|
|
|
|
I know the views of many posters on this MB, but at least give this rather long article your consideration, if possible without prejudice. It arrived in my mail this morning from an American.
>Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.
At that time the U.S. was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.
France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.
America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WWI and throughout the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW2, army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. And a huge chunk of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could. Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.
Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the U.S. got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone... 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a MILLION soldiers.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.
The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.
You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. And we can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing........in Iraq.
Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of U.S. occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.
World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars.
WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.
Americans have a short attention span, conditioned by 30 second sound bites, 60 minute TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay.
The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain,and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.
If the U.S. can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The U.S. has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The U.S. took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
But the stakes are at least as high ... A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms ... or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
It's difficult to understand why the American left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most?
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.<
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yup.... It is rather long.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Rhetoric is always amusing. It's a well written piece that does not cite its sources but states them, right or wrong, with total authority.
It looks like an attempt at a justification of genocide, except islam is a faith, not a race, but it seems to be the same thing.
To me it fails the test of the UK laws against incitement of religious hatred. I fear, long and interesting as it is, as publisher of this site I have to edit it and remove it simply for that reason.
I will think on that further and re-read it to see if it can remain or if I must censor it to remain within the law. If I censor it, it will be against my will, but to accord with the law of the land here
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
A second reading shows it to be a rather mixed article. Like most rehtoric it is ok the first time through. The second time the holes are enormous.
It does not, I think, conflict with our laws against inciting racial hatred, since it is "against" a part of a religion, not a race. It has no real issues under religious hatred law either, because it is a part that it attacks only. If there were a law against imbecility it woudl fail that. The logic is full of non sequiturs and the author is thus a powerful idiot.
I will not be censoring it. But I despise it.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Well,
is this something we dont know about.
I dont see why it should be sent to high schools etc,it sounds like the writer wants to stir trouble in the other direction.
If only people could accept that this is life you will not live another life free from troubles,it is interesting how poeple can be brain washed.
In the world wars we had the same problem with the japs they would commit suicide for the cause we have the same today but with the religion/ handle attatched.
you can go on & on
Re Jack.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
http://www.americandaily.com/article/6305
It seems that once the idiot bucket is full, idiots upgrade to a barrel........
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
>
> I will not be censoring it. But I despise it.
Bravo, timmy!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, lets take this in chunks. And I'll try to be brief.
I'm not sufficiently clued up on the causes of WWII in the pacific to comment, but the war with Germany was in many ways the predicatable outcome of the insulting and vindictive settlement to WW1 (the "Versailles Treaty").
"There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world." As does the USA, the UK, Israel ... if you (we) feel threatened by others posessing WMD, why can we not concede that they also have a right to be threatened by *our* posession of such weapons ? The more so, since we mouth pious platitudes about non-proliferation and disarmament, but show absolutely no signs of sticking to either the letter or the spirit of the treaties we seek to impose on others.
A large part of the growth of the extreme Islamist movement can be laid at our doorstep (shades of Versailles). We have not granted Arab and Islamic countries and people the right to be treated as independent (ie adult) - we have given them only the limited rights if they reach what we consider to be "sensible" decisions, and continue to make it clear that if they reach decisions that we are not happy with, we will spank them like naughty children. This technique breeds resentment and rebellion - whether in teenagers or in countries!
In addition, the US funding of extremist religious groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan was unsubtle, indiscriminate, and failed to achieve the objective of defeating the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan ... but did leave a legacy (both in the form of the Taleban, and in the current "insurgents") that we now regret. But this, surely, is the inevitable consequence of our funding of religious groups to carry out secular (military) activity as our proxies! IMHO, this is one of the prime causes of the current resurgence of Islamicist extremist groups.
"(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed. " The US and UK have - yet again - severely underestimated the extent to which the sentiment 'my country - right or wrong' applies to Iraqis as much to Americans: the illegal invasion of Iraq serves only to give common cause to the disparate terrorist groups, and act as a potent focus for recruitment both within the region and in the UK and elsewhere.
"If the U.S. can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East." England is not some kind of aircraft-carrier for the USA, and continually treating it as such is likely to breed resentment. Both in the UK, and more so in Europe. On second thoughts, strike out "is likely to", and stick in "has".
"The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates." Frankly, nonsense. Clashes of ideals and values, yes: but to dismiss other civilisations as barbarian is outrageous! The collapse of the Roman empire, for example, was due largely to the fact that Roman civilisation was getting past its sell-by date ... and the Goths etc (the Barbarian invaders) had a highly-developed culture that was appropriate to their existence as nomads (small-scale, oral, not building - based). Another example: the Spanish "conquest" of South America, where it really isn't clear that the Spanish were in any way more civilised than those they conquered. (I could go on and on and on ...).
"And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons." I know it's cheap to say that I thought the UK and the US had had them for years ... OK, it's cheap.
"We have four options: Actually, we have lots more. But the one that I'm going to push, as always, it to work for the removal of the causes of war (it's pretty clear what I think some of those are). After all, that it what I personally am pledged to do, as part of the Peace Pledge:
"War is a crime against Humanity. I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war."
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
the benefit of having them in a barrel is that it can be made to volunteer for the Niagara Falls trip of a lifteime
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
The Japanese suicide missions were not for glory, though. The pilots were given a stark choice. "Go out and die, or your family will see you branded a coward. All privileges for them will be withdrawn at once. Go and die and they will know you are a hero and will live in a pivileged position in society"
So, blackmail, then, not religious zeal
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW wrote:
War is a crime against Humanity. I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war.
NW, I know this is going to sound combative, but please be assured that my queries are pure;y in order to understand.
