Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Palomar · 2003-08-28 14:05:59

But I would like to see some PROOF that these people have a good REASON for their hatred; not unthinking, emotive religious hysteria -- just one solid reason.
How about exploitation? How about the lingering after effects of Imperialism and Colonialism? How about displacing hundreds of thousands of natives with others based on historical religious claims (Isreal)? How about supporting oppressive governments to meet our ends? How about undermining exsisiting governments to meet our ends? How about the fact that they are powerless to effect their will towards self determination becuase it would undermine our will and self determination'?
People kill for no reason. Nobody kills themselves for 'no reason.'
*In what Middle Eastern nation has the U.S. ever played the Colonist? I can't think of a single one.

*Hmmmmm. I just now thought of Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands...I can't recall the history of them, i.e. if they were considered "colonies" of ours or what....

But another point: What is the reason for the kidnappings, murders, and terrorist activities (car bombings and the like) in the Philippines by the fundamentalist terrorists? Are the Philippines now considered some great and powerful colonizing impericists like America?

I seriously doubt it. How could the Philippines -possibly- be perceived as a threat to Islam, the Middle East, etc.? It's a poor, rinky-dink nation.

So, please do explain: Why the terrorist activities in the Philippines? Are the radical Islamic fundies over there bored, tired of target-practicing with bananas...etc.?

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-28 14:15:02

*In what Middle Eastern nation has the U.S. ever played the Colonist? I can't think of a single one.

Please note, Imperialism. The US took over in the Middle East after the British and French had their fill (it can also be interpretated that the US drove them out, it dosen't matter).

We continue to support Isreal to the tune of 10 billion or more dollars a year. They are one of the largest benefactors of US foreign aid. People in that area have a severe problem with the exsistance of Isreal and her people, we are Isreal's friend and protector. Simple math explains why we are hated.

We support repressive regime (Egypt most notably, and Saudia Arabia) in the Middle East. If you look at what Bin Laden is saying and doing, he wants to undermine the governments in the Middle East. We are his enemy because we support his enemies. i.e the repressive regimes in the Middle east we depend on to maintain some semblance of order so we can all go along with business as usual.

And didn't I admit that the U.S. has made mistakes, done wrong things (aside from the above, of which I can't recall a single instance), etc., etc.? Yes, I did.

Then why ask for a single verifiable reason? It would seem you are already aware. ???

And so injustice (or perceived injustice) justifies violence?

No. Nothing justifies violence. I think I have been clear in other discussions about this. It's akin to State sanctioned murder. However, people have it in their heads, despite every sensible philosphy and religious creed, that violence upon another is acceptable. I never believed in the man, but I do believe in the message.

There cannot possibly be any jealousy in the mix (we are wealthy and prosperous...they are not)?

If our wealth is bought with their blood, we are part of the problem. If our nation makes life miserable for them in their part of the world just to maintain a status quo of our prosperity by a denial of opportunity for them, then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

You still have not answered request to give -your opinion-
about all this (instead of simply sharing an anecdote and asking oodles of questions).

My 'anecdote' was my apparently futile attempt to get an idea across. An idea that is supposed to apply to both sides. My questions are an attempt to understand, and perhaps int he process, make others understand how they have come to their conclusions. And, I did give yo my opinion on this matter. I said "I think we did the right thing, for entirely the wrong reasons."

And recall, my dear Clark: Saudi Arabia itself was recently the target of terrorist activities (bombings, threats of bombings, etc.) by bin Laden's lackeys. How do you explain that?

beacuse Bin Laden wants to overthrow the ruling Saudi regime. That's what all of this about. Oil, and who controls it.

It seems clear to me: To these people, "Islam" means "submission." Submission to THEIR interpretation of their religion (yes, there are many wonderful, kind, peaceful Islamic people who are absolutely opposed to violence and bloodshed, and who decry the terrorists and their activities -- let me acknowledge that right now). If you do not submit and "go along with the program" (regardless of who you are, where you live, what your ethnicity or race is), you are marked for death.

If people do not go along with the American 'program' they are killed. Welcome to the unipolar world of Pax Americana Cindy. Not everyone wants to take their marching orders from Washington. not everyone likes the policy dictated on their supposedly soverign nation.

The Taliban didn't go along with the program, and regardless of where they lived, they were all marked fro death. Pakistan saw the light, and lo and behold, Musharaff, a military general who staged a coup, is now an integral part of our War on terror.

Locals were on the beach, in swimsuits; radical fundamentalists saw them in their swimwear, pounced on them and beheaded every person in a swimsuit...because, in their eyes, being clad only in a bathing suit is "evil."
That's the mentality you are trying to get me to "understand"?

No Cindy, I am not trying to get you to understand 'those' people. That's like trying to 'understand' how a gun is responsible for murder. Those people are tools used by other people. The people who use a situation, like my anecdote you poo-poo, to gain an end. the people are the means, and I am trying to explain how these people are convinced that what they are doing is 'right'.

Palomar · 2003-08-28 15:42:30

Me: "In what Middle Eastern nation has the U.S. ever played the Colonist? I can't think of a single one."

Clark: "Please note, Imperialism. The US took over in the Middle East after the British and French had their fill (it can also be interpretated that the US drove them out, it dosen't matter)."

*But you did use the word "colonialism" in one of your most recent posts -- together with "imperialism." Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on my part somewhere...

Clark: "We continue to support Isreal to the tune of 10 billion or more dollars a year. They are one of the largest benefactors of US foreign aid. People in that area have a severe problem with the exsistance of Isreal and her people, we are Isreal's friend and protector. Simple math explains why we are hated."

*Yes, I know.

Me: "There cannot possibly be any jealousy in the mix (we are wealthy and prosperous...they are not)?"

Clark: "If our wealth is bought with their blood, we are part of the problem. If our nation makes life miserable for them in their part of the world just to maintain a status quo of our prosperity by a denial of opportunity for them, then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed."

