FreeThinker

What is more dangerous to the world peace: Secular Dictatorship or Theocracy ?

Wouldn't be dangerous to replace Sadam regime, only to find out that in democratic election or during a coup US pupet regime was replaced by Iraqi with a taliban-style theocracy ?

Secular Dictatorship examples: North Korea, Iraq
Theoracies examples: former Taliban, Iran (to some extent)

meritocrat

The Taliban were only a threat to 'world peace' since they harboured terrorists. Even Iran has normalised relations with a fair number of Western nations. I don't generally see how a theocracy is inherently dangerous.

FreeThinker

Wouldn't a muslim theocracy perceive US and West as morraly decadent ? Saudia Arabia of caurse could be called theocracy, but it is not a true theocracy as it was governed by corrupted pupet of US- the King. The pure theocracy was Taliban and Iran in its beginings. A pure theocracy in my understanding could be called the countries governed by such funds as Osama. There are no many pure theocracies in Middle East, ,but trust me if US officials will continue to alude to religion in thier speeches pure theocracies like that of Taliban will come out.

While a Secular Dictaroship state would be reluctant to use atomic weapons for fear of retaliation, a Pure Theocracy wold nuke without fear, after all by killing infidels they are guranteed to go to heaven, and the sooner they will be killed during retaliation, the sooner they will escape thier miserable world and go to heaven.

Osama longed for this war as he know that this war will accomplish two purposes:

1) Raise further hatred and terrorist attacks against Americans
2) Eliminate the "socialistic" dictator of Iraq (I still don't get why Osam called Sadam socialist, but perhaps everything evil is called socialistic in Middle East) and after weak pupet regime of US will be turned down, form a pure theocracy.

faman

Maybe because Sadaam's regime is, in fact, a socialist regime? Baath Party

FreeThinker

No way. If Sadam is a socialist then Pinocet (former dictator of Chile) is a Marxist-Leninist

word "socialist" in "Arab Socialist Baath Party" name is meaningless, it doesn't mean more than the word "socialist" in "Germany National Socialist Party" [formal name for nazi party].

What could be socialistic in his treatment of his society ? While he enjoys luxury living in castles, his people are dying from hunger, desease and cold. (I understand that sanction are too blame, but why leave in absolute luxury when people are dying?)

Neither Noth Koreea leader is quite socialist, as he lets people of hunger while maintaing 1mil army.

Neither China leader is closely socialist. In no socialist state a 14 year child will work 14 hours for pennies in order to supply imperalistic natinos with Chrismas toys.

Again, even Soviets weren't quite socialists.

I think Socialism is still an unknown ideal (contrast with Ayn Rand "capitalism: an unkown idea"l). To all this said, Scandinavian countries are failry socialistc and democratic.

Ironnicaly, Taliban was resembinling some equalitarian characteristics of socialism . In his book "Taliban", Rashid Ahmed mentios that leaders of taliban wer living a very modest life with no luxuries. So that's why I wonder why would Osama called Sadam socialist when, he himself exibited more (of course not all) socialistic attributes then Sadam.

meritocrat

The Taliban only posed a 'threat' to the US due to harbour terrorists. They never actively sought to 'bring down' American or Western society.

Loren Pechtel

The problem with theocracies is the "I'm holier than you" scenarios. The way to the top is to be holier than your opposition. This results in an extreme ratcheting effect and sooner or later a notion that one's religion should be exported, by force if need be, gets involved.

FreeThinker

Right, a theocracy would not formally nuke America, they will just harbor and supply terorists to do that job and that 's by far worse. Do we want to become the second Israeli, attacked by theocracies' secret agents (terrorists) to drop dirty bomb on us ?

Zar

There is no difference. Absolutism and moral exceptionalism exists in every walk of life, as has been aply proven. Soviet Russia was not a triumph of secularism, while I think democracy was. Thought in the U.S., from the left and the right is based on a moral exceptionalism that requires no religion to wreak havoc on the world.