1. What does the pacifist do if attacked in a life-threatening way?
2. What does a nation do if attacked in a similar manner?
3. If Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1939 it is surely certain that most of Europe might still be under Nazi control. Would that be acceptable to a pacifist?
(For those wondering where I have been: the cast has finally been removed from my leg - after 11 weeks! - and I am about to learn once again how to walk. Wish me luck.)
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly - and most importantly! - all the best in making a rapid recovery now that the cast is off.
JFR wrote:
> 1. What does the pacifist do if attacked in a life-threatening way?
I can't pretend to speak for all pacifists, but for me: run away very fast (difficult now I need a stick to walk), or curl up into a ball and hope they don't hit anything vital! Yes, I've ended up in hospital (twice) through taking this approach ... but the last time I took another course of action, when I was 16, I put another guy in hospital for a week, which actually felt much worse (I'm quite prepared to concede that having been physically abused as a child may have given me a distorted view of this - sometimes, one just gets hurt for no good reason).
The real answer is that - although unprovoked attacks do occur from time to time - the risk of attacks can be minimised by behaving sensibly (walking down the middle of the mile End Road at 3am holding a boyfriends hand is not sensible behaviour, and while it no sense excuses the queerbashers, I could probably have avoided it if I'd thought a bit more about what I was doing). It is - always - a question of a balance between not running silly risks, or staying at home wrapped in six layers of cotton wool ...
> 2. What does a nation do if attacked in a similar manner?
I can't think of any situation where there was no warning that a state of tension existed between nations. So I can't answer this. Indeed, it is my profound conviction that all wars result from such tensions not being addressed and resolved satisfactorily ... though I do accept that timescales may often mean that attempts to reach a lasting and equitable settlement may prevent the war after next, or the war after that, rather than the threatened one.
> 3. If Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1939 it is surely certain that most of Europe might still be under Nazi control. Would that be acceptable to a pacifist?
I see Nazism as inherently less stable than communism, so I rather think it would have transmuted if not fallen apart by now ....
But, in a more serious answer, I don't believe that there would have been the breeding ground for National Socialism (ie Naziism) if the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War One had not so systematically set out to humiliate Germany, and so succeeded in provoking a fierce and xenophobic nationalism.
That, ultimately, underlies my position. Violence begets violence, violence legitimises violence and force as a mode of discourse, "fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity". People, groups, nations, will suffer injury or death by espousing non-violence, possibly even initially not less than they would by espousing violence. But a willingness to fight *cannot* put an end to war: non-violence, civil disobedience, and a willingness to put oneself on the line in the interests of what one percieves as "fair", just might.
Is this all incredibly romantic idealism? Of course it is! But romantic idealism didn't stop millions of young guys going off to fight and die in the "war to end all war" that was WW1 ... and I'd like to think that if it were ever to come down to it I would show the same level of steadfastness in defence of my own vision of how to end war.
> NW, I know this is going to sound combative, but please be assured that my queries are pure;y in order to understand.
I didn't take it as combative, but challenging: as often, we may not agree with each other, but we can do our best to understand more about what each others point of view entails. And I can assure you that your questions were a real pleasure after the level of abuse I've had in previous years from casual passers-by on the street (at least in London, the occasions I wear a white poppy lets me in for far more abuse than the occasions I wear a Pride t-shirt does!).
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately there are people in this world who are not giveen to reason or to humanity. The attack on Pearl Harbor was totaly unprovoced and was done in secrecy. Even the Japanese ambasidor was unaware of the attack. One of the leading Japanese Admirals made the statement when this attck was being concidered "Dont wake the sleeping giant". I believe everyone should be a pacifist at heart and I do admire NW for his stand. But the world is not full of sane and reasonalble people, sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in. The mullahs in Islam have kept their people down and living in the 10th century, becasue they can control them that way. The attack on 9/11 was provoked by Afganistan and we retallieated and drove out the Taliban, the attack on Iraq was just uncalled for.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... that issues like this provoke polarised arguments.
The article Nigel posted certainly reflected a United States perspective - a perspective that the rest of the world knows all too well - in that it concerns itself only with the United States interest. I'm reminded of on of Timmy's posts, quite a while ago - he reported a conversation with a US citizen who held the view that he wasn't interested in how Bush's policies impacted on the world, as long as they were good for America. In particular, it portrays the US as the saviour of World War II - but the rest of the world perceives the US as a cynical manipulator intent on pursuing its own agenda to become the dominant world power.
That is not to say that it was entirely invalid. I'm afraid I align with JFR rather than NW on the issue of pacifism; I believe that it is not merely necessary but ultimately inevitable that we should fight to defend what we believe to be right. But I also believe that 'rightness' is not and should never be equated with political expediency - and the US is VERY prone to that error. The power of the Taleban (or Taliban, if you prefer) in Afghanistan is a direct and inevitable consequence of short-sighted US support and funding with the blinkered political objective of opposing communism. The bottom line is that the problems in Afghanistan are the direct legacy of US policy, and the US is duty bound to undo the damage for which it alone was responsible.
Iraq is different only insofar as the true facts are carefully obscured. I don't pretend to know whether the 'WMD' issue was based upon genuine intelligence or pure fiction. If the latter, then the UK must be equally culpable - though recent documents surfacing in UK media indicate that the UK was concerned at an early date about the lack of forward planning by the US; it's claimed that little effort was made to establish a reconstruction policy to be implemented after the invasion. Saddam Hussein was an unsavoury leader, and he was certainly guilty of genocidal policies, not only by direct assault on the Kurds but also by draining land in the south of Iraq which deprived the marsh Arabs of their livelihood. But it was manifestly wrong to invade without a clear plan to introduce a better form of government, and in consequence the invasion was grossly mismanaged; the emergence of militias largely controlled by non-Iraqis is a direct result of that mismanagement.