*Are you implying that all or most of the U.S.'s wealth is due to their blood? You know, I once discussed a very similar issue with an extremely intelligent man who has a PhD in political science. He stated his belief that these other nations worked just as hard to get themselves in the predicaments and troubles they are in as anyone else has "helped" them. If the U.S. is the source of -all- these peoples' woes, why was their standard of living still in pathetic a mere 40 years ago or 50 years ago, before our involvement over there? Mexico is a 3rd world, backwards, nonprogressive nation...is that our fault too? Or could it be their corrupt regime, with its corrupt officials lining their own pockets with the nation's natural wealth at the expense of the "little people"?

Me: "It seems clear to me: To these people, "Islam" means "submission." Submission to THEIR interpretation of their religion (yes, there are many wonderful, kind, peaceful Islamic people who are absolutely opposed to violence and bloodshed, and who decry the terrorists and their activities -- let me acknowledge that right now). If you do not submit and "go along with the program" (regardless of who you are, where you live, what your ethnicity or race is), you are marked for death."

Clark: "If people do not go along with the American 'program' they are killed."

*In some instances. But I can't recall the last time American troops descended on beach-goers and chopped their heads off because they were wearing bathing suit. I don't recall the last time I was forced to wear a burkha, or made to stand idly by and accept a strange man whipping me with metal cords because a bit of my wrist flesh peeped through my robe!

Clark: "Welcome to the unipolar world of Pax Americana Cindy. Not everyone wants to take their marching orders from Washington. not everyone likes the policy dictated on their supposedly soverign nation."

*And if it weren't the U.S.A. (not that that makes it right), it'd be someone else. The PhD in political science I mentioned earlier? He asked one of his university classes which other 1 nation they would like to see at the "head of the pack," other than the U.S.A. He said not one person answered.

Clark: "The Taliban didn't go along with the program, and regardless of where they lived, they were all marked fro death."

*Now you're being silly. You condemn and question the U.S.A. but sympathize with the Taliban?? The Taliban coerced their way into Afghanistan -- they forced themselves on the Afghanis. They were religious terrorists who forced women into burkhas and men to keep to 1 haircut style or be imprisoned. The Afghani people didn't invite them into power, or vote them into power. On top of that, the already poor and beleaguered nation was turned into training grounds for more terrorists. Did the U.S. play a hand in this? Yep. Back in the late 1970s/ early 1980s, when we were trying to recruit locals as fighters against the Russians, and appealing to their religious sentiment. How brazenly stupid of us! In the 1990s, then, comes the Taliban, who forced themselves on to the Afghani people. But was it okay for the Taliban to force themselves on the Afghanis because of our bone-headed involvement against the Russians over there, 15 to 17 years prior to the Taliban seizing power there? I don't think so.

Clark: "I am trying to explain how these people are convinced that what they are doing is 'right'."

*Yes, I know that. It just seemed you were wanting to straddle the fence without really saying something.

And now lucky Shaun gets to wade through all these posts.

Enough said on my part (11 hour work day!).

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-08-28 15:56:02

O.K...time for my two cents - or perhaps a hypothetical or two to look at this from a different angle...

Simply put, the United States has had a long-running interest in the Middle East because of the oil. Without Middle East oil, we'd be flat on our back as soon as our reserves run out. That is a fact that simply cannot be ignored.
This is why we support the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, although they have been known to funnel money to the terrorists on a regular basis. The House of Saud (now a huge "family" of 1000's of people,) depend on their oil revenues to stay in power, so they can keep up with their extremely prolific free-spending ways (talk about greedy....). In reference to what was said earlier, I do agree that the U.S.'s long-term goals were to take Saddam out of power now, before he had a chance to make a move on Saudia Arabia...it's just that we're stuck with a hell of a mess that seems to become worse with each passing day. Can anyone repeat the word "Vietnam?" But I just don't see us pulling out of there anytime soon...and because the U.S. no longer has the mandatory draft, I don't see public pressure building up to Vietnam-war levels anytime soon, although Dean Howard does seem to be stirring up some waves with his anti-war beat at the moment. But I think Bush is pretty safe for the time being with the economy improving, etc.

But let's throw a hypothetical in the mix...what if a "miracle" energy sorce (like a scalable cold fusion reactor) was found that would free us from the "oil habit" once and for all? What would our focus on the Middle East be then? We would no longer need their oil, so who cares about the House of Saud (who would go down in flames anyhow with the loss of their oil revenue?) Would we just let the Middle East go to sh*t, and just focus on terrorist groups on a worldwide basis as needed? If oil was indeed taken out of the equation, would there be greater peace throughout the world, or less of it? How would our relationsip with Israel be affected?

Just thought I'd toss a few footballs around, anyhow... :;):

B

clark · 2003-08-28 16:02:15

lol. ahem, okay, here we go. I'm sure this will end as is always does. Acrimony, hurt feelings, and declarations of 'end of story. But I digress...

*Are you implying that all or most of the U.S.'s wealth is due to their blood? You know, I once discussed a very similar issue with an extremely intelligent man who has a PhD in political science. He stated his belief that these other nations worked just as hard to get themselves in the predicaments and troubles they are in as anyone else has "helped" them.

I am implying nothing. I am stating it. US prosperity, by and large, is bought by the bushel through the suffering, and denial of opportunity of others. It dosen't have to be zero-sum, but it is.

Mexico is a 3rd world, backwards, nonprogressive nation...is that our fault too? Or could it be their corrupt regime, with its corrupt officials lining their own pockets with the nation's natural wealth at the expense of the "little people"?

Cindy, you're almost there... This corrupt regime, lining their own pockets, who helps keep them there? You graduate if you say "USA, all the way!" Bin Laden and his ilk despise the US becuase it has been our policy to support people, or groups, that will protect our own interests. These same people will then turn around, using the financial and military aid provided by the USA government to oppress their people, and maintain control. We are a part of the problem Cindy.

We helped Saddam during the Iran Iraq war, our support enabled Saddam to increase his grip and control over the population. We helped support oppression abroad.

