. Line offiders and staff corps alike.

What other western nation has women as flag officers, captains of ships, and three star generals of Marines, as you find in my country? I wonder. We don't even need women in the military, as for example the Israeli's did due to their strategic imperative, but our progressives have for the past four decades championed and attained that end. Leading the way. The Brits were decades behind us in putting women to sea as Line officers. In 1991 one of my colleagues was married to the Captain of a supply ship. She was a line officer.

CAPT Laura Flynn of the US Air Force, a B-52 pilot, got the golden opportunity to earn notoriety for having an affair with one of her airmen a few years back, a scandal made possible by the opportunity, and a bright young lady named Kara Hultgren got the oppotrunity, back in about 1995, to crash burn and die in her Tomcat while making an approach to the USS Lincoln. Sally Ride, astronaut. Why do I bother burying you with detail?

It aint tokenism here, I have seen the move forward in my lifetime. It is the real deal, but tell me, how many ladies are admirals in New Zealand? How many lead squadrons?

Take your silly little *coughs* and spew them elsewhere.

[Occhidiangela]

The Arabs ran into three consecutive buzz saws at the height of their influence.

1. The steel clad European Crusaders. for a couple of centuries starting in the late 1000's.
2. Around 1200ish, the Mongols, IIRC Ogadai or one of Kublai Khan's other sons
(IIRC, he razed Damascus and Bagdad. Foggy on a detail or two)
3. The Turks

These last were the coup de grace to the shining zenith of Arab enlightenment, though they adopted the Religion of The Prophet. It took about 600 years to get their boot off the collective Arab Neck, about the same lenght of time of the ascendancy and rise to prominence of Islam in Arabia and the Magreb.

We are only 4 generations away from that liberation. Mayhap in 100 years the Arabs can re discover their enlightenment. Maybe we can find a way to help them do that sooner.

After all, they gave us algebra, we owe them at least an effort. :)

Which brings us back to the post title at the top of the thread: what is it you/we wish for? We are sure to get it, one way or another. :o

[Occhidiangela]

Good read. I wonder how much is an exercise in optimism, and how much is a peek into a possibly more open future.

[Occhidiangela]

The usually razor sharp wit could use a slight touch up. :)

Maybe European Imperialism of the past 400 years?

Play the blame game and you run into a dead end. History moves forward. If Turkey can get off of the Caliphate dime in two generations, what excuse do the more civilized Arabs have?

With a dash of good old Christian 'stomp on the infidels' thrown in?

You are a few centuries late for the Reconquista and the Battle of Lepanto. Christians stomp on heretics and pagans, Moslems stomp in infindels. Or is that a Hollywood script convention? :o

And some of that practical foreign diplomacy called "Support the devil if he does what you want" ?

Politics has always made strange bed fellows, and it works both ways. The Saudis put up with Americans they really don't care much for to deal with their Saddam problem, the US and USSR joined hands to beat Hitler, and the Romans imported barbarians (Varangian Guard, anyeone?) whose support turned sour. For reaons known only to history, Italy joined up with Germany, and its foes, in the same war, two wars in a row. CLever lads, ended up on the winning side both times even after having their arses handed to them, once by Rommel, and once as Rommel's ally. :o

Allies are always on their own side, and help one another as far as their own interests make it useful to do so, per Chaing Kai Chek and Mao putting there civil war aside for a few years to deal with the Japanese and find ways to soak the Americans for support.

Or did you have some other answer in mind?

I think he was referring to the reactionary Musliim movement, but I may have read my own thoughts into his post.

[WarBlade]

The Parliamentary system brought the world Hitler, lovely, and is used as well in modern day Italy, where there have been over 50 changes in government in the past 50 years.  Hardly what I would call a governmental model whose effectiveness is universal in being able to sustain a vision and leadership.  We'll keep our system, thank you very much, enjoy yours.

The MMP paliamentary system was devised in 1949 in Germany. Hitler commited suicide in 1945.

How then did it 'bring the world Hitler?' :lol:

It aint tokenism here, I have seen the move forward in my lifetime.  It is the real deal, but tell me, how many ladies are admirals in New Zealand?  How many lead squadrons?

More to the point, how many admirals would you expect to find, total. I found references to a single admiral. What is the likelihood of that person being female, statistically speaking?

And that about covers the rest of your rant too. You can spout numbers until you're blue in the face and you'd still be dealing with the reality that the American military is huge in numbers and therefore any small percentage adds up to quite a number of people, regardless of the criteria.

But then I wasn't talking about the military anyway was I? I was challenging your assertion that "women's role in American society, opportunities for self determination, and personal sovereignty are THE model for the rest of the modern world"

Which is clearly BS.

[Rhydderch Hael]

The MMP paliamentary system was devised in 1949 in Germany. Hitler commited suicide in 1945.

How then did it 'bring the world Hitler?' :lol:

Weimar.

[ShadowHM]

I think he was referring to the reactionary Muslim movement, but I may have read my own thoughts into his post.

Actually, that was my knee-jerk reaction as well.

I wanted to point out that there are many other reasons why there are problems in that area of the world, the least of which is the fairly recent resurgence of fundamentalism in political life there.

Mea culpa, I did not take much time with the post, tumbling into the same mire of lack of research that I believed Mr. Spectre was stuck in.

Thanks for the more measured and factual post you did give him.

Edit:

I do think you are underestimating one thing, though. The need for extreme measures to make changes in a country, when the rest of the world is supportive of the regime leads directly to extremism in more than just the determinination to oust the miscreants.

The Taliban works as an example there - the sheer bloody-minded determination it took to get the Russians out of Afghanistan led to the same kind of tactics being used to ensure that the leaders' view of the world being imposed on the country afterwards.

In Iran, the Shah was happily supported by the rest of the world for a long time, despite his known excesses in human rights. It took extremists to get rid of him. Why are we surprised that those extremists then imposed their view of the world onto the country afterwards? And that they turned a somewhat jaundiced eye on those who had propped the Shah for so long, rejecting everything that they represented, the good and the bad?

[Jester]

"I wanted to point out that there are many other reasons why there are problems in that area of the world, the least of which is the fairly recent resurgence of fundamentalism in political life there."

Why would there be an extremist, religious, xenophobic, backwards looking, anti-technological force trying to move the whole area to some warped vision of their dark ages?

Maybe because there is an opposite force? Because there are or were (in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in Kuwait, in the UAE, in Egypt, etc...) powerful, secular, modernizing forces that were removed forcibly from the hands of their people, and thrust into the hands of some few oligarchs in order to secure a cold war power base for the West? (And no, it's not about only one thing. It's oil, control, ideology, religion, history, all sorts of junk)

I mean, what happens then, when your pro-west, pro-technology, semi-secular dictator starts to oppress you? You fall into the hands of whatever anti-west, anti-technology, fanatical revolutionary who comes around the block. It has been said many times by people who know the region that the best damn thing ever to happen to Osama Bin Laden was that the US started launching missiles at him. So he became the embodiment of everything the hated Saudi regime was not, despite his being a two-bit rich kid playing at terrorism.

So, those problems and the resurgence of fundamentalism there (as everywhere) are one and the same problem. Don't back off your point; you had it spot on.

Jester