Fellas, Do you discuss politics with females?

[Paragon]

But the solution is to find a middle ground and compromise (even

amongst enemies

) rather than push back into two extremes.

Actually I like extreme enemies, in debate or in real life.

[Ibtisam]

^^In debates it can be entertaining to watch and challenging to participate in. However there will always be a need for closure or a middle ground, normal this becomes a new face of the argument which endorses arguments from both sides.

 

In real life it kills a lot of people unnecessarily, people get carried away and forget all regard & consideration for life. I guess it comes down to what you are willing to die for. I'm suprised anyone will admire that let alone like it?

[NGONGE]

Women are as culpable in the destruction of Somalia as the men. In addition, I doubt women politicians are any much better than the men!

 

In arguments about the origins of Somalis I have always maintained that we are not Arabs or African. I strongly believe that our original home was Bangladesh, before our great ancestors were accidentally stranded in East Africa! Have a mirror handy? Take a look at your face.

 

And talking of women in politics who best to compare than our long lost cousins from Dhaka?

 

Read the following:

 

For the past 15 years, politics in the world's third most populous Muslim country

has been dominated by twin matriarchs - divas who hate each other so much they will not cross paths, let alone speak to each other: Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wajed.

 

 

They lead the two big political parties, the Bangladeshi Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Awami League, and they have alternated as prime minister since democracy was restored in 1991. But the feud between them finally boiled over this year as they refused to wait for elections to decide who should be prime minister next. As Khaleda Zia tried to fix the elections, Sheikh Hasina brought her strongmen on to the streets. At least 45 people were killed.

 

 

With the chaos at its peak, President Iajuddin Ahmed stepped in on 11 January, declaring a state of emergency, and cancelling the elections. The international community looked on with relief. But the story that was not told was how the military had seized power: how the generals went to the President and told him to declare the emergency, and how they are behind the "caretaker" government.

 

 

A country that only months ago was relishing its emergence on the world stage, with economic growth of 6 per cent, is looking, again, into the abyss of military rule. People are asking whether the era of the grandes dames is finally over. Much has been made of the fact that politics here has been dominated by women for more than a decade. But it was no triumph of feminism. Sheikh Hasina's and Khaleda Zia's power came from dead men. They are relatives of the two most powerful figures in Bangladesh's 36-year history as an independent country.

 

 

Sheikh Hasina is the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the man who led Bangladesh to independence from Pakistan only to be assassinated for his own authoritarian attempts at single-party rule. The cadres of Sheikh Hasina's Awami League still wear the black coats favoured by him.

 

 

Khaleda Zia is the widow of General Ziaur Rahman, who seized power and became military dictator shortly after Sheikh Mujibur's death, only to be assassinated himself.Their dependence on dead relatives did not stop them from putting on airs. Khaleda Zia, in particular, ruled Bangladesh "in an imperial fashion", according to Ataur Rahman, a professor of political science at Dhaka University. The word in Dhaka is that they are now under unofficial house arrest, guarded by security forces for their own "protection".

 

 

The issues between them in the run-up to the elections scheduled for 22 January seemed relatively minor. Sheikh Hasina's Awami League complained that the election commissioners were biased, having barred the league's political ally, General Ershad, a former dictator, from standing.

 

 

But really, the BNP was blatantly trying to fix the elections, says Professor Rahman. "It wasn't just election engineering, it was election designing," he says. "It shouldn't have been an issue for the BNP. They were winning anyway. They were doing it for five or 10 seats. They must be crying now."

 

Source

[Paragon]

Ibtisam

 

There is a beauty in one's honest display of his enmity towards the other. It takes a certain amount of courage to declare yourself as the enemy of a political group or someone else because you disagree with their ideologies. Most people don't have the courage to say 'I oppose you on this'. Only the brave form true enemies, the rest who pass themselves as extreme enemies are a passing farce.

 

On my part, if I were in opposition to someone's ideology, at least I would do him/her the honour of letting him know it. No mix-up needs to occur.

[Ibtisam]

loool NGong Bangladesh I hope not, I've lived with them all my life, I spent many years hating them!

