Why Saddam Hussein didn't deserve your vote

[dr_mabeuse]

crap, forgot to put this in - I would think that making a decision to 'send other people to die' is probably one of the toughest desicions a person can make, and I do not envy any President who has had to make that call. So yeah, I think it does take courage and stregnth (i.e. balls) to do that.

That's what I used to think too. I mean, that's what we'd all like to think, isn't it? But what if they really didn't care? What if they just didn't really give a rat's ass? Could we even tell? Would they do things differently?

If they really cared about lives over there, wouldn't they give them the manpower to do the job? Or would they make them scrape by with what they've got so they wouldn't feel the political heat? If they really cared about American soldiers, wouldn't they have come up with a hint of an idea what to do after the war was over before they threw our guys into harm's way? Wouldn't they have thought this thing through?

Did you know that during the 1968 Presidential election, when the Johnson administration was negotiating with the North Viet Namese in Paris to end the war, Nixon sent word to the N. Viet Namese that is they held out till he was elected, he'd get them a better deal at the peace table? Nixon thought that a cease fire would ruin his chances for the presidency, so he deliberately urged the North Viet Namese to stall, costing the US God knows how many lives. Do you think he spent many a sleepness night thinking about what he was doing?

No, I don't trust these guys. None of them. I don't see GWB out visiting any families of those killed in Iraq. I don't see any dark circles under his eyes from lack of sleep.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Did you know that during the 1968 Presidential election, when the Johnson administration was negotiating with the North Viet Namese in Paris to end the war, Nixon sent word to the N. Viet Namese that is they held out till he was elected, he'd get them a better deal at the peace table? Nixon thought that a cease fire would ruin his chances for the presidency, so he deliberately urged the North Viet Namese to stall, costing the US God knows how many lives. Do you think he spent many a sleepness night thinking about what he was doing?

Christ, Dr. M. I had forgotten about that.

I voted for that twisted bastard when he won the second term. I just got in under the wire, old enough to vote and so eager. The world was in turmoil and changing presidents seemed scary. I guess I wanted us to stay the course.



I didn't think any deeper than that. I wasted the first vote of my life as an adult American on a man who spent lives the way other people spend money.

We're sheep. We want someone, anyone, to walk at the head of the herd so we can graze without thinking about the path we're on. Is it any wonder that the Nixons and Cheneys of the world hold the public in such contempt?

 

[KarenAM]

well sher, I understand, sort of, what you are saying about Iraq and Osama, what makes your equation unclear to me is why, when there is sufficient evidence of a partnership between Osama and Saddam, you choose to take the route that GWB is doing all of this based on unlcear motives, misinformation, etc. It seems pretty clear to me that GW recognized the threat and responded the best way he knew how.
As to being right where Osama wants us, what should we have done then? Obviously you feel that fighting back is not appropriate, maybe we should open negotiations with people who dont give a rats ass about peace. For lack of better words we have been engaged in what amounts to a Holy War with these guys. They are not just going to go away or get bored and put the guns down, and if we had continued to just act outraged over attacks on America and our allies but not actually take any action then I firmly believe that we would not be looking at 9/11 as the worst terrorist attack on the U.S.
I don't know about you but I do not like the idea of facing war inside the borders of this country, and that is what will happen if we don't stop terrorism. That's why my husband and my brother, my friends have joined the Marines and other branches of the armed forces. I haven't seen my husband in almost a year, I have been raising our 16 month old daughter by myself, and I daily live with the possiblity that I could lose my husband, my brother, my friends in a conflict that GWB helped initiate. With all that said, I still firmly support my President. He may not be perfect but he is doing the right thing.

I add my prayers for your husband and brother's safe return, postobitum.

What saddens me, though, is this: Let's suppose that Saddam really was a threat. Has this war actually lessened the threat? Saddam, along with most other dictators in the Middle East (whether they are our friends or not), was widely distrusted by Arabs. The only reason they liked him was because they saw him as standing up to the United States, an unpleasant but real bulwark against American colonial aspirations. This means that removing him we have now convinced them that their assessment of our intentions to dominate them and abuse them have been proven correct, at least in their minds. Had we removed him by backing a popular uprising, as I have been advocating for a decade, they wouldn't have had that excuse, at least, to hate us.

And I'm not just talking about Iraqis. They lived under Saddam and are happy we got rid of him. I'm talking about Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis, and others. This war has made millions of them into our enemies, and in so doing has put all of us at great risk. Because the president and Mr. Rumsfeld are military incompotents, they have put us in an unwinnable situation over there, and they seem more than willing to say "bring 'em on" when it is the lives of brave people like your husband and brother whose lives are at stake.