But, to my mind, our duty is plain. We intruded in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and we caused the chaos currently afecting both countries. We cannot now turn our backs on the damage we have caused. If we do, the likely result is that both countries will become extremist Islamic Republics, which would not suit our interests but - and this is much more important - would not suit the entirely reasonable ambitions and expectations of ordinary Afghans and Iraqis.
Morality is a complex business - there are no easy options, but political expediency should play no part in clearing up the mess we ourselves have caused.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killing gay men is OK, says British imam
published Monday, October 23, 2006
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/10/23/3
The leading imam in Manchester, England, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported.
Arshad Misbahi of the Manchester Central Mosque confirmed his views in a conversation to John Casson, a local psychotherapist.
Casson said: "I asked him if the execution of gay Muslims in Iran and Iraq was an acceptable punishment in Sharia law, or the result of culture, not religion.
"He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: If the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts."
"I asked him what would be the British Muslim view? He repeated that in an Islamic state these punishments were justified. They might result in the deaths of thousands but if this deterred millions from having sex, and spreading disease, then it was worthwhile to protect the wider community."
"I checked again that this was not a matter of tradition, culture or local prejudice. 'No,' he said, 'It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours.'"
Gay man rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said, "It is disturbing that some British imams are endorsing the execution of gay and lesbian Muslims.
"Imam Arshad Misbahi's homophobic attitudes give comfort and succor to queer-bashers. They encourage conflict and disharmony between Manchester's large gay and Muslim communities.
"Muslim and gay people know the pain of prejudice and discrimination. We should be working together to challenge homophobia and Islamophobia. I hope liberal Muslims will speak out in defense of the human rights of lesbians and gay men," said Tatchell.
Adnan Ali, founder of the British branch of al-Fatiha, an organization for gay and lesbian Muslims, told Gay.com that "a person with such an obsession about execution of human beings is not even entitled to be addressed as Imam."
"Islam is a very tolerant religion and celebrates the human diversity in its core message," Ali said.
"The holy book Qur'an does not mention anywhere about the execution or killing of human beings on the basis of their sexuality. What surprises is this obsession of the Islamic clerics to killing and execution. Why? What about dialogue? Discussion?
"Arshad Misbahi's comparison of same-sex relation to adultery is nothing but ignorant and utterly irresponsible rhetoric, manifesting the wrong teachings of Islam. The media should . . . not take it for granted as the general view of the Muslim community all over." (Gay.com U.K.)
©1995-2006 PLANETOUT INC.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much, NW, for taking so much trouble to answer my questions. Obviously, I find some of your answers 'problematic', but I do admire your courage. My own views, no doubt, are coloured by the nature of life in the region where I live. I have only been in one war (1973) and I was on a front so quiet that we didn't even hear one shot! But I have been subjected to unprovoked bombardment (1991). On one occasion Saddam sent one of his missiles to hit a munitions factory not too far from where I live. The whole building shook violently as the missile whizzed overhead, making a lot of noise. (It missed, and landed harmlessly in the sea.)
You and I agree that the best way to resolve 'arguments' between nations is by diplomacy. But, it takes two to tango, and if one of the parties refuses even to recognise the other it makes 'negotiations' rather problematic.
As for your white poppy: in an idle moment yesterday evening when there was nothing worth watching on TV (as usual) I zapped to Sky News. Did I see Prince Charles sporting a white poppy? I think I did.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> But, to my mind, our duty is plain. We intruded in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and we caused the chaos currently afecting both countries. We cannot now turn our backs on the damage we have caused. If we do, the likely result is that both countries will become extremist Islamic Republics, which would not suit our interests but - and this is much more important - would not suit the entirely reasonable ambitions and expectations of ordinary Afghans and Iraqis.
>
> Morality is a complex business - there are no easy options, but political expediency should play no part in clearing up the mess we ourselves have caused.
Unfortunately, we - the US and the UK - have long ago (ie, the invasions) passed the point where ANYTHING we do can in way help to clear up the mess. It is very hard for the UK, and almost impossible for the US, to realise that in the current position there is nothing we can do that will act as a force for good. It is galling to realise that there is no possible act of atonement (however much we wish there was) or reparation. It is probably impossible for many to accept that the "most powerful nation on earth" in this instance has no power to do good, only power to do evil. And that the least evil is to do no further wrong, and get out of the occupied countries now.
Sadly, I think cossie is probably right that there's likely to be a period of extreme islamicism ... I believe that the longer we stay, the longer and more extreme such a period will be.
Oh, and just in case of any confusion, cossie said "I believe that it is not merely necessary but ultimately inevitable that we should fight to defend what we believe to be right." In the sense that I certainly believe one should act vigorously in defence of what one believes to be right, so do I - but I don't believe that violence and warfare are either morally right or particularly effective ways of doing so: mass protest, non-violent resistance, civil disobedience, or even the occasional theatrical martyrdom (eg Jan Palach)would be my preferred methods.
Otherwise, we are no different from the suicide bombers who are also fighting to defend what they believe to be right.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Well, more than a bit of a loon. A dangerous moron
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've run out of Tom Clancy novels to read ... but this guy could be a serious contender for the "thick airport novel" market just as soon as he gets a decent publishing contract.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with NW by in large.
As I read a thought occurred to me and that was simply the dance floor is getting crowded and we need to learn in this environment to not only dance to our own tune but learn to let other do the same with out it turning into a mosh pit.