 

Paragon, I think maybe you are being a bit too natured to assume people declare enemies because of honour, Ideological yes it is different, you can even respect their perspective. But You know real life is different it is not a game, nor is it beauty, you should run for cover or hit back. All you have to do is look around the world, point out one conflict that reflects the beauty that you speak of?

 

I don't think it takes courage to declare someone your enemy, in fact I can successfully argue that it is a cowardly thing to do, it reflects the lack of reason or conviction what you are proposing

[Paragon]

^^When you look around, your womanly eyes see men beating the hell out of each other . while I, on the other hand, see all political (in its thearetial, practical and if one is lucky experience it, its physical aspect) wheels moving in tandem and harmony. That makes it a beauty. War and peace are the things we play for. Dying, killing, winning, losing is all that makes up a picture which then historians document in detail. The events might not be beautiful but the results of politics are.

 

PS: We might be using different definitions of beauty.

[Valenteenah.]

Opposing or disagreeing with someone's ideologies/believes does not necessarily make them an enemy.

 

 

NGONGE, would that be the only feud between politicians or leaders that currently exists? And how relevant is the gender of the two leaders to the feud, really? What tosh.

[Ibtisam]

Paragon

Making the assumption that my eyes see things womanly is undermining my ability to rationally look at something and make decision on it, It is like me saying that a man cannot grasp his kids emotions because he looks at them with a male eyes, or that guys are not able to maintain friendship with females because they look at relationship in one dimensional view, I’m sure you will agree that both of these views are retarded to some extent.

 

Theoretically, practically and physically it can be called anything but moving in harmony! Because politics is not concerned with harmony, but rather in discord. Yes war and peace are a factory of life, and sometimes war is need to achieve peace, while other times it is suitable to have war at the expensive of peace, I’m not an idealist nor do I think perpetual peace is possible, but spinning the hold realist vision is not without major gaping holes either.

 

Historians documents can barley be considered as capturing the beauty of anything, if anything the spoil and distort based on their narrow views and defining cultures.

 

I agree that the events are not beautiful, but nor are the result of politics, as those events are the direct result of politics.

[NGONGE]

^^^ Heh. Hold your horses my cyber darling. I was only replying to the deluded Nomad who believed that just because they're females Somali women will be the answer to our enduring predicament. It's not about gender. Females can be just as vicious, manipulative and corrupt as men. Only most men don't realise that because they're busy looking at the women's, err, pretty eyes.

 

Edit:

 

The above was to Val not Ibti.

[Paragon]

Nope, Ibtisam. I think you are equating the differing natural disposition of both genders to each other. Isn't it true that both genders are naturally disposed to percieve things differently? While most men wish to treat matters in their 'exclusivity' most women seem to be 'inclussive', both emotionally or otherwise.

 

So, while you, as a young lady may be naturally in a better position to comprehend the emotions of even my 'future' children, I may end up somewhat out of depth in understanding them. This ability of comprehension and empathy is a strength in itself. When I fail to comprehend others' emotions, I get the natural urge to make things clear. 'War, xaalku ma nabadbaa mise?' comes to mind. Heavens, this is even the tradition of Somalis (mostly men) when greeting each other.

 

If peacefulness is not percieved from the other, war is the most effective tool to achieve results. Now, the chaos that usually comes with this is expected but if it doesn't come, that creates a very unsettling situation. If men fight, some 'must' die and others 'must' survive. Some must win and others must lose. If that isn't the order of things, it is a change - and change disrupts the harmony of things.

[Ibtisam]

Paragon

 

Yes it is true that men and women distinguish things differently and the priority in determining things take different roots, but the end results and comprehension of situations are not too far from each other, If I follow your line of thought I can go as far as saying that since I can “put myself in their shoes” I am in a better position to understand, but I wills top short of that claim.

 

You are only out of depth of understanding them, if you believe so, yes I “might” be more advantaged or equipped to understand them initially, but of course where there is a way there is a will and inevitable you will understand them. Your saying is not exclusive to men in Somali tradition either, it is a form of news gathering rather than a decoding sentence as you claim.