I hope both your husband and your brother come home safely. They deserve to know their daughter and niece, to play with her and hold her and protect her. You deserve to hold them in your arms again.

And they deserve to have a president and commander-in-chief who knows what he's doing; Bush does not.

 

[postobitum]

That's what I used to think too. I mean, that's what we'd all like to think, isn't it? But what if they really didn't care? What if they just didn't really give a rat's ass? Could we even tell? Would they do things differently?

If they really cared about lives over there, wouldn't they give them the manpower to do the job? Or would they make them scrape by with what they've got so they wouldn't feel the political heat? If they really cared about American soldiers, wouldn't they have come up with a hint of an idea what to do after the war was over before they threw our guys into harm's way? Wouldn't they have thought this thing through?

Did you know that during the 1968 Presidential election, when the Johnson administration was negotiating with the North Viet Namese in Paris to end the war, Nixon sent word to the N. Viet Namese that is they held out till he was elected, he'd get them a better deal at the peace table? Nixon thought that a cease fire would ruin his chances for the presidency, so he deliberately urged the North Viet Namese to stall, costing the US God knows how many lives. Do you think he spent many a sleepness night thinking about what he was doing?

***

No, I didn't know that about Nixon, wasn't around back then! That's pretty shitty, then again I think Nixon was pretty shitty anyway so it's not surprising to me. What you said about political pressures is something that is bothering me with my man. I do think that the sitch in Iraq is dragging out, I am worried that GW is beginning to worry more about re-election, starting to stray off course. He needs to stick to his guns, get this thing over with and not worry about what people are going to think, even if it costs him the Presidency at election time he will have taken care of a situation that needed to be resolved.
As far as GWB and co. thinking all this through, I would like to believe that there is a lot that we don't know that they do know, and that they do have a plan. Otherwise I'm not sure that I would be so supportive of GW. Amicus had it right that we really don't know as much as the gov guys right now. Honestly, I wouldn't want to know everything they know right now, that is why I voted for them to handle this stuff. Besides, what's the saying about too many cooks in the kitchen?
Whew! In response to GW visiting veterans hospitals in a very untimely manner - I struggle taking the time to visit my parents across town on a respectable basis, so I can just imagine what it must be like to be President. Maybe he needs to fire whoever it is in charge of public appearances. Maybe he needs to not give a f*** about what people say he should be doing PR-wise and just get his job done. Like I said earlier, he's getting distracted. I don't know enough about his public appearances or what not to really have that much of an informed opinion though, I am pretty much just going on what you have said, so much of this will sound like lame-o excuses, my apologies.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Christ, Dr. M. I had forgotten about that.

I voted for that twisted bastard when he won the second term. I just got in under the wire, old enough to vote and so eager. The world was in turmoil and changing presidents seemed scary. I guess I wanted us to stay the course.

Yes, and don't be so quick to jump only on Republicans as deceivers either. Lyndon Johnson did a little thing he called the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to get the authority he needed to escalate the war. He claimed that a North Vietnamese ship had fired on an innocent Navy survey ship in international waters and so we had to protect ourselves. Seemed reasonable enough, except (1) the ship in question was a destroyer and very probably in N. Vietnamese waters, and (2) there was no attack. Johnson just made it up out of whole cloth.

It's all very well known, but here's a link if you're curious as to what it looks like when a President lies to get what he wants:

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html

---dr.M.

 

[postobitum]

I add my prayers for your husband and brother's safe return, postobitum.

What saddens me, though, is this: Let's suppose that Saddam really was a threat. Has this war actually lessened the threat? Saddam, along with most other dictators in the Middle East (whether they are our friends or not), was widely distrusted by Arabs. The only reason they liked him was because they saw him as standing up to the United States, an unpleasant but real bulwark against American colonial aspirations. This means that removing him we have now convinced them that their assessment of our intentions to dominate them and abuse them have been proven correct, at least in their minds. Had we removed him by backing a popular uprising, as I have been advocating for a decade, they wouldn't have had that excuse, at least, to hate us.

And I'm not just talking about Iraqis. They lived under Saddam and are happy we got rid of him. I'm talking about Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis, and others. This war has made millions of them into our enemies, and in so doing has put all of us at great risk. Because the president and Mr. Rumsfeld are military incompotents, they have put us in an unwinnable situation over there, and they seem more than willing to say "bring 'em on" when it is the lives of brave people like your husband and brother whose lives are at stake.