Clark: "If people do not go along with the American 'program' they are killed."
Cindy:*In some instances. But I can't recall the last time American troops descended on beach-goers and chopped their heads off because they were wearing bathing suit.

Perhaps not the same, but similar. Stop being so literal. We've run into some problems becuase we are conducting house searches with Dogs- this is really really offensive to Muslims. Do you see what I am getting at?

*And if it weren't the U.S.A. (not that that makes it right), it'd be someone else. The PhD in political science I mentioned earlier? He asked one of his university classes which other 1 nation they would like to see at the "head of the pack," other than the U.S.A. He said not one person answered.

It would be somebody else? I reject that idea. You've given up before even trying. As for which other '1' nation, I might suggest Switzerland as a world arbitror. Or even Belgium. I think the silence speaks more about American intelligence and education than anything else.

You condemn and question the U.S.A. but sympathize with the Taliban??

Why do you even bother asking for my opinion if you are going to suppose my opinion to begin with? I am not sympathizing with anyone. I am pointing out, in as an objective manner as I am possible of, of the situation. The same standards we apply to them, I apply to us. I'm sure Voltaire would be proud.

They were religious terrorists who forced women into burkhas and men to keep to 1 haircut style or be imprisoned.

I know some Republicans that aren't much different. The people in Afghanistan got screwed. We used them to further our ends in the 70-80's during the cold war. Then we bailed on them. Suddenly, war ravaged, they had a severe crime problem. The Taliban allowed at least some semblance of order in the country. People could at least feel safe (albeit they had to tote to the party line).

*Yes, I know that. It just seemed you were wanting to straddle the fence without really saying something.

Where am I straddling the fence? You wanted an opinion, I gave you one. You wanted to know where I stand, I have told you.

It's all a fucking mess we're in, and now we have to try and undo the fucking mess. I don't like the fact that we are in this mess, I think this should have never happened, and by and large, our leaders failed us by bringing us to the point where we have to kill a lot of innocent people.

I hate the fact that I am culpable in the murder of others, we all are. I hate the people who have brought us to this point, and there are a lot of them.

dickbill · 2003-08-28 16:40:22

It's not for the oil. It doesn't make sense that Bush starts a war for the oil while at the same time, in his discour for the state of the Union, he decides to launch an initiative for hydrogen powered cars, meaning independency form oil, (assuming the electricity is nuclear produced)...if "sense" has to do with anything in this case, which I am not sure.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-28 20:00:30

For what it's worth, I agree with Cindy to a very large extent. We differ in as much as Cindy believes the Iraq thing was unnecessary, but I respect that opinion.
Clark seems to outline the reality of the terrorist problem quite pragmatically at times, recognising that the U.S. has done the right thing but for the wrong reasons, but then gets lost in the minutiae of the argument as usual. He then appears unable to fathom why his discussions always end in 'acrimony' and 'hurt feelings' etc. (I think it's just frustration with the endless dissection of every nuance of meaning, Clark. You can take the intellectually rigorous examination of every minor point of interpretation too far, I think.) But, as always, there are very important and interesting points raised in Clark's contributions and I, for one, appreciate that.
Dickbill, in his own inimitable fashion, makes his arguments amusingly and well. Actually, sometimes his ironies are so well maintained I have trouble sorting the 'real' from the 'staged'!

If anyone's interested, my point is essentially pragmatic too. Regardless of how the world came to this state of affairs, we're in it! .. Now. .. Whether we like it or not.
We can try to unravel the knot of international political relationships over the past half century in order to apportion blame. We can beat our breasts, confess our sins and maybe salve our consciences by saying 'my government did this, it wasn't my fault'. But we all elect our governments, we all live our western life-style, we all use the oil and pollute the air, we all enjoy the economic well-being that comes of technological advancement.
We can wring our hands and show our compatriots that we are of a higher moral order than others by condemning every move our government makes as a further example of evil. But we're part of the western world .. if not in our own eyes, then certainly in the eyes of muslim fundamentalists, who won't take the time to enquire whether we're 'hawks' or 'doves' or Democrats or Republicans before shoulder-launching a missile at the plane we just took off in!

The stage is set. There are forces out there with very definite aims: The destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the jewish people; the destruction of the American/European liberal democratic life-style of all 'westerners', including Australia; the establishment across south-east Asia of a Pan Islamic Superstate, taking in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and The Philippines; and the imposition of muslim theocratic rule in as many countries as possible.

You can't run from or hide from this conflict. It's up and running and it's coming to a neighbourhood near you! We have no choice but to fight because this enemy is not open to negotiation. You can't argue with 'the word of God'

Can we at least agree on this much? ???

Byron · 2003-08-29 06:13:42

The stage is set. There are forces out there with very definite aims: The destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the jewish people; the destruction of the American/European liberal democratic life-style of all 'westerners', including Australia; the establishment across south-east Asia of a Pan Islamic Superstate, taking in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and The Philippines; and the imposition of muslim theocratic rule in as many countries as possible.
You can't run from or hide from this conflict. It's up and running and it's coming to a neighbourhood near you! We have no choice but to fight because this enemy is not open to negotiation. You can't argue with 'the word of God'

If the threat of the Islamic radicalists is as real as you have described (I'm not going to argue that it isn't,) perhaps we should treat this as we did the Axis powers in WWII. We declared formal war on our mortal enemies (when was the last time we actually "declared" war?), and we (the U.S. and its allies) pulled together and actually *fought* the war until it was won. It was horribly expensive...we lost a lot of lives...but the world was made safe (at least safer) in the end. (We still had the Cold War, of course, but at least it was pretty much a stalemate for 40 years.)

If U.S. leaders (and its people) really wanted to make the world "safe" (if ever a thing is possible,) it is my belief that we should fight like we did in WWII....call up the draft, nationalize all our industries and bring our might to bear on the enemy until they are destroyed. Then, like we did with Japan and Germany, we go in and rebuild those nations from the ground up, complete with a modern infrastructure and democratic governments. Just take a look at those countries today...

