For those who care.......Arabic thought on Iraq

[Hobbit]

Here follows an interesting commentary by a follower of Islam and a contributor to ArabNews. I can vouch for the authenticity of the article...but am not sure about the underlying tenets.




Revisionist Thoughts on the War on Iraq
Fawaz Turki

Is it too early to adopt a revisionist view of the US war in Iraq and for this column to admit its mistake in having vehemently opposed it from the outset?

At issue here is whether the Iraqi people have benefited from the overthrow of the Baathist regime and whether the American occupation will eventually benefit their country even more. I’m convinced — and berate me here from your patriotic bleachers, if you must — that what we have seen in the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates in recent months may turn out to be the most serendipitous event in its modern history.

One need offer no apology for saying that the supreme virtue of this war is that Saddam Hussein was gotten rid of. Period. The very man who had established arguably the closest approximation of a genuine fascist state in the Arab world, that sustained itself on fear, repression, genocide, cult of personality and wanton murder — a state whose law was that those who rule are the law.

One doesn’t become a revisionist in a vacuum. I pore over material from various media sources about the mass graves unearthed all over Iraq, particularly those discovered in uncounted pits in the south, where Saddam had crushed a rebellion there in 1991 with genocidal ferocity, and I turn away in nauseated disbelief. Then there’s the UN Special Rapporteur’s September 2001 report about the execution of 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib’s prison in 1984, and 3,000 others at the Mahjar prison between 1993 and 1998. And you ask how a regime could become so monstrous, so whisked clean of human decency.

Last Saturday, the Washington Post’s Peter Finn filed a gut-wrenching report about Baghdad’s Kadimiyah High School, where during the 1990s kids were being dragged off for questioning by members of the Mokhabarat for writing boyish anti-Saddam graffiti on their walls, such as “Down with Saddam” — and never returned home. Only now are their families, like other families of the “disappeared” speaking up, asking questions and demanding to know how and why their children were killed and where they are buried. One of the ancillary byproducts of the US invasion of Iraq was the ouster of Saddam and the obliteration, clearly forever, of the totalitarian dungeon that he had turned his country into.

That, in my book, is enough to warrant extending my support for that invasion and for Washington’s projected plans to rebuild the country.

Washington may not succeed in turning Iraq into a “beacon of democracy” but it will succeed, after all is said and done, in turning it into a society of laws and institutions where citizens, along with high-school kids, are protected against arbitrary arrest, incarceration, torture and execution.

Look, I have no illusions about the shenanigans and hypocrisies of a big power like the US, including its neocon ideologues, who are more cons than neos. Lest we forget, at the height of Saddam’s bloody reach in the 1980s, which saw the Halabja atrocities, Washington not only uttered nary a word of criticism of the Iraqi leader, let alone called for his overthrow, but provided him with political, military and economic assistance that, in effect, underwrote his survival and made possible the very repression that American officials now claim they want to banish forever from the land.

All true. Yet, the US may, just may, end up doing in Iraq what it did in war-ravaged European countries under the Marshall Plan. And if it doesn’t, well, what would Iraqis have lost other than the ritual terror of life under a dictator who had splintered their society into raw fragments of fear, hysteria and self-denial — a man who insisted that third graders learn songs whose lyrics lauded him with lines such as “when he passes near, the roses celebrate.”

No, I don’t believe that by going to war, America had dark designs on Iraq’s oil or pursued an equally dark conspiracy to “help Israel.” I believe that the US, perhaps willy-nilly, will end up helping Iraqis regain their human sanity, their social composure and the national will to rebuild their devastated nation.

And no, it’s not too early to adopt a revisionist view of the US war in Iraq, or too late for a columnist to say he was wrong all along.