I hope both your husband and your brother come home safely. They deserve to know their daughter and niece, to play with her and hold her and protect her. You deserve to hold them in your arms again.

And they deserve to have a president and commander-in-chief who knows what he's doing; Bush does not.

(woops, my kid hit the keyboard and posted for me before i was ready -sorry)

 

[postobitum]

I add my prayers for your husband and brother's safe return, postobitum.

What saddens me, though, is this: Let's suppose that Saddam really was a threat. Has this war actually lessened the threat? Saddam, along with most other dictators in the Middle East (whether they are our friends or not), was widely distrusted by Arabs. The only reason they liked him was because they saw him as standing up to the United States, an unpleasant but real bulwark against American colonial aspirations. This means that removing him we have now convinced them that their assessment of our intentions to dominate them and abuse them have been proven correct, at least in their minds. Had we removed him by backing a popular uprising, as I have been advocating for a decade, they wouldn't have had that excuse, at least, to hate us.

And I'm not just talking about Iraqis. They lived under Saddam and are happy we got rid of him. I'm talking about Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis, and others. This war has made millions of them into our enemies, and in so doing has put all of us at great risk. Because the president and Mr. Rumsfeld are military incompotents, they have put us in an unwinnable situation over there, and they seem more than willing to say "bring 'em on" when it is the lives of brave people like your husband and brother whose lives are at stake.

I hope both your husband and your brother come home safely. They deserve to know their daughter and niece, to play with her and hold her and protect her. You deserve to hold them in your arms again.

And they deserve to have a president and commander-in-chief who knows what he's doing; Bush does not.

I don't think that removing Saddam ever made that much of a difference in how the Arab nations (for the most part) view America. They have always hated us. I think the war has shown that we are capable and willing to do what it takes to protect America and spread democracy and freedom to oppressed nations.
ok, I am really about to hang myself here, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way to pacify Arab nations is to do one of two things
1) give them the keys to the gate and learn Arabic.

*or*

2) Pretty much just kill them all. *cringe cringe*

Now hold on before you slay me, that doesn't mean that I think we should do either (because I don't), I am only saying this to point out that those are the only two ways I can see us having peace with the Middle East. That also does not mean I am anti-Arab or foreigners or anything, I am NOT. Ok? Yes, there is a middle ground in there somewhere that we will probably wind up taking, I am just not at all optimistic that we will ever have good relations with Arab nations, ever. We might have a quasi-peaceful treaty with one or another here and there, but I just think they have have hated Americans and our allies for too long with too much dedication to ever truly change.
I still think Bush is good for this nation, I have faith that he does know what he is doing whatever the mistakes are that he has made and will make, and I thank all of you guys for your kind words about my family. For a bunch of liberals ya'll ain't half bad!

 

[cloudy]

for postobitum...

My sympathies, and good wishes for your family members to get home safely.

I understand, really. My cousin was killed there recently, and I have two nephews there, a third in training.

Sending you my support.

 

[KarenAM]

I don't think that removing Saddam ever made that much of a difference in how the Arab nations (for the most part) view America. They have always hated us. I think the war has shown that we are capable and willing to do what it takes to protect America and spread democracy and freedom to oppressed nations.
ok, I am really about to hang myself here, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way to pacify Arab nations is to do one of two things
1) give them the keys to the gate and learn Arabic.

*or*

2) Pretty much just kill them all. *cringe cringe*

Now hold on before you slay me, that doesn't mean that I think we should do either (because I don't), I am only saying this to point out that those are the only two ways I can see us having peace with the Middle East. That also does not mean I am anti-Arab or foreigners or anything, I am NOT. Ok? Yes, there is a middle ground in there somewhere that we will probably wind up taking, I am just not at all optimistic that we will ever have good relations with Arab nations, ever. We might have a quasi-peaceful treaty with one or another here and there, but I just think they have have hated Americans and our allies for too long with too much dedication to ever truly change.
I still think Bush is good for this nation, I have faith that he does know what he is doing whatever the mistakes are that he has made and will make, and I thank all of you guys for your kind words about my family. For a bunch of liberals ya'll ain't half bad!

Well, I don't always consider myself a liberal, but thanks!

I'd have to disagree that Arabs have always hated the US. I've been to Egypt and Syria, and except for the Egyptians by the tourist sites who were after our money, I never met an Arab who had any problem with my being an American. They really liked Americans, and many wanted to learn English and visit the US. Some who had almost nothing invited us into their homes for tea and were delighted when I gave them postcards from the USA. These were people who often opposed American policy and the American government, but they expressed nothing but kindness toward Americans.