Yes, this may be difficult in a world that for the last three centuries has been dominated by two of the most successful hegemonic powers the face of the earth has ever seen. Every thing I have seen written here for the most part has been skewed toward that historical mind set.
I don’t propose that any nation or people just roll over and let them selves be walked over but isn’t that what some of you have ask of other’s in the name off what you consider right. There are some good things and ideas that have come from the shores of this nation (I’m speaking of the US of course) chef among them to mind is the idea of self determination. Sadly in some ways that concept has spread from these shores in very ugly ways. One, is the idea that part of that self determination is to dominate a good part of the rest of the world for political and economic reasons, sorry but I think morality has very little to do with it. I could get into some things that have been expressed here of a historical nature that are now know to be cases of fear mongering through propaganda to achieve goals that would be suspect as to of being in the best interest of the many rather than just a few that desire power and control over the many.
There are no simple answers, in this time like no other that is experiencing exponential population growth and the mired of problems that go along with that growth. One thing is for sure the pie is finite and those wanting a piece… Well, you do the math. To use a term that is over used, we need to start thinking out side the box. That responsibility lies with all people of all nations. Yet I believe that process needs to start with those that hold the most power to effect forward think social, political economic directions that will be equitable for everyone. A good start would be to get OUT of regions that don’t and never did want us to establish a permanent presence Saudi Arabia would be a good starting place it is after all one of the main reasons Bin Laden was able to garner so much support after the first Iraq war i.e. temporary military bases that never went away in what is considered the holiest ground in Islam. I ask what would you do?
Like I said no simple answers, but what is the alternative. As we have seen destruction of a nations infrastructure does little to stabilize as little does it seem the force of arms enliven that prospect of rebuilding a decent standard of living despite being one of the potently wealthiest regions on earth. It sure seems obvious to me that we i.e. the First World has no problem leaving impoverished nations to there own devices.
How many of you know that it is India that has the greatest number of terrorist acts in the world. It is a true small factoid and no I won’t go and dig up the references. I know this is true if you want to say I am wrong. Check it out yourself you might come across some other useful TRUTHS rather than the propaganda we’re being force feed daily in the media.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
NW said -
"Unfortunately, we - the US and the UK - have long ago (ie, the invasions) passed the point where ANYTHING we do can in way help to clear up the mess. It is very hard for the UK, and almost impossible for the US, to realise that in the current position there is nothing we can do that will act as a force for good. It is galling to realise that there is no possible act of atonement (however much we wish there was) or reparation. It is probably impossible for many to accept that the "most powerful nation on earth" in this instance has no power to do good, only power to do evil. And that the least evil is to do no further wrong, and get out of the occupied countries now."
That, of course, is an assertion rather than a fact - and I take a different view. I think that it is essential that neither the UK nor the US attempts to pursue political advantage, but the fact remains that the militias, although responsible for a substantial proportion of civilian casualties, represent a small fraction of the Iraqi population, and those militias are to a significant extent controlled by forces outside Iraq pursuing agendas of their own. It's true that neither the US nor the UK acted with integrity in the early days of the war. The deliberate humiliation of Iraqi prisoners was contrary to every code of conduct we pretend to support. Obviously, that makes the situation more difficult. There are also many reports of unjustified killing of civilians by trigger-happy US forces, including a well-documented and thoroughly investigated case of the deliberate killing of an injured British news reporter. Both of these factors call into question the integrity of senior officers on the ground. It is, however, a clear fact that two-thirds (and probably a much higher proportion) of Iraqis do not wish to be part of a fundamentalist Islamic Republic - this would include the Kurds, together with whichever Iraqi Islamic group was not in control. It's naive to suggest that we should withdraw and leave the Iraqis to sort themselves out; they will never be given a chance of self-determination. As soon as allied troops leave, externally-funded militias will take their place. OK, it's a nightmare - but it's a nightmare WE created. To suggest that we have no responsibility for our past actions, wrong though they may have been, is to abdicate from any sense of moral responsibility.
NW went on to say -
"In the sense that I certainly believe one should act vigorously in defence of what one believes to be right, so do I - but I don't believe that violence and warfare are either morally right or particularly effective ways of doing so: mass protest, non-violent resistance, civil disobedience, or even the occasional theatrical martyrdom (eg Jan Palach)would be my preferred methods."
Frankly, I think that this is a hopelessly naive view - I cannot see that mass protest, non-violent resistance, civil disobedience, or even the occasional theatrical martyrdom would have any impact upon the present crisis. And, hopefully, we ARE different from suicide bombers, because we do not (and certainly should not) deliberately target innocent civilians. The objective of the suicide bomber is to de-stabilise society, at whatever cost in innocent lives. I accept that our politico-moral standards have reached a new low in Iraq - but our integrity, though tarnished, is far superior to that of the suicide bomber.
arich said -
"I don’t propose that any nation or people just roll over and let them selves be walked over but isn’t that what some of you have ask of other’s in the name off what you consider right. There are some good things and ideas that have come from the shores of this nation (I’m speaking of the US of course) chief among them to mind is the idea of self determination. Sadly in some ways that concept has spread from these shores in very ugly ways. One, is the idea that part of that self determination is to dominate a good part of the rest of the world for political and economic reasons, sorry but I think morality has very little to do with it."
Believing and accepting the Muslim faith doesn't mean abdication of democratic principles. Look at Turkey, and some other secular Muslim states. Then look at Iraq, and consider the number of Iraqis who simply want to get on with their lives without direct political or religious intervention. It isn't that they are unfaithful to Allah; they simply look for the right of independent thought. As regards self-determination, yes, I agree. The US, particularly under Republican administrations, has made it perfectly clear to the rest of the world that the American economic interest is paramount. The UK has made more than its share of mistakes in its long history but, at least in the last half-century, it has honestly espoused the concept of free trade. US tariffs are still a very significant factor in analysing the causes of global poverty. That, very definitely, is immoral!