[Sponsored Links]

[jjwq8]

Sadly Howard, Fawaz does not represent "Arabic" thinking, in fact I would suggest he scarcely represents thinking at all.
Iraq has never been and likely will never be a democracy.
Western democratic values are largely irrelevent in societies based around tribal units.
Saddam is gone, though not forgotten, and is by no means universally despised. He was a son of a bitch. But he was an Arab Iraqi son of a bitch. Not a Kurd, not an Arabistan Irani, and ceratinly not an American puppet, though history may prove this false.
Iraq is ungovernable in a democratic sense. Too many divergent self interested groups guarantee that.
In 5,000 years of history Iraq has never had a peaceful change of regime. Removing their leaders by decapitation is considered a perfectly acceptable political solution. The Iraqi people, men and women, have very very long memories and not only do they never forget, they never forgive. An eye for an eye originated in the country. The Iraqis still celebrate the Battle of Qadisiyah, when some 1,350 years ago, Moslem Arabs, defeated the Persians.
Iraq may have rolled over in 1991. Walking in in 2 weeks in 2003 was the easy part. Those who continue to fight are now defending their own soil. Can everyone in America spell V. I. E. T. N. A. M?
Mr. Bush has seriously miscalculated. Rvisionist thinking isn't the sole preserve of Fawaz Turki. It is an urgent imperitive in Washington too.

[John Bridge]

Yes, I can spell Vietnam. Brings back old memories. I agree with you. :)

[Hobbit]

Jeremy...

Did you get caught up in the rhetoric of the article.....or? It almost sounds as if you are berating the author based upon his political stance. The fact that you don't agree with his thinking is fine, but somehow misses what I believe to be the salient point here.

Maybe, I wasn't too clear about my reason for posting the article....

I think what was very interesting about this article was the fact that the author (Fawaz Turki) has done a complete reversal of position, and has made a very open and public statement of that reversal in a very pro-Arab venue. Mr. Turki is a very outspoken Arab and communicates his thoughts clearly and without qualm. He has for quite a while, taken a very anti-American stance and used his position to communicate his thoughts (and in some cases his anger) quite clearly.

What is noteworthy is that he has radically changed his opinion and is not afraid to admit it. The potential backlash is great, yet he continues to think about the situation and keeps an open mind. To my way of thinking that represents a model from which many could benefit. The willingness to formulate an opinion, yet the strength of character to change it without being afraid of the consequences.

Anyone who argues a position without allowing for the possibility of being wrong is foolish. And anyone who maintains that position just because they have publicly stated it is just plain stupid. We have too many of those types in all facets of public life today. We don't need any more.

So, to read an article like this is refreshing, and gives hope for the future of the region. Not because of what he says, .......but because of his willingness to say it. It speaks to the voice of thought and reason.

You don't have to agree with his thoughts to agree with the process he brings with them.

:):)

[Steven Hauser]

Hmmm,

Howard,

Thank you for posting the article.

It was not immediately apparent to me the point you brought up in your post to Jeremy.

The reversal of thinking by one individual may be salient from the perspective that change in the thinking of the Middle East is what we need. The tribal culture over the last few millenium makes me think Jeremy is sadly correct.

But, we are The United States of America. People from all over the moslem world conspire to kill, and in fact sometimes actually kill Americans and our allies.


That narrow perspective provides the follwing conclusion.

We don't need their cooperation since we know we won't really have it anyway.
It may be unpopular and provoking to say but there is not any serious military threat combined or singly against the USA.
We in fact are dealing with terrorists. We in fact are dealing with people who have empathy, idealisms, and outright support of terrorists.

I know how to not spell V I E T N A M.

We say control yourselves and find a way to stop the killing of our service people and allies or we will make a parking lot out of the whole damn place.

Killing Americans is wrong and should never be intellectualized and liberalized away.

belligerant but true.

Steven:bang: :mad: :crap: :sick: :stupid2:

[John Bridge]

I see where you're coming from, Howard, and I appreciate the underlying principle. Our founders held their deliberations in secret because they cherished the right to change their minds without suffering the political consequenses. That, and the fact that they simply didn't hold their constituents in very high regard. ;)

I hate to carry this away from Iraq and back to Vietnam, but having had a first hand stake in that ancient fiasco, I can't help but make comparisons.

-- We went in to democracize the country, to rid it of a cruel (in that case Communist) regime.

-- We began with a comparatively small military force which increased in size as it became clear the conflict would not be short lived.

-- We went through a protracted period of political unrest in the homeland -- civil disobedience in some instances.

