Quote:It is literally the only source I have quoted on the subject
I didn't ask you to quote it. I asked where you got it from. Can you tell the difference? Do you often quote sources and pretend you wrote it yourself?
Quote:European diseases like small pox? - obviously. Particularly when they were spread deliberately.
In what percentage of new world deaths would you say the disease was deliberately spread?
Are you also holding Europeans accountable for the cases that were not deliberate?
Quote:That there were more people slaughtered by European colonialism than at any other period previously seen in history?
No Gandalf. I am asking you to stop being a slippery Muslim and back up what you actually said:
Quote:Its estimated the Europeans had around 1 million muslim slaves during the 'Barbary' period, which was roughly the same as the number of European slaves held by the Barbary states.
Quote:In the process they directly slaughtered or were responsible for the death of more people than at any time in the history of mankind.
Which of these are you trying to pass someone else's writing off as your own? Where did you get these claims from?
Quote:No. Creating an "actual democracy" wouldn't involve allowing Karzai to rig elections, or vetting candidates before they were allowed to stand.
So it is only a real democracy if people can only get elected if we allow them to, but it is also not a democracy if we vet the candidates? Are you trying to define democracy out of existence?
Quote:You are really answering your own question regarding why the US wouldn't establish an "actual democracy" in Afghanistan or Iraq. It goes back to my point about common sense. If the west is going to oppose and actively undermine a group like Hamas in the event that they are democratically elected - and let me be clear, they may well be justified in doing so - why on earth would they facilitate their election in the first place?
Because supporting democracy is not the same thing as giving elected leaders free reign on the global stage. Your point is completely irrelevant. Whether Hamas gets elected democratically has nothing at all to do with whether they get on with other governments. Democracy merely allows the population to correct the problem internally. It does not force them to, as the case of Hamas shows.
Quote:Thus the US would never countenance the possibility that belligerent candidates such as the Taliban could some day be freely and fairly elected to power in Afghanistan. So they take steps to ensure that is never a possibility in the first place.
This is not possible Gandalf. You cannot control eternity. Democracy provides the mechanism for the majority to seize power and wield it how they will. It is inevitable that this will happen, no matter how many constraints it starts off with. The people will either lose democracy completely, or take charge of it. The middle ground that you suggest is our real agenda is inherently unstable.
Your suggestion flies in the face of common sense. If we did not want the Iraqi and Afghan people to control their own countries, then setting up democracy would be the last thing we would do, even if we only got them 80% of the way there.
Quote:That is why they vet candidates before election and dictate who can and cannot stand for election. You're not seriously saying an "actual democracy" involves voting only for candidates that have been pre-approved by a foreign occupying power are you?
No. Nor does it involve occupying the country. Nor does it involve killing leaders, like we did with Saddam. Are you seriously suggesting we plan on doing any of these things indefinitely? Does that pass your common sense test?