As regards the rest of arichs' comments, I can't deny that the US is prone to act from motives of self-interest. That doesn't mean that its influence is necessarily unwelcome. Most of the world population would like to live in liberty, not under religious or political oppression. That doesn't necessarily meam that they wish to be political friends of the US - recent history strongly implies that friendship implies acceptance of economic domination, and why should any country want that? - but the US has the power to make a difference. Of course, this would involve rejection of the influence of Christian fundamentalism - idiocy in any form is still idiocy.
Finally, I do find it rather insulting that arich should imply that I am informed omly by the popular press. That is very far from the truth. And I have to say that the mention of Indian terrorism adds nothing to the current discussion - if it's relevant, it's up to him to demonstrate HOW it is relevant. I hope he's not trying to imply that because gay-bashing is acceptable in the school down the road, it should be accepted in MY school?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First I’d like to say that though I am sure the way I couched my challenge to everyone to look beyond standard sources of information could be construed as an insult, it wasn’t meant as such. I really do respect everyone’s point of view no matter how much I may disagree with them. After all truth is a very subjective thing at best and as time passes even those that seemed immutable decades or even months ago are at least for me dropping by the wayside or at least being continually modified due to the unique circumstance that arise.
I just don’t see how you can make statement like “but our integrity, though tarnished, is far superior to that of the suicide bomber.” I mean I have to walk a mile for moment in this person’s shoes and ask myself how I would react if foreigners were in my country killing my family members and had no great army to defend. Don’t get me wrong I am not in any way trying to justify any act of violence quit the contrary, what I am trying to say is that any act that causes the death of a loved one will causes enough animosity in the hearts and mind of who knows how many to go out and commit other acts of violence. It’s simple we see it all around us everyday all over the world.
I may be wrong but it’s just that what and how you were expressing your views smacked to me of “staying the course” yikes man that whole my country, social, religious group right or wrong just causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand on end. What the politicos of the first world, lets say the seven, are only interested in maintaining the status quo for there own interest despite its dismal failure. They have no interest in the diversity of human kind. The violence and terrorism is replete throughout the world, we can not afford this status quo any longer. Cossie my only objective in posting to this thread is hopefully to get more people thinking in new and different ways out of this mess humanity faces at this juncture of our existence. No I don’t have THE answer. No ONE does but if a great enough number of people can say and live a truth that may be, that peace can be the answer. We may have a chance. Extreme circumstances demand extreme actions and every where we look in history we can see that change through force of violence does not work. And to borrow a phrase from a Mody Blues song “It’s easier to try than to prove it can’t be done” If we can not effect change, that is if we could get enough people whole heartedly behind the concept, though the rule of reason and peace, I believe the game is pretty much over.
Sorry again for giving offence, I didn’t mean to. LOL I am very passionate about peace though I must say. It’s no excuse but I work nights and due to extenuating circumstance I find my self frequently on the edge of exhaustion as this morning or night for me. I’m trying really hard just to be a little cogent. Not an easy thing for me even in the best of times and often gets me into trouble.
Peace
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Hi, arich!
I have to start by saying that, although I sometimes comment that a remark may be insulting, I don't get upset about it. I enjoy (very much) getting involved in humorous exchanges, but I'm also addicted to serious argument. Academic argument can sometimes be vitriolic, but convention dictates that this is acceptable provided that the vitriol is directed against the argument, as opposed to the person expressing the argument. I'm not sure about the first bit - I see no reason why opponents can't use logic and reason without resorting to vitriol - but I'm very much committed to the second principle that disagreeing with, or even trying to demolish an argument should never be seen as personal. So saying that an opinion I express is rubbish is fine by me - though I'll probably argue back in kind! - but stating or implying that I am superficial, rather than suggesting that my argument is superficial, is a step too far.
You consider truth, and I agree that it changes. As a concept, truth is objective - there can only be one true version of events - but, as a perception, truth is subjective. We all consider the known facts and come to our own conclusion about their meaning - but as additional facts become available our perception of truth may be modified. So, when conducting an argument, our perception of truth is determined by what we know at the time our opinion is expressed.
Turning to the question of suicide bombers, I accept what you say about feelings of resentment and revenge. That's why I suggested that the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by both American and British troops in the early months of the war was so damaging. If suicide bombers attacked only American and British troops, I might accept your thesis, but there is ample evidence that this is not the case. The deaths they cause are predominantly civilian, and their driving force is religious fervour whipped up by factions whose objective is to de-stabilise Iraq to the extent that they can seize control - and many of these factions are controlled by political influences from outside Iraq. So - no, I can't walk a mile in the shoes of a suicide bomber. I'm an ordinary, fallible human, and if anyone injured my family it's not impossible that I would seek revenge; I don't KNOW, because it hasn't happened, but I'd be dishonest if I denied the possibility. But, as an agnostic and former Christian I could not set out to kill and maim in God's name; I'm not convinced that God exists, but when I WAS convinced the teachings of Jesus made it absolutely clear to me that he was forgiving rather than vengeful.
'Staying the course' is a GWB soundbite, and I would never admit to anything which could be construed as suggesting that GWB and I were in agreement. Like you, I don't know how much deliberate deceit was involved in the 'Weapons of mass destruction' argument for invasion. At the time, assuming the argument to be true, I reluctantly supported the invasion; it was at least prefereable to be pro-active rather than re-active to a tragedy involving the loss of thousands of innocent lives. But 'truth' has become very, very blurred since the invasion; as things stand today I do not think that the invasion was - or could have been - justified. But it happened, and - largely due to an abysmal lack of forward planning, coupled with inadequate management and control of the invading forces - it has turned into a disaster.