-- Ultimately, when the political objectives were determined to be unattainable, we tucked our tail between our legs and withdrew.

-- Finally, decades after the debacle, we sense that we might have accomplished the same result (the same reality) without armed conflict.

-- And we might have avoided reinforcing our "ugly American" image in the process of not doing what we did.

We didn't have the gall to obliterate Vietnam, which is what it would have taken to "win," and we don't have that gall today. The only question is how long it will take our politcal leaders to make a withdrawl, one in which they can at least partially "save face."

[sdaniels7114]

Were the Vietnames rejecting Democracy or us? My impression of that war involves the taking of territory and the subsequent surrendering of it, for no logical reason. It also seems as though their were many more war crimes committed then as opposed other wars. I can't really say weather either statement is fair or accurate, just my weak understanding of it. I hope that things turn out differently. An Arab Democracy would be such a tremendous gift to give to the future.

[jjwq8]

Howard,
I do not castigate Fawaz Turki for having the chutzpah to "radically" change his mind. I castigate him for be "radically" wrong in his revisionist position. I do not know his previous arguments or position, but I fundamnetally disagree with his current posistion.

Steven,
Many moons ago the then Baathist Foreign Minister of Iraq (not Tareq Aziz) reminded the Kuwaitis that America would not always be Kuwaits friend but Iraq would always be their neighbour.

That is sadly the difference between thinking and policies tailored to the imperitive of quadrennial elections, and the far longer term view that the Arabs and appaently most of the rest of the world adopt.

Killing Americans, service personnel and civilians is wrong. Killing Iraqi service personnel and civilians is equally wrong.

Moslems from all over the world are NOT conspiring to kill Americans. A very very few individuals with extremely twisted agendas are. These indiviuals are a largely cross denominational crew they are NOT solely Moslem, though you would never know from the media.

Iraq has no recent history of either sponsoring or harboring terrorist groups. Under Saddam the only "terrorists" in Iraq were the Kurdish Peshmurga and they were fighting Saddam. The PFLP-GC were head-quartered in Baghdad on the strict understanding that they restricted themselves to political statements only. Saddam would not soon forget what the Israelis did to the Ozirak Power Station and he was genuinely in awe of their military ability and the length of their arm. Saddam really understood the application of might.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities the Baathist were jumping through hoops to find out what the US administration wanted. How much of the pie the oil majors wanted. This I know from one of their intermediaries who is a very close personal friend.

As is now patently obvious, Iraq did not possess the wherewithal to actually threaten or impose their will upon anyone. A real paper tiger.

If the US did put itself in harms way then you wouldn't be in a position to be targets. September 11 was wrong. Deciding that areas of the globe should be turned into glass parking lots by way of compensation is frankly imbecilic.

Sorry if this offends, but 9-11 brought home to America what the rest of the world lives with on a daily basis.

the application of might simply because you possess the means to deliver it anywhere in the world simply proves that on a far larger scale, the US adminstration has the ability and intent to act like Bin Laden and his cohorts.

[John Bridge]

Steve,

Again, I'm loathe to remove this converstation from the events taking place in Iraq, but just briefly . . . :)

The Vietnamese had no concept of democracy either in the north or in the south. In fact, they had had very little experience with self-rule. Their history is one of near total domination by outside forces.

It was largely a civil war. When the French tucked their tail and ran, it left a vacuum that the U.S. felt should be filled. The French were colonialists afterall and the U.S. was not. The only perceived difference between the French and the Americans was the fact there are more of us, and we have much more money to spend.

We took no territory in Vietnam. We occupied a number of base camps. We never controlled any real estate, not even Saigon.

We installed a puppet government in South Vietnam that was viewed as corrupt, and that appears to be what we are doing in Iraq. If we simply want to depose Saddam, we should hunt his ass down, do away with him and get the hell out. Let some Arab country come in and straighten the place up if they want to.

Democracy? The people and their leaders have to want it. It's never survived in any other climate. They don't want it.

[Steven Hauser]

Jeremy,

Thanks for your insight.