I do think there is a wide cultural gap between the Arab world and the US. You speak of "spreading democracy and freedom to oppressed nations", but the Arab world has no tradition of democracy, or even "freedom" as we here in America define it. They do have a long tradition of social justice (Islam was founded on this precept), and a strong desire for efficient civil government, but this is tied in to religion in a way that we here in the US simply cannot fully understand. I think to an Arab, elections are meaningless if they don't lead to a just, effective government. In terms of sexual matters, Arabs have a strong sense of privacy and modesty that exists in sharp contrast to our own openness.

It is not up to us to "pacify" the Arab world. They've got a lot of problems and are going thorugh incredible social turmoil as they come to grips with the technological changes the last few centuries have brought. No matter what we do it's going to be unpleasant, for reasons we can barely understand, just as our own social struggles are incomprehensible to them. Except for a few insane fanatics like bin Laden, I don't think Arabs want to conquer or control the West, so giving them the keys wouldn't mean much. It wouldn't hurt more Americans to learn Arabic, though (or for that matter any second language).

Killing them all, of course, is impossible without using nuclear weapons, which would cause ecological damage on a worldwide scale and probably end human civilization.

Anyhow, I don't think your pessimistic view of our relations with the Arab world is one we need to reach just yet. Things are bad, to be sure. But remember that many Arabs have come to America and have become productive American citizens. Many more pray for peace in their mosques and churches, just as many Americans do. Many of them pray that Osama bin Laden will be brought to justice, because they, like us, saw what the Taliban did and were sickened by it. He scares them just as he scares us, perhaps even more so.

I, at least, am going to remain optimistic about the possibility for American/Arab friendship. Arabs have been good to me, and I've done my best to be good to them. and if they can distinguish between me and my government, I owe them that same courtesy.

 

[KarenAM]

My deepest sympathies about your cousin, cloudy, and my prayers for your nephews' safe return.

 

[cloudy]

My deepest sympathies about your cousin, cloudy, and my prayers for your nephews' safe return.

Thanks, Karen. It's rough for everyone...Almost all of us have a family member, friend, whatever, over there.

I want them home safe, but I know they're very proud to be serving their country, even if some of us don't quite see it that way. They do, and that's what counts.

 

[shereads]

Re: for postobitum...

I understand, really. My cousin was killed there recently, and I have two nephews there, a third in training.

 

[shereads]

Re: Tell us this NOW or take the hot lead enema

Safer than what? 11,000 injured soldiers and marines didn't come out much safer. And that's just Iraq. He made a whole lot of other people's children less safe. HE's safe. He hid in his plane, flying around hiding while the hijack bombing went down. He stays in safe places saying "bring it on" while they do just that to other people's sons and daughters.

Exactly.

I really have to question the motivation of someone like Amicus in making the point that we shouldn't question our government's motives or the validity of their actions, because we don't know all of their reasons for doing what they do.

We have the evidence of fact, the evidence of the president's given word to us, now refuted; and the evidence of a partial historic record. Not one of which supports the claim that we are safer than we would have been if the president had done nothing more in response to 9/ll than curl up in the fetal position and beg for mercy. To say that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/ll and credit that fact to the administration is like saying that we were frequently attacked by terrorists before they took measures to stop it.

It's entirely possible that the tragedy of 9/ll would have been a one-time incident, because 12 of the participants died on the scene and we took out some more of them in Afghanistan. But instead, we've helped recruit new terrorists by confirming the third world's worst fears about our colonial intentions. Bush's actions - if we believe the evidence and draw logical conclusions instead of relying on a level of faith that he has not earned - have made America and the world infinitely more dangerous than it would have been if he had treated 9/ll as a mass murder, orchestrated by one man and a few key associates. Instead, he treated it as a political opportunity. The record shows that he has used the word "terrorism" virtually every time he's been questioned about bad economic news.

The record also shows that Bush/Cheney have not backed up their admiration for our military with any significant act on behalf of veterans and military families.

I remind fans of the administration that the president and vice president are pocketing an extra $60,000 and $450,000 per year benefit from their tax cuts, and that they awarded billions in rebuilding contracts without requiring bids and withoutputting a system in place to effectively control how the money is spent - and yet they tell Congress that it has a moral duty to ignore the budget deficit and provide yet another enormous sum to the war effort.