Yet the fact remains that Iraq was a secular Islamic nation; it displayed no enthusiasm to follow the Iranian model. Independent ground reporting suggests that most Iraqis don't want that to change. They want to get on with their lives in a society on the Turkish or Egyptian model. They are grateful for the removal of Saddam Hussein, but resentful of what followed. They don't like the occupying forces - and that's absolutely understandable - but they see their presence as preferable to the emergence of a fundamentalist Islamic Republic. And we - the US and UK - are responsible for the fact that this is now a real possibility. How can we turn our backs on the problem and pretend to any sort of integrity?
Finally, I have to point out that history is, in fact, full of examples showing that force and violence CAN work. Britain was subjected to several invasions, each of which made the emergent nations a little stronger. And the 'freedom' of which United States citizens are so proud was won by force of arms - though, as evidenced by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it could ultimately have been won by peaceful means. History must be viewed in a clear light, not through rose-tinted spectacles!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again I apologize if you feel or I some how implied that you are superficial, I as so many others here am always interested in what you may say about subjects that interest me and I more often than not agree with what you have to say. In other words I have vary high regard for you. Considering I’ve never meet you, this for me is saying something.
Now let’s see if I can do justice in writing what I am thinking LOL. I doubt it, it’s the end of my work week and I am as y’all say, knackered (sp?)
Coming into my most formative years age 13 I became part of what I prefer to call the alternative culture rather than counter culture, I had the great fortune of coming into this time not around people that were just into the free love and drugs and being hippie, but around people devoted to the discovery of alternatives to daily facing the prospect of having a loved one come home in a body bag, this of course led to seeking out other alternatives to what was and are still to this day accepted norms. Here I have to say all that I experienced during that time had a profound and lasting effect on me, yet on the other hand I am also rather pragmatic about it because truly some of what we wanted and hoped for was with out a doubt in the kindest terms naivety. On the other hand just knowing that the old tried and true ways were not, the only or best alternatives.
Here in is the crux in small part of what I have been trying to say. You see I don’t disagree with a lot of what you have said and although I consider myself a very spiritual person I am very far from religious, as a matter of fact religion is an anathema to my personal belief system, nevertheless as you say there is much to be learned in all religious writing. One I am aware of is there is a time for everything you know the one, a time to reap a time to sow and so on. My point is that we have gone beyond those times. The old ways of doing things need to change to conform to the needs of the times we live in. There are so many factors involved here and very little agreement, the environment, out of control population growth, ways of dealing with those that would kill us just because of who we are sexually. You know the drill the list is so long. With the weight of what we have to deal with, we can no longer be solve with, or by the force of arms, at least to me this seems painfully obvious. My plea is for those of us in our 50’s and 60’s to shake our selves from the conditioning we by the nature of the times we grew up in have been subjected to. I just wish I were intelligent enough to write in inoffensive ways to say that I am wrong headed as are most of us. I just have to hope and dream that in all this imperfection, confusion and anger that the use of peace, can become a sustainable option. I realize that some of the greatest times of advancements have come through force of arms. Yet again like a broken record I say those ways are no long sustainable.
Many may believe all that I have said is naïve. All I can say is that I prefer to err on the side of caution. I have to believe that we can find a way to deal with ALL the religious fascist. Hehe how, if we can’t even succeed through organization like the League of Nations or the United Nations? Sighs, but if people far more intelligent than I have felt it worth while, what can I say, there has to be a way. BTW that was Moody Blues that I was speaking of yesterday and the song was “Blue World” It is rather imperative I think, to try, rather than prove through past history that it can’t be done. Hehe another good song “Skating Away on the Thin Ice of a New Day” Jethro Tull
My brother a decorated veteran, suggested onces in a lighter moment that an Escape from New York scenario (for those that may not know that was a movie) where we offer all those who want to fight a great prize then we wall off NY (sorry to all the NYers out there) give all the combatants their weapons of choice and let them go at one another till there is just one left and as he comes out victorious we kill him LOL. Sorry I found that to be hilarious at the time. But I found it very telling, he knows the consequences better than most of us especially those that rule us.
Peace
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... to know that I agree with almost everything you say!
I was never a supporter of the wars in Korea or Vietnam. I doubt whether communism can ever succeed in the long term, but as an alternative to capitalism it does have its attractions. I don't see that the Western nations have any right to declare war simply because another country adopts a different economic ethic. The reason why I doubt the long term success of communism is simply that Karl Marx did not address the instinctive human condition - why should a man give 'according to his ability' if the reward for so doing is no greater than that enjoyed by those of lesser ability? It follows that corruption will be endemic in a supposedly communist society - though I doubt that it is any less endemic in capitalist societies!
I grew up in the love culture - Scott McKenzie's 'San Francisco' still makes me turn the car radio to max volume! - but my lifetime interest in history and language bred a little cynicism. I certainly prefer peace - but not to the Amish level of refusal to react to violence. I am particularly attracted by a quotation for which - irritatingly! - I cannot remember the source, but it went something like this: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men shall do nothing."
So, as regards Iraq, if - as we were told at the time - Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction, it was right that 'good men' should do something. In retrospect, it seems that we were misled. That doesn't justify withdrawal now. If you will forgive the strong language, the allies fucked up Iraq, and at the very least we have a duty to protect the Iraqi people from the consequences of our incompetence. It's naive to argue that the current civilian death toll justifies withdrawal - if we leave, we'll create a bloodbath way beyond anything that has yet been seen.