The problem I have with the War on Terror is that it's being fought in a half-assed manner just like we did in Vietnam. We will *never* win this way. The terrorists, the saboteurs, the guerilla hit squads will *never* give up as long as they are still alive and kicking. They just won't. The ever-impressionable Islamic kids are still being taught how to hate America and the West, and because they have no real economic future, what's to get them to change their minds that their holy jihad is the right thing to do? Us "occupying" Iraq and other nations only adds to this mindset, as it's so easy to convey to the youth in those countries that they are indeed being "oppressed," and they will achieve a special glory in heaven by fighting these "infidels," which is really the same thing that's happening in Israel. It is a vicious cycle which never seems to end.

In my "world" (maybe I should just stick with fiction writing..lol), nothing is done in a "half-ass" manner. You either go all the way, or don't bother with it at all.

Take your pick.

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-29 07:47:42

Good points, Byron.
I sympathise entirely with your sentiment that it would be very satisfying to mobilise a massive effort to root out this 'cancer' once and for all. But that may be easier said than done.
I suspect the weak point in your argument may be in comparing this war with the more formal war against Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan. At least that one was fought by regular armies 'out in the open', so to speak. Today's terror war reminds me of the legendary boxing tactics of Muhammad Ali, who expressed it in his own poetic style: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee; your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see".
A major mobilisation may well prove ineffective against guerilla warfare of this kind. Where would you concentrate your firepower? Germany's renowned military prowess was severely hampered in WWII by covert resistance operations conducted by French, Polish and Russian saboteurs behind the main battle lines. This went on despite absolutely savage reprisals by the Gestapo and the SS against civilian populations. And those people were merely fighting for their countries; these muslim fundamentalists think they're fighting for God!!
Don't misunderstand me, Byron, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't increase our resolve to destroy these fanatics. I merely query how best to go about it. It may be that the current undercover investigations and manhunts are the best way. I can't imagine suddenly sending 50 army divisions into, say, Malaysia to raze the terrorist training camps, without very serious objections from the Malaysian government! I think we need to fight smarter, not harder.

Another point is the tendency by some parts of the media to associate religious fundamentalism with poverty. In a way, I agree with the connection, but not in the way it's portrayed on TV and radio. There it's reported that poverty and hopelessness cause islamic fundamentalism to blossom; I say that islamic fundamentalism causes the poverty and hopelessness in the first place.
I don't have the figures handy but I read a report which showed clearly the correlation between islamic states and economic and technological backwardness. Science can't flourish in a closed society where the exchange of ideas has to pass a vetting process by islamic clerics to see whether the Koran allows it. And here's the big one ... (as we have mentioned elsewhere at New Mars), how many countries can exclude 50% of their people, their women, from social, educational, and workplace fulfilment and still expect to prosper?!! NONE! [Hell! My wife informs me, frequently, that Australia is only spared complete collapse by the efforts of Australian women. ]
Osama Bin Laden was never poor and neither was his evil little Egyptian side-kick Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Many islamic states are floating on oil; hardly something which predisposes a country to poverty. Yet, when interviewed on television, their people all spout the same anti-western doctrine. They're not driven to such hatred because they're poor and hungry; they're obviously schooled in it by their religious leaders.
I don't subscribe at all to the notion that this awful terrorism which threatens liberal democracy is an economic war. That's just more of the usual guilt-trip an opportunistic left-wing tries to hang on us at every turn.
No, this is an attempt by one group to forcibly impose its religious beliefs on the rest of us and it's going to be very hard to stop them. We really need to put all our own political rivalries aside right now and pool our resources ... this is serious business.
???

Palomar · 2003-08-29 07:50:56

lol. ahem, okay, here we go. I'm sure this will end as is always does. Acrimony, hurt feelings, and declarations of 'end of story.

*No, I'm okay Clark. A little under the weather (battling headaches and dizziness...I suspect from too much time on the computer, and that mostly related to work), but the subject -isn't- ending on a sour note between us.

I think I've pretty much stated my viewpoints.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-29 09:31:22

Shaun, peacemaker extrodinaire...

And those people were merely fighting for their countries; these muslim fundamentalists think they're fighting for God!!

What are we fighting for Shaun?

But we're part of the western world .. if not in our own eyes, then certainly in the eyes of muslim fundamentalists, who won't take the time to enquire whether we're 'hawks' or 'doves' or Democrats or Republicans before shoulder-launching a missile at the plane we just took off in!

The first rule of mobilization of individuals is to define the groups, then systematically define how the others are not part of one particular group. "we are free, they are slaves"; "we are peaceful, they are aggressive and warmongering"; "we care about life, they don't."

We vs. They. Them vs. Us. Our way of life, their way of life.

I doubt our military is taking the time to ask if people are Pro-US, or Pro-THEM, when we drop bombs from 30,000 feet.

Where is the difference?

There are forces out there with very definite aims: The destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the jewish people; the destruction of the American/European liberal democratic life-style of all 'westerners', including Australia; the establishment across south-east Asia of a Pan Islamic Superstate, taking in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and The Philippines; and the imposition of muslim theocratic rule in as many countries as possible.

There are forces out there with very definite aims: The destructions and annihilation of a way of life; the spread of their particular belief system to all peoples, whether they want it or not; the establishment of a Pax Americana/Western European Superstate, taking in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, The Philippones, Cuba, China, South America, Africa, and all other soverigein nations; as well as the dissolution of muslim theocratic rule in any of these countries.

Us or Them. But why?

You can't run from or hide from this conflict. It's up and running and it's coming to a neighbourhood near you!

You can't run or hide if you happen to be in one of the many third world countries being bombed or invaded by foreign people.

Since 9/11, where in the Western World has there been a terroist attack?

We have no choice but to fight because this enemy is not open to negotiation.

Are we open to negotiation? ???

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-29 20:14:38

Thanks for the comeback, Clark.
Clark:-

Shaun, peacemaker extraordinaire...

Ha-ha! :laugh: Yeah, it sure looks like I'm on the warpath all right!
Hey, wait a minute ... I am on the warpath!