If there is anything they know and haven't told us that would help make their actions appear anything but self-serving, it's a shame they're too self-effacing to flaunt that information.

 

[shereads]

I'd have to disagree that Arabs have always hated the US. I've been to Egypt and Syria, and except for the Egyptians by the tourist sites who were after our money, I never met an Arab who had any problem with my being an American. They really liked Americans, and many wanted to learn English and visit the US. Some who had almost nothing invited us into their homes for tea and were delighted when I gave them postcards from the USA. These were people who often opposed American policy and the American government, but they expressed nothing but kindness toward Americans.

Thanks for sharing that, Karen. You and Cantdog have some knowledge of what Arab societies are really like at the ordinary, everyday level at which most people live their lives.

It's unfortunate that the cultural differences are so extreme, it's easy for westerners to think of these people as another species, one that we can casually talk about exterminating. The anger behind that feeling is understandable, but misdirected. We were attacked by a few, not by the tens of millions who were simply raising their children and going to work and glancing at the news when something interesting happened.

I wish I shared your optimism about future Arab/American relationships, but I can't help thinking that you'd have a very different experience in Egypt now than the lovely one you described. A year ago, I'd have known I was taking some risk in traveling to the middle east, but I would have taken it if I'd had the opportunity to see Petra and the pyramids. I wonder now if it will ever be possible to travel openly as an American without being openly hated. The question of whether that hatred was justified was ambiguous until just recently. Now it's undeniable.

 

[shereads]

It is accepted modus operandi in college, for term papers, to do research and use the thoughts of others to make your point.

Shereads and others do not need my permission to have any opinion they want...I only query the motives and wonder why most who post here are so anti-american.

amicus

In support of your first point, I'll answer the second with a quotation from someone whose patriotism might be said to equal or even surpass your own:

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

~ Thomas Jefferson to Col. William S. Smith, November 13, 1787

Amicus, since you're not into resistance, but you say you preserve our liberties, what's your method?

 

[cloudy]

on a side note....

Anyone seen this?
==============================

Lehman: 9/11 Commission Eyeing Secret Clinton Video

The independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks has examined a secret videotape of ex-President Clinton discussing an offer from Sudan to have Osama bin Laden arrested five years before the 9/11 attacks, former Navy Secretary and 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman revealed on Tuesday.

Asked if the never-before-seen video confirms that Clinton admitted turning the offer down, Lehman told radio host Sean Hannity, " Well, that is what he said."

While the video of Clinton's bombshell remarks, delivered to the Long Island Association in Feb. 2002, had never been released prior to a request from the 9/11 Commission, NewsMax.com's exclusive audiotape shows the ex-president explaining:

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted to start dealing with us again. They released him. At the time, 1996, had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

Secretary Lehman said that when Clinton was interrogated about the comment during his April 8 testimony, his account was somewhat at odds with the version on the tape, saying, "It's not quite the way he described it."

Lehman explained that the former president attempted to give "a broader understanding of what he was talking about" in the Feb. 2002 speech. Asked for specifics, Lehman told Hannity, "I can't go into it, but we will have the full story" in the final report due out in July.

At the time of Clinton's questioning, apparently he, along with at least some of the 9/11 Commissioners, were unaware that his 2002 comments had been recorded. According to 9/11 Commissioner, former Sen. Bob Kerry, Clinton called a transcript of his remarks "a misquote."

In April, LIA spokesman Gary Wojtas told NewsMax that he turned the secret Clinton video over to the 9/11 Commission at their request the month before. In 2002, the LIA turned down requests for copies of the video from NBC News, the Fox News Channel and NewsMax.

Asked in April whether he would now make the tape public, Wojtas told NewsMax, "That's something we're waiting on right now - that's all I'll say on that. It's not that we won't do it. It's just something we need to wait on right now."

Wojtas did not return NewsMax's call last week seeking release of the videotape.

 

[amicus]

Thank you Shereads...thanks to you and others...these Threads are most informative and challenging...

My first book was titled, "A Call to Convention, A Call to Arms." And strangely enough, for almost two years I published an activist newsletter titled "Resistance!"

My closing words on every radio program for nearly 10 years, was, "Up the Revolution!"

I long ago concluded that the malady affecting this nation cannot be cured by political change.

I actively promote an overthrow of the government of the United States.

I have a work in progress, fiction, that describes how it might happen and what the current government might be replaced with..


regards...amicus

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Amicus, can I ask you to please change your location? It's the most annoying thing I've ever seen, the way it screws up the format of the entire thread. You need to add spaces after the ellipses, please.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: on a side note....

