You are not logged in.
and then leave the house in shambles after finding nothing and then be surprised he hates you afterwards?
*They hate us regardless. They're indoctrinated with hatred; any non-believer is "the infidel" to be crushed, killed, destroyed. Theirs isn't the first religion to promote such a mind-set, of course. And it won't be the last.
But of course that doesn't excuse our behaviors, which should be human-rights oriented at all times. If we aren't consistently holding ourselves to a higher standard of decency and fair treatment, we're only hurting ourselves in the end.
And no matter how fair, kind, humane anyone is (consistently), there will always be the haters who would still want to attack, rend and kill whatever disagrees with their worldview.
--Cindy
Do you really believe most suicide bombers are motivated by an abstract ideology or theology?
I think its rage and shame.
Also, I also think al Qaeda preys upon the Iraqi unemployed. Visualize a 16 year old Iraqi kid with a hungry mother and grandmother and hungry siblings.
Two choices - - seek charity (male pride again) or accept $100 dollars in US currency from al Qaeda =IF= he plants a roadside bomb.
= = =
Its not about us being "nice" - - its about not being stupid and creating enemies faster than we can kill them.
Henry Ford did not pay his workers $5 a day because he was "nice" - - it was a selfish move.
Not being macho isn't about being nice or moral, its about being prudent.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Now that cartoon has possibility Bill. :;):
Substitute sects and its my plot in a nutshell. Why go to Mars when the Rapture is imminent?
Therefore, those who do go to Mars will own the future.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
and then leave the house in shambles after finding nothing and then be surprised he hates you afterwards?
*They hate us regardless. They're indoctrinated with hatred; any non-believer is "the infidel" to be crushed, killed, destroyed. Theirs isn't the first religion to promote such a mind-set, of course. And it won't be the last.
But of course that doesn't excuse our behaviors, which should be human-rights oriented at all times. If we aren't consistently holding ourselves to a higher standard of decency and fair treatment, we're only hurting ourselves in the end.
And no matter how fair, kind, humane anyone is (consistently), there will always be the haters who would still want to attack, rend and kill whatever disagrees with their worldview.
--Cindy
Do you really believe most suicide bombers are motivated by an abstract ideology or theology?
I think its rage and shame.
Also, I also think al Qaeda preys upon the Iraqi unemployed. Visualize a 16 year old Iraqi kid with a hungry mother and grandmother and hungry siblings.
Two choices - - seek charity (male pride again) or accept $100 dollars in US currency from al Qaeda =IF= he plants a roadside bomb.
*I think it's a combination of factors and what you point out is part of it, yes.
But can't overlook religious indoctrination and the theocratic gov't mindset (socialization). I think it'd be a mistake to downplay the religious indoctrination aspect. It's forced on them by their "leaders," fostered and hammered in repeatedly in the socialization process, etc., -- simply put.
= = =
Its not about us being "nice" - - its about not being stupid and creating enemies faster than we can kill them.
Henry Ford did not pay his workers $5 a day because he was "nice" - - it was a selfish move.
Not being macho isn't about being nice or moral, its about being prudent.
*I can't disagree with you.
Cobra: Thanks for posting that cartoon.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Like button can go here
One more point - - if they hate us because they hate us - - then why do we seek elections?
=IF= we are widely hated, then pushing for elections is stupid, unless Diebold has already rigged the results.
=IF= we are not widely hated and if in reality most Iraqis share Allawi's assertion that we Americans deserve gratuitude, then kicking in doors is stupid.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
One more point - - if they hate us because they hate us - - then why do we seek elections?
That may represent the biggest flaw in our present approach, disbanding the Iraqi army and going soft on Sadr were grievous mistakes, but planning for a rapid conversion to democracy is a fundamental error.
Occupy and force democracy over decades, then guide for decades more and it will work. Germany, Japan for example. Try to set it up in a year and you get a farce, then chaos, then dictatorship. Try a hands-off advising and aid approach and you end up with Russia, where democracy is dying a slow, pitiful and highly popular death.
A democratic Iraq is a worthwhile goal on many levels, but it's a long-term goal. For the moment we would do well to ensure security over all else. We're dealing with people who've spent decades under a brutal dictator after all, they won't feel the least bit "disenfranchised" if we don't let them vote for awhile as long as order is maintained. It's time to start acting like an occupying power, not a civics tutor.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
Like button can go here
One more point - - if they hate us because they hate us - - then why do we seek elections?