I appreciate your debating tactics here, Clark: Turn the argument around and throw it back, undermine the argument by attempting to cause doubts as to its morality, if possible cause pangs of institutionalised 'white man's guilt' in your opponent.
These are all perfectly acceptable tactics in, say, a highschool polemic meeting and they would no doubt earn you points for your team.

But I think you may have missed the point of my post (accidentally, of course .. ! ). This isn't highschool any more and terrorist attacks are not hypothetical. In the real world, nobody educated takes seriously the argument you make, by implication, that islamic fundamentalism is somehow worthy of comparison with liberal democracy. It plainly is not and you know this full well, my machiavellian friend!
I reiterate my point again that we no longer have the luxury of time to debate the finer points of one social system versus another, and in the case of islamic fundamentalism it's a 'no-contest' anyhow.
We're all targets. If we're not under attack today, we almost certainly will be tomorrow; that's what our opponents do, it's their mission.
I'm suggesting we abandon the kind of cute 'ivory tower' musings you put forward in your last post and all pull together in what I see as a potentially very serious contest for civilisation in this new century.

[P.S. And please, Clark, don't come back with: "Name one cute ivory tower musing in my last post" or "Who are you to say liberal democracy is better than islamic fundamentalism?". ... Cos it won't work!! ]

Free Spirit · 2003-08-29 21:18:03

In the real world, nobody educated takes seriously the argument you make, by implication, that islamic fundamentalism is somehow worthy of comparison with liberal democracy. It plainly is not and you know this full well, my machiavellian friend!

I think one has to question though if our method of stamping out radical Islam is really helping. Bush is making the mistake in thinking he can just shove his western ideologies down the throats of the Iraqi people and they'll just sit back and take it. And honestly, if I were an Iraqi I'd be pissed off too that some clown felt free to invade my country and appoint officials/puppets over me who don't share my values, but have been empowered to determine my future without any input from me, voting or otherwise. These types of actions by Bush and his cronies aren't going to stop terrorism, it's going to breed it out of control. Radical Islam is more charged than ever.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-30 01:24:58

Free Spirit:-

And honestly, if I were an Iraqi I'd be pissed off too that some clown felt free to invade my country and appoint officials/puppets over me who don't share my values, but who have been empowered to determine my future without any input from me, voting or otherewise.

I agree, Free Spirit. If anybody did that to Australia, I would be extremely 'pissed off'!
But then, I currently have the rights of free speech and free association, access to the law, and the power to vote. None of this applied in Iraq.
Any 'officials/puppets' appointed in Iraq are to be an interim government in the transition to full democracy, a situation the populace could only dream about until now.
Whatever your opinions about whether Iraq should have been invaded in the first place, I'm sure you would agree their prospects now for self-determination are infinitely better under Anglo-American jurisdiction than ever they were under the Husseins. It's difficult enough for the present administration to rebuild the country's infrastructure in the face of sabotage orchestrated by remnants of Saddam's followers (and, no doubt, certain Iranian and Syrian elements), without us constantly sniping at them from the rear.
This is the basis of my recent arguments here. However much some of us may loathe Bush and Blair, however much the left wing feeds us anti-American propaganda and attempts to denigrate the achievements of western civilisation in general, we represent the pinnacle of human sociological advancement so far. Go ahead .. spit on the floor in disgust if you like! But never in human history have so many people had such a high standard of living, such freedom and such hope for the future.
No, not everyone has enough to eat. No it's not satisfactory that many countries have inadequate healthcare or insufficient clean drinking water. No, I'm not happy with clear-felling of old-growth forests and the slowness of the much-needed switch to clean energy and the levels of pollution. And no, I don't want global warming if it's going to ruin the world (not convinced of that yet though) and, yes, I do worry about overfishing of the oceans!

But in a world which has always been in one stinking mess or another for millenia, this is the new Atlantis. We stand on the brink of a golden age of technological advancement and plenty for all humanity. Believe me, if we just don't drop the ball, if we just keep doing the best we can to muddle through for a few more decades, science and technology will lift us to the next level; we will solve our problems.

Let's drop the political infighting and pull together for once against the common enemy. Don't let blind hatred for Bush and company distract you from something infinitely worse: Islamic extremism.

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-30 03:06:41

I don't see what you're trying to get us to ?fight for? Shaun.

If you're suggesting that the threat of terrorism can be eridicated, I think you're falling into the same trap most pro-war, pro-police, pro-?rule of law? people fall in to. That is, that it's even possible to get rid of a terrorist threat via violent, overtly controlling, means. (Unless, of course, we commit genocide on a whole populace, and even then, there would still be those who would survive and feel the need to commit terrorism; and in that case, who could blame them?)

Two points, first, terrorism isn't really a threat to most humans. In fact, terrorism is probably the most overblown threat to humanity in the, well, history of humanity! Disease, famine, and other environmental issues like wealth aggregation; those are much much bigger threats to humanity (and even then I wouldn't say any of those are able to really destroy us, just set us back a little). Poor France lost tens of thousands of people to a freaking heat-wave, for crying out loud.

Second, what we're seeing in the Islamic world is a bunch of propaganda, not much different from the propaganda we ourselves recieve from our ?overly liberal? media, for example. About how our patriotism was in question for merely having a viewpoint that a select group didn't agree with. You know, stuff like that.

I should point out, that as soon as the Iraqi people elect someone we don't potentially like, then that person will have to be removed, or we will have to decree that the whole process was undemocratic in and of itself (even if the processes was done exactly how we said it should be). This is what happened in Venezuela, if you recall.

There's another nitpick I had. I don't think western civilization is the pinnacle of civilization, socialogically speaking. Western civilization exists purely on exploitation, had it been able to get where it is now, without that, then perhaps it could be a shining example for our future. As long as we're exploiting other humans, we'll never be able to get along (and I think this is a self evident truth, but others here probably disagree). I agree that we are on the verge of technological breakthroughs (I think it's right around the corner, in fact), but I disagree with the suggestion that the road we have traveled so far is something to be proud of.