 

War is the most effective tool to achieve results, if by results you mean total destruction and change then yes I agree, the results do not necessarily mean success, and if there is no success what is this “effectivity” you speak of? Impact yes, effective no, otherwise we would not have been witnessing some of the current events.

 

Again you are wrong to assume someone must win? Really? Yes in the old days when one army totally destroyed the other and took over their land, enslaved them and started a whole new social society and breed, you can argue that, but people no longer fight the frontal assaults, where there had to be a winner. Now it is hard to distinguish who won and who lost, especially seen as there are so many things outside of weapons that contribute to it. For example in the recent Lebanon V Israel, there was two winners, from different perspectives: would you not agree? and you saw the consequences that followed!

[Paragon]

^^Yes, there must be winners and losers. The recent Israeli attack on Lebanon had produced a single winner. And I am not going to daftly say 'Hisbullah'. Ibtisam, in every war, forgetting modernity or post-modernity, produces a winner. That is the truth; if I were a liberalist, I would create grey areas as to who is the winner and who is the loser. Whether it is a fist first or tank-fight, there are only two outcomes -winner and loser . I am not claiming an all-out nuclear war here. I am saying all other wars are subject to this rule. There is no such childish notion as 'Murkacasho' .

 

PS: Lets have a break. I need a kitkat.

[Ibtisam]

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree in that case, I think you look at life in general and events in a black and white, and we simply don’ have that simplicity in life, too many contributors can only mean too many conclusions.

 

I’ll leave you with this: Consider the Israeli attack again, would I be correct in stating that although they may have “won” militarily, they lost he media and propaganda war, which in this day and society is as important as military strength. If you look at the political scene of the Jewish society (especially here in the UK) before the war and currently, you will notice many heads rolled due to this loss, which caused them to pull out and unnecessary grieve.

 

As I already said a winner can only be determined after the total destruction of one (beyond repair/ recovery), everything else is chasing shadows for a day

 

lool @kitkat.

[Paragon]

^^Hey Ibtisam, I am back to disagree with you. But this time I won't just disagree, I will try to show the logic behind my conclusion.

 

Scenario 1: Two sovereign nation-states co-exist like Lebanon and Israel. one nation-state (Israel) decides to invade and bomb the other nation-state (Lebanon) and does so. What has Israel done? (a)By invading Lebanon, Israel has violated the former's sovereign right to non-intervention. (b)By Bombing and shelling, Israel has killed many Lebanese citizens and has destroyed the country's infrastructures and properties.

 

All the while, the Lebanese side has only managed to throw misguided Katyusha missiles into Israel, at most killing 5 Israelis tops. When Israel bombs, however, it kills civilians by the hundreds. Militarilly, therefore, Israel has won the war by creating the possibility to be mobile within another nation-state's borders and kill whom it wishes to. The same cannot be said from the Lebanese side, they spent most of the time hidding and the reminder of the time, fleeing. Does this look like winning to you?

 

Now, let us move to the 'illusion' called 'media war' created to divert attention from the real casualties and making people become cheat themselves into believing that they are at least winning a different kind of war - a media war. The whole idea of 'media war' is there to make a group of helpless people or civil societies in democaries feel empowered. This media-war idea doesn't cost lives - its negative effects only reduces dollars. Instead of feeling like losers, many citizens of the world are lulled into the perception of being victors of some sort. It is simply doctoring public opinion to tame it.

 

You are an IR grad, it shouldn't work on you. The world is still as black and white if you are willing to see it. Many people have been made believe otherwise. I give expection where this is required but I cannot be made to lose track with facts and values.

 

So my dear, Ibtisam, somethings never change. It is a realist world still. Better believe it .

[-Lily-]

Paragon,

 

Putting all feelings aside, granted the response was disproportionate but didn't Lebanon violate Israel's right to sovereignty by shooting rockets into its territory to begin with? Regardless if a building was smashed or people died? Unless that is we are to believe that Israeli troops were inside Lebanese borders to begin with. So it’s really a case of tit for a very huge tat.