That may represent the biggest flaw in our present approach, disbanding the Iraqi army and going soft on Sadr were grievous mistakes, but planning for a rapid conversion to democracy is a fundamental error.
Occupy and force democracy over decades, then guide for decades more and it will work. Germany, Japan for example. Try to set it up in a year and you get a farce, then chaos, then dictatorship. Try a hands-off advising and aid approach and you end up with Russia, where democracy is dying a slow, pitiful and highly popular death.
A democratic Iraq is a worthwhile goal on many levels, but it's a long-term goal. For the moment we would do well to ensure security over all else. We're dealing with people who've spent decades under a brutal dictator after all, they won't feel the least bit "disenfranchised" if we don't let them vote for awhile as long as order is maintained. It's time to start acting like an occupying power, not a civics tutor.
On a theoretical level I have much sympathy for this position.
But remember, rapid elections were the consideration paid al-Sistani for his willingness to denounce violent opposition to the occupation. And even President Allawi readily bowed to Sistani's call not to eradicate Sadr in the Najaf standoff. (Edit: After Sistani conveniently went to London to make it easier for us to eradicate Sadr.)
A massive Shia uprising much larger than anything we have yet faced is the threat if we do not have prompt elections.
All of which goes back to the initial formulation of strategy for the post-Saddam aspects of the campaign. And why our listening to Chalabi has played right into Iranian hands.
= = =
Did President Bush trade long term success in Iraq for the short term illusion of calm? The promise of January elections is conveniently after November.
= = =
“We just have to hold firm, stand strong and quit bad-mouthing what's going on over there so that our young men and women who are serving don't lose their faith and heart,” Hatch said.
When asked if he believes that Kerry's challenge of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq amounted to not supporting soldiers, Hatch responded: “That's exactly what's happening here.
Hmmm. . .
Maybe its treasonous to even have an election in 2004.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
One more point - - if they hate us because they hate us - - then why do we seek elections?
=IF= we are widely hated, then pushing for elections is stupid...
Maybe its treasonous to even have an election in 2004.
:hm: Not sure I follow you. Unless of course you mean since it makes no difference anyway, why bother? Or unless we get the right person in charge nothing will change?
Maybe I should explain my point a bit further. The average citizen in a theocratic nation is not a bad person; they are simply people trying to get along day to day like anyone else. Trouble is, there's no freedom of press, expression, etc. They may distrust their gov't (though not all would; some people seem not to question anything) and likely do consider there is "another side to the story"...but they're hardly liable to get it. :-\
The people in charge benefit from the ignorance and poverty of "the masses." They're wolves. It is the people in charge who are the haters (and likely previously educated in Western institutions of higher learning!), the manipulators, etc. No matter what we do, the people in charge will always hate us; if for any reason, because we threaten their privilege and control over their own people -- control based on religion (and whether or not the persons in charge are genuine adherents to the religion; it is a tool).
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Like button can go here
A massive Shia uprising much larger than anything we have yet faced is the threat if we do not have prompt elections.
Unless we grant them greater autonomy within their sphere. If we can accept the prospect of "breaking" Iraq a range of possibilities opens up.
Maybe its treasonous to even have an election in 2004.
Perhaps, though not exactly in the way you mean it. If this election is as chaotic as 2000, or moreso as I suspect it could be, it will not be an isolated incident but an indicator that the system is broken. So it could be argued (not be me) that going ahead with an election in a bitterly polarized environment and under the threat of attack from forces bent on affecting the outcome, knowing that a repeat of the previous broken election could irreparably damage the system... one could perhaps argue that it's treasonous.
Again, I'm not saying so. If the republic is to be shattered it will be the people themselves who do it.
We also tend to assume that 'democracy' as we incorrectly use the term is the future, a system which all people will eventually progress into. Yet humanity has spent the vast bulk of its history ruled by kings and dictators, perhaps our brief flash of representative government is a historical anomaly.
Which plays well into the opposition argument that democracy in Iraq is a fool's errand.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
Like button can go here
If unification of Islam into some kind of superstate is the goal of the Al Qaeda terrorists, perhaps the invasion of Iraq wasn't such a bad thing after all, provided we can induce the country to shatter apart along tribal lines.
Of course, it would make our own ostensible goal of supporting another democracy, thereby increasing the number of our alliances and giving us (rather than some bunch of Wahabi extremists) another foothold in the region, rather hopeless.
But, hey, it would set back the (currently non-existent) superstate, right? ???
"We go big, or we don't go." - GCNRevenger
Offline
Like button can go here