There is no arguing the unsurpassed advancements western civilization has managed to achieve, but don't confuse those achievements with some enlightened society who shall forevermore be the shining light in humanities future or something. The US will be out of the spotlight in due time. And this is not just some anti-American comment, it's just a realistic assessment.

Byron · 2003-08-30 05:23:47

Two points, first, terrorism isn't really a threat to most humans. In fact, terrorism is probably the most overblown threat to humanity in the, well, history of humanity!

I'm not so sure about that...try telling that to the families of 9-11 victims If you're talking about the total number of people killed by terrorists each year, yes, that figure is probably a good bit lower than deaths caused by natural causes, such as the terrible heat wave in Europe. The important thing to consider is that the radical Islamics are seeking to bring down the Western world by using whatever tools are available to them, such as suicide bombers and the like, as they simply don't have access to the vast military machine the U.S. has...or God forbid, nukes (although if they did have one, they'd probably use it first on Tel Aviv.)

Personally, I think the biggest threat the terrorists pose to us right now is economic ... 9-11 has clearly shown how fragile the American economy really is...take down a couple buildings, cause a recession. Next step...take out a good bit of the oil infrastructure and cause a depression. This is why I think the next "Big One" will take place in Saudi Arabia, in their highly concentrated oil export centers...a well-documented study shows that not only is this possible with the use of ordinary "truck" bombs, the resulting destruction will take so much oil off world markets that we could be seeing $10/gallon gasoline here in the U.S. Welcome to Great Depression II. Now with a depression on, the U.S. would no longer be able to support its vast military, and it would very likely mean the end of the "Pax Americanna" era. We would likely become very isolationist (with extreme trade barriers to preserve jobs and the like) and I honestly think with the oncoming tidal wave of retiring Baby Boomers putting a huge strain on the national treasury anyhow, the United States would likely be on its back for decades to come...a giant Mexico, perhaps? Believe me, the terrorists may be crazy, but they're not stupid. As soon as they find that one little crack to exploit - they will surely take advantage of it...and the American people would finally realize how truly lucky we have been for the past sixty years or so.

This is why I think Bush is going down the wrong road with his "go it alone" policies...we really need to pull back and start working together on this issue...because this is a worldwide problem. If we *have* to fight a war, well, I'm ready...but I want to be doing it in the company of a great number of other nations that have also recognized the rise of radical Islamicism as a valid threat.

B

Byron · 2003-08-30 05:33:25

The US will be out of the spotlight in due time. And this is not just some anti-American comment, it's just a realistic assessment.

I'm not going to take issue with this statement...as history has clearly shown that superpowers don't remain at the top forever, but I'm just curious who you think would take over the role as "top dog" if and when the U.S. did fall? The European Union? China? Brazil? Or will the world be able to get by just fine without a superpower whatsoever?

B

Palomar · 2003-08-30 05:49:47

IThere's another nitpick I had. I don't think western civilization is the pinnacle of civilization, socialogically speaking. Western civilization exists purely on exploitation, had it been able to get where it is now, without that, then perhaps it could be a shining example for our future. As long as we're exploiting other humans, we'll never be able to get along (and I think this is a self evident truth, but others here probably disagree). I agree that we are on the verge of technological breakthroughs (I think it's right around the corner, in fact), but I disagree with the suggestion that the road we have traveled so far is something to be proud of.

*So Westerners are the -only- people in the entire scope of human history who have exploited others (whether other humans or resources)? No group of people are guilt-free and without blood on their hands.

The ancient Egyptians never exploited Jews and other minorities in their land...nope, never happened. Riiiiight. There are countless other examples. Josh, didn't you say you admired/were interested in ancient Egypt? How do you think those pyramids got built? Slave labor: The bones, sweat, blood, and tears of many Jews are ground into those "monuments." Egyptians held Jews in slavery for centuries; much of Egyptian splendor was built on exploitation.

Just as not all white men had slaves (few did, in fact), so many Western people have -worked- for what they have got, sans exploitation of others.

And is the entire Western civilization to be damned and condemned because of the level of exploitation it has had? Throw the baby out with the bath water and all that? I don't think so.

We -can- live and learn by our mistakes. "I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden"...but we can continue working to eliminate those pesky thorns.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-08-30 06:03:01

if possible cause pangs of institutionalised 'white man's guilt' in your opponent.

*"White man's guilt"...I don't believe in collective guilt or collective punishment. I want to comment on this (not commenting to Shaun, who might share my sentiments).

My maternal great-grandmother was Native American. My father's entire family (both lineages) were Czech/Slavic...Hitler hated Slavs, referring to them as "Slavic swine." Thus, I would have been dumped into an Auschwitz oven along with the Jews.

But I get really tired of the "white man's guilt" attitude when in fact there were many white men who vocally and stridently opposed African slavery and sought its abolition, in both the 17th and 18th centuries: John Locke, David Hume, Voltaire, Dr. Bejamin Rush, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Granville Sharp, de Jaucort, and other names which are slipping my mind at 6:00 a.m. with little caffeine.

The greatest publishing venture of the 18th century -- the Encyclopedia (compiled and published in France) -- contained articles roundly denouncing slavery and requesting its abolition.

There were whites who marched with MLK for civil rights, etc. Oh, but how quickly (and conveniently) that is forgotten!

And I sure haven't missed the fact that, while disparaging (entirely) "whitey," many anti-white racists are busy yapping on cell phones, packing their homes with all the modern conveniences and luxuries, taking posh vacations on fancy airliners, running to the latest opening of a huge superstore, on and on. Hate the white man, love his technology.

Oh sure.