But the principal cause of global turmoil is the self-interest of nations, and on that score the United States is far the worst offender, though the United Kingdom is probably second in the table of guilt.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
>I was never a supporter of the wars in Korea or… … I don't see that the Western nations have any right to declare war simply because another country adopts a different economic ethic.<
North Korea started the Korean War by attempting to overrun the South. I don't know how that affects your opinion on that war. I suppose it was as you define, North Korea attacking to impose its political and economic ethic on the South.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL no actually it doesn’t surprise me, for obvious reasons, to me at least, I can see you in the vanguard of new thought. One thing I want to say but not belabor is that I am dyslexic, it takes it’s form in my inability to take what’s in my brain and put it in writing. This has gotten me in more trouble than I care to dwell on LOL. Complete grammatically correct sentences much less complete thoughts can be for me, hard to come by in written form. But I try. The only reason I mention this is because I do have high regard for what people have to say. I do not intentionally write to dismiss or disregard who or what anyone is. Heck I only know you from what you write, and as with you and everyone else here, that can only be the tip of the ice burg so to speak. I can say I have only come into face to face contact with two people that post here, and there is no way I can say that I truly know them or they me. LOL and of them one probably doesn’t care if I post and the other would probable just as soon I didn’t. What can I say, I am so fallible. When it comes to the written word it only makes it worse. So in reality I shouldn’t even be posting. I just can’t help it some times hehehe
I’ve never been behind communism as it exists today. Although if communism could be established in it purist form (which I also doubt) it wouldn’t be all bad. Compensation based on ability or I would say capacity to learn and execute as specific task is a perceptual problem that has held us back. After all, the guy that cleans the sewers is just as important as the doctor. At least if we didn’t have the guy to clean the sewers the doctors would be a lot busier than they are now, so in reality who is of the greater value to society?
As far as withdraw from Iraq is concerned you are right, after the havoc we, the US mainly, has wrought, we bare a moral imperative to repair what we have done. Though I doubt our leaders have the wherewithal to do so considering the spurious reasoning behind what we have already done, not to mention any real consideration of the social, religious conditions that existed there before we ever intervened this second time. Nevertheless we have to deal with the situation as it exists now. First thing we need to do is get the private concerns out, which have been contracted, under what I consider very suspicious circumstance, I.E. Brown & Root, Halliburton, have our very capable engineering branches of the militaries with the protection of the military go in and rebuild there infrastructure. Then get the H*** out, there is just no way that we will be able to solve the Shiite and Sunni problem, it’s been there for hundreds of years. Yes, we by our actions furthered the opening of that Pandora’s Box but there is no way we can solve that problem by giving them more guns and bullets. Doing that as we have seen has just exacerbated the problem. Solving religious extremism “sighs OH MY”???? If you have any ideas I’d love to hear them!
Peace
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... first of all, I would never try to take advantage of anyone who had difficulty in expressing himself. I'm lucky - very lucky - that state sponsorship gave me the advantages I have, but my roots are deeply ingrained upon my soul, and I will always judge people by their ideas rather than by any defect in their ability to express those ideas. That said, I don't really see any defect in what you have posted so far - it makes perfect sense to me. And you definitely SHOULD be posting, because you're making a lot of sense!
As regards your analysis of communism I agree that, in terms of maintaining public welfare, the sewer worker is as important as the doctor - but why should a doctor spend years of poverty qualifying while a sewer worker can be earning as soon as he leaves school? Neither Marx nor the various communist regimes succeeded in tackling this problem. It isn't simply a question of value to society, but of the economic sacrifice required in order to deliver that value.
I entirely agree that the dodgy contacts with US firms should be repudiated; Iraq should be free to contact the best deals available on the open market. But the 'allies' should not withdraw if by so doing they allow other external political forces to take over the country. I accept that Sunni-Shi'ite co-operation is probably an unattainable goal, and that some kind of division of Iraq may be impossible to avoid - but I stick to the idea that we caused the problem and it is down to us to find a workable solution.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> I accept that Sunni-Shi'ite co-operation is probably an unattainable goal, and that some kind of division of Iraq may be impossible to avoid - but I stick to the idea that we caused the problem and it is down to us to find a workable solution.
Why should we *try* to avoid " some kind of division", if that's what the various groups in Iraq want? It isn't our place to have this kind of colonialist view!
This is a perfect example of why "we" *cannot* contribute to a workable solution: we are unable to inspire trust in our understanding, or our goodwill. And - actually - rightly so: even apart from the issue of awarding "contracts for the boys" ("Overhead costs have consumed more than half the budget of some reconstruction projects in Iraq, according to a Government estimate ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/world/middleeast/25reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th ) everything that our leaders say and do shows that they do not - deep down - accept the right of the various peoples in Iraq to self-determination. Until we can be content to offer help, in the knowledge that others may accept or reject it according as it meets their needs, we will not be trusted, and forcing ourselves into the situation can only increase the level of mistrust (and therefore violence), both towards "our" troops and towards those seen (IMO wrongly) as "our" puppets.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I think that the point here is simply that racial or ethnic groups do not occupy areas with tidy borders. I have no personal objection to separate Sunni and Shi'ite states; the problem is that there are numerous Shi'ite communities in areas where there is a Sunni majority, and vice-versa.
History is full of the problems which arise from attempts at separation. In recent times, the boundaries between Roman Catholic Christians, Greek Orthodox Christians and Muslims have let to atrocities in the Balkan States. Earlier in the last century, there were problems between French and German communities in Alsace-Lorraine (or Elsass-Lothringen if you happen to be German!) and between Catholic and Protestant communities on the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Logically, the Christian and Muslim areas of the Sudan should be separate states - the boundaries of the Sudan are a legacy from colonial times - but at the moment ethnic cleansing - or, more accurately, racial murder - is widespread, despite a UN presence.