Again I refer to the here and now. Truly imbecilic is to continue to kill a few hundred American service personnel, Red Cross personnel, and the vaunted UN personnel.

Justification of tyranny and comparisions to the US are frankly trite.

The area of operation I am drawing comparison to starts in Saudi Arabia and extends to Jordan and Egypt. Every country in between could do better on policing its own people justly.

Let's you and I never forget where this actually started and why the UK is such a good friend to us during this conflict.

Lastly, remember if the paper tiger had declared without prejudice or deceit what the country's capabilities were we would not be there. In Afghanistan the same argument could be made for the Taliban.

To the world that thinks US policy is mad, they should stop and consider living under the threat that was 9-11 to us is mad and not necessary.

Again, I predicate my parking lot analogy with the statement that the region should make sure that American personnel are not killed and I believe American personnel would withdraw. Continue killing American personnel and it becomes politically necessary to thwart all aspects of resistance.
Steven

[jjwq8]

Steven, where and when did this start? 9-11? I don't think so. If we are going to analyze this then it probably goes back to a bomb thrown into an open carriage killing a head of state and precipitating World War I. Modern Europe, Modern Middle East, indeed I suppose Modern World resulted for good or bad.
Had the paper tiger made the declaration then he would have signed his own death warrant.
the only reason he remained in power was the threat and actual application of devasting revenge.
Despots don't have much of a record for honesty or grace under pressure.
Like it or not, Iraq requires a dictator. If a benign one can be found then fine. Else a strongman.
You mean to tell me that the UN, CIA, NSC, KGB , whatever they are called these days, MI5, MI6, The French, The Germans, The Israelis, hell the Chinese, collectivbely had no idea what was in Iraq and what was not? What the hell are your tax dollars buying?

Weapons of mass destruction? OK. Lets rid the region of such things. Step up Mr. Sharon. Could you please declare how many bombs you possess, where they are and when we will be invited in to neutralize them, Oh, and can you please destroy any and all dual use facilities?

As to democratic Iraq.

Give the Kurds their collective head. That puts them in charge of the head waters of all the fresh water into the Fertile Crescent in the south and Anatolia in the north. Kurds are fine people. It also gives them a great deal of oil, with which to purchase more weapons to continue their various vendettas. It was their pogrom against the Christians in Southern Turkey and Northern Iraq in the Early twenties that one Adolf H modelled his later, equally successful versions upon.

Like it or not, Islam and politics are inseparable. Kiss goodbye to Southern Iraq. It will not become part of Iran but it will be a Shiite theocracy.

And before I get I told you so's. It is Sunni Islam that breeds the crazies, not Shiism. They are far too busy flogging themselves with chains and blades during Ashura.

It may be trite to make comparisons. It does not make the comparison wrong. Maybe stretching the the context way thin but not necessarily wrong.

[Steven Hauser]

Jeremy,

I do not wish to insult you or your family.

I think you are correct that it started much earlier based upon the colonial system in place and the way the withdrawal redrew territory.

Our tax dollars may provide us quite a bit of information. What information we may actually use and what strengths we actually divulge is another story.

Israel is probably another thread.

I don't know why you would think that the Sunni's are any crazier than the Shiites to the western world.

I don't profess to know much about Islamic theology or whether theocratic rule is good or necessary. I have observed atrocities committed by each group.

You make the statement of absolute need for dictators benign or not. Let’s take Saudi Arabia for example, it is ruled under sharia and its monarchy seems pretty dictatorial. It appears to be under attack as well.

I will not engage you on the level of theological differences with Islam; I don't have the knowledge.

I would love to expound on the late 19th and early 20th century as relating to the borders that exist today in the region. I think that is another thread though.

I will say this though, socially and economically, the region has been shifting since the mid 20th century. There are great social and economic disparities created within countries ruled by sharia.
This produces your bin Ladens of the world. Disaffected youths with oil money and Islamic philosophy degrees too proud to do certain work and too unskilled to do other types of jobs.

I was wrong to say trite in comparing our cultures, it completely wrong to compare our cultures. Speaking as an American citizen, do you have any comprehension of how many different people, with different religions, different ideals, different ethnic backgrounds coexist in our borders? We generally can control our population with our ideals of freedom, justice, and the American way.