My husband has a friend, named Felipe, whose wife Teresa looks down her nose at me and everyone else, because of their newfound financial success (which they did work for, and hard). Teresa and Felipe are Latino. It's "okay" for her to look down her nose at us because they now have more money than my husband and I...but a mere 5 years ago, when I was financially better off than her, she would have been screaming "RACISM!!!" if I'd looked down my nose at her and tried to cop a superior attitude (because I have blonde hair and blue eyes). Other friends of my husband's have sometimes -- often indirectly -- "hinted" at my liking of them on a racial basis entirely...if I'm tired, in a quiet mood, or don't want to attend one of their frequent bar-b-que's, he's often asked, "Well, doesn't she like Latinos?" Well, I married a Latino, so I guess I must like them somewhat! Why does race factor into such a matter? Am I not allowed to be tired, be in a bad mood, or maybe just not want to socialize that evening? Am I obligated to attend every social function hosted by my husband's Latino friends? I don't think so. My best friend back home since before Kindergarten was adopted from Korea! She and I are still best friends, all these years later.

Bill Cosby, the African-American comedian, said these sorts of attitudes are HUMAN in scope, not racial. He said "even Cain and Abel couldn't get along, way back then!" (referring to the Genesis story).

Sure there's such a thing as racism, and racist whites. Duh. Just like there are racist nonwhites and manipulators/schemers who use charges of "RACISM!!!" to try and achieve an end. Guilt-induce people and you've got them where you want them.

Some African nations are demanding monetary compensation from the U.S. and U.K. (particularly the U.S.) for past slavery. This, while slavery BETWEEN and AMONG Africans continues to this day...and despite the (conveniently overlooked) fact that slavery BETWEEN and AMONG African tribes was a problem years before whitey ever stepped foot on their shores. I doubt the leaders of these African nations screaming for $$$ compensation really care about the human aspect of the foul slave trade; it's just that the U.S. (in particular) has deep pockets and it's a guilt-induction tactic they are trying to use to get some of that $$$. Are the leaders of these African nations addressing the problem of continued black-on-black slavery in Africa, and seeking to stamp it out? I haven't heard this to be so. What, inter-racial slavery is wrong but intra-racial slavery is okay? Give me a f*cking break.

I don't believe in collective guilt or collective punishment. I'm an individualist.

Enough said.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-08-30 07:08:02

[P.S. And please, Clark, don't come back with:...snip... "Who are you to say liberal democracy is better than islamic fundamentalism?". ...

*As a woman, I'll stand up and say liberal democracy is better than fundamentalist Islamicism.

In fundie Islamic nations, women:

1. Are routinely subjected to clitoridectomy (mustn't be allowed to experience sexual pleasure, nope that's just for males).

2. Are routinely subjected to infundibulation.

3. Are considered PROPERTY of their husbands.

4. Can be killed (legally sanctioned) for so much as raising her arms in a self-protective manner (across her face, for instance, in order to shield it) when and if her husband beats her (which he's legally sanctioned to do...if he thinks she's screwed up somehow, it's okay for him to beat her).

5. Are routinely disallowed education, employment opportunities, or to voice her opinions.

6. Are forced to wear restrictive clothing, and can be subject to beatings by men (any man, and legally sanctioned) if even accidentally exposing a bit of flesh on the wrist.

Etc., etc.

As a woman, I'm better off here, in the West. No man can legally beat, rape, mutilate, or murder me based on my gender, here in the West.

Only a complete and abolute IDIOT would defend the fundamentalist Islamic way of life versus that of a liberal democracy. Unless, of course, you consider the routine use of murder, rape, mutilation, and beatings as "okay" in order to keep others "in line."

Not long ago, in Iran, schoolgirls were forced to run back into a burning building and burn to death. They had, of course, fled outside to escape the flames -- but they were not "properly attired" and it was "a sin" for the men who'd come upon the scene to see the girls "inappropriately attired," and thus they were forced to go back into the building and die. Do I have to spell out the lunacy and outrage of this? Those men couldn't cover their eyes? An exception couldn't be made regarding the clothing rules, in order to save these girls' lives? Because they were in their night clothing when the fire began, they were condemned to BURN TO DEATH because of religious laws concerning "proper attire" when being outdoors! THIS IS INSANE. Yes, there are bad things in the West, in the U.S.A. But if my house catches on fire at 2:00 a.m., all the male firefighters who come to my house will HELP me ESCAPE the flames -- they won't force me back into the house and condemn me to a fiery death!

But by all means, if any Westerner can truly believe living in a fundamentalist Islamic state couldn't be any worse than living in a liberal democracy -- well, who's stopping you from moving over there?

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-30 07:17:37

You know, I switched on my computer with a tinge of trepidation just now, thinking my last post would attract considerable flak.
I imagined being labelled as some kind of idealistic, slightly right-wing fruitcake who believes in fairy tales! I know how hard-nosed some of our fellow contributors can be here.

The first response was Josh's. Predictably, he could see little of any merit in the sociological achievements of western civilisation [-'I don't see what you're trying to get us to "fight for" Shaun.'-], but overall I thought his response, while typically cynical, wasn't quite as cutting as I'd expected. O.K. Josh! (But I still disagree strongly with your philosophy and feel sorry that you seem to see so much that's bad and so little that's any good.)

But the responses from Byron and Cindy were real heart-warmers! Thankyou very much for those responses, which made me feel a lot better!
Oh I know we don't see exactly eye to eye on everything. Hell! .. That's the way it should be. But it's very gratifying to know one's viewpoint on something important like this is understood and, to a large extent, agreed with.
All I want is for a united world to move forward to the kind of future we should inherit. As Cindy says, a lot of people are intrinsically good. A lot of them have worked long and hard and tried their best in order to get us where we are. If for nothing and nobody else, it's for those people we should fight. We owe it to them (and ourselves) to avoid this latest attempt to send us back to a new dark age of ignorance and intolerance. Byron's words in this regard are chilling; a monumental terrorist-instigated recession is a frightening thought.
If such an event ever came to pass, Josh, even you might come to appreciate the material comforts our badly flawed system once afforded you. If things got really bad, you might even wish for a return of the evil market economy you once despised so thoroughly!
You never know ... stranger things have happened! :;):

dickbill · 2003-08-30 07:38:08

You know, I switched on my computer with a tinge of trepidation just now, thinking my last post would attract considerable flak.