So, any separation of Sunni and Shi'ite boundaries will inevitably inflame political tensions and will be solved only by mass re-settlement or ethnic cleansing. History does not suggest that either alternative is effective.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> So, any separation of Sunni and Shi'ite boundaries will inevitably inflame political tensions and will be solved only by mass re-settlement or ethnic cleansing. History does not suggest that either alternative is effective.
To be honest, I don't konw whether separation would inflame tensions or not - I certainly don't think it's inevitable. But what I or you think the likely outcomes might be is irrelevant: it is not our decision, and we should stop seeking to continue to impose our "nanny knows best" views on those who live there.
If we can utterly refrain from any way from trying to impose a settlement that suits us, or that *we* think would be "for their own good", in a decade or so we just might be able to regain sufficient trust to be *asked* to assist in rebuilding helping develop appropriate infrastructure, both physical and social. And then we stand a chance of a long-term stable situation developing.
But imposing *any* settlement - even if we think it's for the best - can only breed resentment and longterm strife. And to pay ourselves (or at least, the US corporations) to sit around doing nothing (see link in previous post) while we have already imposed living conditions that are indirectly killing *more* people than during Saddams regime rubs salt in the wound.
I am in no sense defending the vicious and tryannical regime of Saddam. But on the credit side, clean water, electricity, and some schooling and medication were widely available - we have largely destroyed this infrastructure, and people are dying as a result.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
It is wrong to impose a solution which suits out political interests; we have gone to far, and been too wrong, to justify that.
But, if you are a committed pacifist, it must surely be wrong to walk away from a probable bloodbath if you have the power to reduce the carnage?
Stated shortly, despite the horrors of the previous regime, we have fucked up Iraq. We shouldn't be there. Morally, the conflicts in Zimbabwe and Sudan are much more deserving of international intervention. I agree that the significant difference is the extent of oil reserves in Iraq. But the bottom line is that withdrawal would almost certainly result in a fundamentalist Islamic Republic for which the majority of Iraquis have no desire whatsoever. In my view, there can be no moral or ethical justification in walking away from chaos for which we, and we alone, are responsible.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> But, if you are a committed pacifist, it must surely be wrong to walk away from a probable bloodbath if you have the power to reduce the carnage?
>
My profound belief is that violence breeds violence. To put it simply, getting involved in any "probable bloodbath" might (or might not) reduce the immediate carnage. However, it *almost certainly* will increase the likelihood of stoking up long-term passions, feelings of ancient wrongs and ongoing grudges ... which will increase both the death toll over the coming years, and make life more miserable than it needs to be for those who do not die.
I know that this is a bleak outlook. But once a cultural group starts defining itself through experiences of shared victimhood, it seems to become almost ineradicable: it can become an essential part of the self-definition of the culture. And, fatally, the internal cultural story becomes "we have had so much done to us that it justifies whatever we do to others." In which case, the only way out is for that culture to effectively end - for the individuals comprising that group to buy into an alternative identity, or for the group to die out because the young reject that identity. And the old - usually - will try hard not to lose "what we've been fighting for all these years".
Examples abound, at all scales. The situation of the Northern Irish Catholics springs to mind - a group that has historically had a really strong self-image of victimhood, now gradually dissipating as the unique identity of "Northern Irish" Catholic dissipates as they achieve equal treatment, and as the identity of "Irish" becomes more alluring in the light of the success that Eire enjoys.
The real answers to the question of war don't lie in the present. We must do whatever we can to avoid taking actions which we know are reasonably likely to lay down foundations for future strife (no more invasions, of any kind). We are to a large extent stuck with the legacy of our own (and others) past actions: I believe that only by working towards a fair and equal society will such historic grudges be able to gradually disappear.
That is why the peace pledge runs:
"War is a crime against humanity. I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war."
And, if you'll excuse one final quote, this time from Professor Tolkien: Gandalf, speaking at the Council of Elrond, says " ... it is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world. We should seek a final end of this menace, even if we do not hope to make one." Although he was speaking of something completely different, those two lines really sum up what I feel about war ... they have had a profound resonance for me since I first read them over 40 years ago.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW wrote:
And, if you'll excuse one final quote, this time from Professor Tolkien: Gandalf, speaking at the Council of Elrond, says " ... it is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world. We should seek a final end of this menace, even if we do not hope to make one." Although he was speaking of something completely different, those two lines really sum up what I feel about war ... they have had a profound resonance for me since I first read them over 40 years ago.
NW, I really don't understand. In LOTR the resolution of the conflict was by war!
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR wrote:
> NW, I really don't understand. In LOTR the resolution of the conflict was by war!
That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that the Fellowship of the Ring chose *not* to use the ring (to fight Sauron), but to destroy it ...
But the point of the quote - for me - was to emphasise both that we need to think in terms of long-term solutions rather quick fixes, and that there is no dishonour in pursuing a course which we believe to be right, however unlikely we think it is that we will achieve the ends we are striving for.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... where the rational course is to agree to disagree.
I have no quarrel with your principles. I simply believe that the obligation to do our best to rectify the damage we have caused to others is the greater moral imperative.
By the way, I don't accept the parallel with Northern Ireland. In the years preceding 1970, the Northern Irish Catholics WERE cynically and systematically exploited, even in areas with a Catholic majority. In Iraq, the internal conflict is not about righting wrongs, it is almost wholly sectarian; all three indigenous groups, and the largely external fundamentalist faction, have as a basic objective control of the wealth of the Iraqui oilfields.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