With the ability to deliver mass destruction comes responsibility. My country is generally very responsible with its might. We use it as a deterrent. If a country is not deterred what would you have us do? Fight by international consensus? That can’t happen. Too many individual agendas that don’t have our best interest at heart.


Back to you,

Steven
;)

[Hobbit]

I love the communication that is occuring here. I want to make a couple of comments, based on what has been said in this thread.

Once again, I find myself coming down on the side of reason. I do not contend that I am correct, or that I have the answers to the problems in the region. I can and do change my mind when my premises are proven wrong or other thoughts dictate the change.

Jeremy...I am certain that you have considerable knowledge about the political and geo-political forces at play in the area. But, I refuse to argue with you about what you think you know, or what your heart tells you, or your personal beliefs. Some of your perceptions might be right, but............

I am not certain how many of you have any real knowledge of Vietnam, the history of U.S. involvement, or the realities of the war itself. I do. I suspect that JB may have been there as well. I missed the early part, but my history with it includes the latter part of the Tet offensive in '68. Anyone who claims any insight into Vietnam better have been there......and have a hell of a lot more (and better) information than I have.

Finally, I don't contend that everything Fawaz Turki wrote in that article is correct. What is important is that there is some evidence that some individuals in influential positions are at last acknowledging that there may be more than one side to the argument. They are allowing for the possibility that they might be wrong and that someone else could be right.

We don't need any more people on either side of this issue with their heads up and locked. What is needed is some individuals on both sides who realize that the truth is not self evident and who are willing to say so. Fawaz Turki may be wrong but he is at least allowing for that possibility. That is what a reasoned response is....and I applaud him for making the effort.

Like I said, I refuse to take a stance that will not allow me to change my mind. I can be convinced. How about you?????

:)

[jjwq8]

Howard, Steven, John et al.

I apologize for my inability to exercize reason in discussing Iraq. For me it isn't simply a tv image. It is next door, it involves my family, it involves their heritage. In 1991 M lost one of her uncles who died of a heart attack during an allied air raid. The family house is next to the Republican Palace in Baghdad. The lack of security and peace is the direct result of the removal of the Baathists. It simply isn't acceptable to rid yourselves of one tyranny to replace it with the tyranny of anarchy. It certainly isn't acceptable to rationalize this situation in White House Briefings by saying that such situations are the inevitible result of regime change. Plenty of planning went into the military campaign. As leader of the free world it is absolutely incumbent upon the US to ensure that its actions do not exacerbate an already evil situation. Peace and security are equally important, probably more so to the indigenous population, than the military campaign that pecedes them. To try simply to wing it is not a tenable position.

Fawaz Turki is one pundit who has had a change of mind. Frankly if every single pundit in the world were collected in one place on Earth and melted down, the result wouldn't equate to a pint of piss. Pundits do not shape Government policy. They barely influence public opinion.

Howard, I am wrong, I do not know anything about Vietnam, do not profess to. My reference to it is to remind you if any were necessary, that intervention overseas can be very costly and ultimately unwinnable unless you intend to purge the country you are liberating of any and all dissent.

It is Vetereans Day. I am humbled and in awe of the sacrifices that all service personnel make, whatever flag they serve. They are serving the good of their own country, and on occassion the greater common good. I wonder however how many of them sleep peacefully at night.

[Steven Hauser]

Howard,

Thanks for believing in reason.

If my neck appears stiff it ain't.

Remember that I am a poor southern boy trying to make it in the big wide world.