Why ? We all eat in the same soup. Never spit in your soup even if you don't like the taste.
The Saracens will be defeated, but the Adorators of the Eye in the Pyramid will be defeated too, when the seventh Seal is open.
For those who doubt, read how accuratly is described the Holly Nuclear Fire that purifies the Souls in the Book of Revelation:

9.1-2 ?And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven, fallen to the earth, and the key of the pit of the abyss was given to him. And he opened the pit of the abyss, and smoke from the pit went upwards like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened as a result of the smoke from the pit.?

Bye, I have to flagellate a bit now...

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-30 07:50:00

Hear hear, Cindy! I couldn't agree more.
(And you type so fast ... you can say so much more in 5 minutes than I can in an hour!! )

Dickbill, you gotta stop smoking that wacky-backy, old pal! Or has somebody baked you some really tasty cookies lately?
:laugh:

Palomar · 2003-08-30 08:34:52

Shaun, peacemaker extrodinaire...

And those people were merely fighting for their countries; these muslim fundamentalists think they're fighting for God!!

What are we fighting for Shaun?

But we're part of the western world .. if not in our own eyes, then certainly in the eyes of muslim fundamentalists, who won't take the time to enquire whether we're 'hawks' or 'doves' or Democrats or Republicans before shoulder-launching a missile at the plane we just took off in!

The first rule of mobilization of individuals is to define the groups, then systematically define how the others are not part of one particular group. "we are free, they are slaves"; "we are peaceful, they are aggressive and warmongering"; "we care about life, they don't."

We vs. They. Them vs. Us. Our way of life, their way of life.

*I could have sworn that, just a few months ago, Clark was pleading rather passionately in DEFENSE of Bush's decision to wage war on Iraq.

But we have many threads wherein Iraq has been a topic of discussion and I don't have the time to wade through them all, to retrieve what I'm pretty sure was Clark DEFENDING the invasion and war on Iraq by the U.S.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-08-30 09:08:33

[P.S. And please, Clark, don't come back with:...snip... "Who are you to say liberal democracy is better than islamic fundamentalism?". ...
*As a woman, I'll stand up and say liberal democracy is better than fundamentalist Islamicism.
In fundie Islamic nations, women:
1. Are routinely subjected to clitoridectomy (mustn't be allowed to experience sexual pleasure, nope that's just for males).
2. Are routinely subjected to infundibulation.
3. Are considered PROPERTY of their husbands.
4. Can be killed (legally sanctioned) for so much as raising her arms in a self-protective manner (across her face, for instance, in order to shield it) when and if her husband beats her (which he's legally sanctioned to do...if he thinks she's screwed up somehow, it's okay for him to beat her).
5. Are routinely disallowed education, employment opportunities, or to voice her opinions.
6. Are forced to wear restrictive clothing, and can be subject to beatings by men (any man, and legally sanctioned) if even accidentally exposing a bit of flesh on the wrist.
Etc., etc.
As a woman, I'm better off here, in the West. No man can legally beat, rape, mutilate, or murder me based on my gender, here in the West.
Only a complete and abolute IDIOT would defend the fundamentalist Islamic way of life versus that of a liberal democracy. Unless, of course, you consider the routine use of murder, rape, mutilation, and beatings as "okay" in order to keep others "in line."
Not long ago, in Iran, schoolgirls were forced to run back into a burning building and burn to death. They had, of course, fled outside to escape the flames -- but they were not "properly attired" and it was "a sin" for the men who'd come upon the scene to see the girls "inappropriately attired," and thus they were forced to go back into the building and die. Do I have to spell out the lunacy and outrage of this? Those men couldn't cover their eyes? An exception couldn't be made regarding the clothing rules, in order to save these girls' lives? Because they were in their night clothing when the fire began, they were condemned to BURN TO DEATH because of religious laws concerning "proper attire" when being outdoors! THIS IS INSANE. Yes, there are bad things in the West, in the U.S.A. But if my house catches on fire at 2:00 a.m., all the male firefighters who come to my house will HELP me ESCAPE the flames -- they won't force me back into the house and condemn me to a fiery death!
But by all means, if any Westerner can truly believe living in a fundamentalist Islamic state couldn't be any worse than living in a liberal democracy -- well, who's stopping you from moving over there?
--Cindy

*Wow, I almost forgot -this- news item from a year or two ago, from Afghanistan (I promise this will be the last of my posts on this particular subject):

In either 2001 or 2002, in Afghanistan, a teenage boy was caught sneaking out on a date with a girl. For whatever reason, his actions were contrary to their religious laws. The elders in his tribe decreed that the teenage boy must be punished.

Except he wasn't punished. His SISTER was.

The tribal elders decreed that because the young man had committed an offense against his people and religion, his SISTER would pay the penalty. What was the penalty? That she would be stripped and raped by as many tribesmen as cared to participate in the "punishment" (for her brother's wrongdoing).

This was reported by various news agencies (U.S. and foreign), and Amnesty International reported it as well.

Give me Western democracy any day.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-08-28 14:05:59

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#52 2003-08-28 14:15:02

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#53 2003-08-28 15:42:30

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#54 2003-08-28 15:56:02

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#55 2003-08-28 16:02:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#56 2003-08-28 16:40:22

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#57 2003-08-28 20:00:30

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#58 2003-08-29 06:13:42

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#59 2003-08-29 07:47:42

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#60 2003-08-29 07:50:56

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#61 2003-08-29 09:31:22

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#62 2003-08-29 20:14:38

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#63 2003-08-29 21:18:03

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#64 2003-08-30 01:24:58

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#65 2003-08-30 03:06:41

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#66 2003-08-30 05:23:47

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#67 2003-08-30 05:33:25

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#68 2003-08-30 05:49:47

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#69 2003-08-30 06:03:01

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#70 2003-08-30 07:08:02

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#71 2003-08-30 07:17:37

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#72 2003-08-30 07:38:08

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#73 2003-08-30 07:50:00

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#74 2003-08-30 08:34:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#75 2003-08-30 09:08:33

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Board footer