Anyone seen this?
==============================

Lehman: 9/11 Commission Eyeing Secret Clinton Video

The independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks has examined a secret videotape of ex-President Clinton discussing an offer from Sudan to have Osama bin Laden arrested five years before the 9/11 attacks, former Navy Secretary and 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman revealed on Tuesday.

You'll have to explain this one to me because I don't understand. You mean Clinton could have had Bin Laden arrested in 1996 but didn't because bin Ladin had done nothing wrong? So what's the point?

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Re: on a side note....

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted to start dealing with us again. They released him. At the time, 1996, had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

I'm not sure I see how that's a "bombshell remark."

If it is, I guess it's a good thing there won't be any transcripts of the testimony by our current president and his handler, because they contradict themselves on a weekly basis.

Edited to add: Is it news now when a president of the U.S. obeys its laws?

 

[shereads]

Thank you Shereads...thanks to you and others...these Threads are most informative and challenging...

My first book was titled, "A Call to Convention, A Call to Arms." And strangely enough, for almost two years I published an activist newsletter titled "Resistance!"

My closing words on every radio program for nearly 10 years, was, "Up the Revolution!"

I long ago concluded that the malady affecting this nation cannot be cured by political change.

I actively promote an overthrow of the government of the United States.

I have a work in progress, fiction, that describes how it might happen and what the current government might be replaced with..


regards...amicus

Holy f**k. You're one of those people who inspired the Oklahoma City bombing? A proud moment, was it? So the reason you're against people speaking out against the government would be...?

 

[shereads]

Yes, and don't be so quick to jump only on Republicans as deceivers either. Lyndon Johnson did a little thing he called the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to get the authority he needed to escalate the war. He claimed that a North Vietnamese ship had fired on an innocent Navy survey ship in international waters and so we had to protect ourselves. Seemed reasonable enough, except (1) the ship in question was a destroyer and very probably in N. Vietnamese waters, and (2) there was no attack. Johnson just made it up out of whole cloth.

It's all very well known, but here's a link if you're curious as to what it looks like when a President lies to get what he wants:

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html

---dr.M.

LBJ was a Texas Democrat. That makes him a Republican. The best thing about him was that my dad enjoyed making fun of his "semi-beautiful daughters."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I heard a radio interview with two people from Al Jazeera, the Arab news outfit. One of them made a movie about the way the media covered the Iraq war.

He said some interesting things. One thing he stressed, is that Arab hatred for America is not directed at its people but rather at its policies in the middle east. He wanted to make that quite clear. He had nothing but admiration for American ideals and the American way of life, it was the government that gave him problems.

We make the same mistake here. We confuse hating American policy with hatred for America. It's something we should try and keep clear.

---dr.M.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I had an odd, but interesting, conversation with a patron at work last night.

I will pass the pith of his argument along, as well as I can relay it.

The argument strikes me as being somehow mendacious, but I am not equal to the task of discovering where. I do not know enough about Islam as a religion, nor as a social movement, to judge. Perhaps, someone with more information, or knowledge, could comment.


The argument goes like this:

Muslims do not want our liberty, in fact, they reject that freedom.

Muslims have chosen (or at least have grown up in) a religion which acts as much as a support, defining who they are, as a restrain against what they must not become.

This religion defines their self-image, shapes their community, and controls their interpersonal relationships.

To force a Muslim to accept the freedom we value over the structure he desires, is like forcing a Christian monk to leave his monetary.

Which is why, the more we attempt to force our style of democracy onto Iraqis, the more we push them into embracing a theocracy?

Any comments?

 

[shereads]

I can't say I know any more about Islam than you do, Virtual. But it does seem that if the structure of a society is closely bound to a shared religous belief, and you attack the structure (for not being democratic enough or anything-else enough) you will appear to be attacking the religion itself.

Saddam Hussein was able to impose secular laws on an Islamic majority through brutality. There were beneficiaries, chief of which were women who, from what I've seen of strictly adherent Islamic societies, have little choice in whether they observe the religion or not.

It would be nice to believe that in the absence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, women's lives would have improved dramatically, but that doesn't seem to be the case. And in Iraq, they took a giant step back to the middle ages as soon as there was no law, secular or otherwise, to protect their rights.

We have, in theory, liberated Iraq from a secular dictatorship. But can we liberate Iraqis who prefer a secular government, if the majority choose a theocracy?

Could we do it here?