:D

Best to all,

Steven

[jjwq8]

Steven just re-read your response.
I do hope I'm wrong because you appear to label all Moslems as "crazies to the western world".
You also note that the USA probably contains the greatest agglomeration of practicing divergent religions.
There are western moslems. are they not crazy by dint of geographic location?
The shoe bomber was a brit convert. No nutter?
The condition of the US is incomparable with any other country on earth. Your diversity of faith and the constitutional right to freedom to practice whatever flavour of theology you subscribe to cannot prepare you for the culture shock that even the most liberal person experiences when visiting or living in an environment outside the US.
Either you absorb and learn or you close yourself off to it and become a bigot.
Being trully enlightened I am both :D
My bigotry is my family. They are both Christian and to date Sunni Moslem. I share deep and affectionate friendships with Hindus, Buddhists a Shintoist (?) or two and a surprising number of Shiite Moslems. None of these people are "crazies" at least not by my standards, which are suspect at best.
There are 1,400 million Moslems worldwide. If there are 1,000 "crazies" hell bent on killing Americans it is an incredibly small percentage.
I would wager that within the US borders on this very day there are within your own borders probably more Americans hell bent on killing Americans than there are "Islamic crazies"

[Hobbit]

Jeremy....No apology is necessary......As we have mentioned here on several occasions, everyone is a product of their environment. It affects our daily lives and ultimately the way we do our daily business. I only encourage everyone to think with their minds, not their hearts. It is important to have both, but these situations rquire an understanding that is deep and broad. Our hearts won't let us see beyond our circle.

Your points are well made and could be representative of the thoughts of many people in the region. I agree that anarchy is unacceptable.

I will, however, disagree with your assessment of the power of a free and unfettered press. It is one of our "rights" in this country. And not only do the pundits exercise a great deal of influence over public opinion, they also influence government actions both directly and indirectly through public opinion.

Unsure about this????? Ask Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. (And many others!!);)

Steven...As with Jeremy, no disrespect intended. I am greatly encouraged and humbled every day by the breadth of knowledge on this forum. No geographical portion of this country or this world holds a monopoly on critical thought; nor do any of their occupants. Thank goodness!!:)

:):)

[Steven Hauser]

Hi Jeremy :),

You are an interesting individual to me. I do mean that as a positive based comment.

:confused: You said " I do hope I'm wrong because you appear to label all Moslems as "crazies to the western world".

I actually said " I don't know why you would think that the Sunni's are any crazier than the Shiites to the western world."

Yes I think that there are some fundamental tenets of Islam that I don't understand. I shall eliminate the rest of western civilization from my post as of now.:x:

I shall start with with Abu al-Abbas. He started out as a Shiite and since most of his subjects were Sunnis he became a Sunni.

Then he "...ruthlessly eliminated the individuals who had helped him gain office (Shiites), dispatching them with ingenious cruelty. Abu Muslim, his military commander, was hacked to pieces when he came to speak to the caliph, and his head was thrown to his supporters outside. The Persian general who had slaughtered the Umayyads at his banquet later made the mistake of trying to make himself caliph, and was imprisoned. Seven years later they released him, and led him with great pomp to a house built just for him. Unknown to him, the house had foundations made of salt, which dissolved slightly every time it rained. One day the house crashed down on the unsuspecting would-be caliph, becoming his tomb."



What about your statement"It is Sunni Islam that breeds the crazies, not Shiism. They are far too busy flogging themselves with chains and blades during Ashura."

What about your other statement about the Kurds"It was their pogrom against the Christians in Southern Turkey and Northern Iraq in the Early twenties that one Adolf H modelled his later, equally successful versions upon."

What do you see now? 1000 ?



Steven

[jjwq8]

Howard, interesting perception. Nixon was a petty crook brought down by investigative reporting, not of itself punditry per se but the pursuit of truth.
Clinton? served his maximum two terms and despite or because of his personal foibles appeared to run a reasonably successful presidency. Controversial certainly, but did the controversy influence his policies? Did he form his opinion of the middle east whilst Monica, a jew I believe, was ministering to him beneath the oval office desk?

Steven.
Do not confuse ritual with unsoundness of mind. Ashura involves self flagellation by shiites for their forefathers failing to protect the prophet's grandson. It is as much a celebration of a life that might have been as a collective mea culpa. It is perhaps interesting and perhaps refreshing, that they choose to blame themselves rather than, as seems most prevelent today, external forces.
The Kurds pose no direct threat to the West. Their beefs are with the administrations of the countries who as they see it refuse to grant them their inalienable rights. The threat to the west may arise if they are successful, but whatever happens, they need a market for their products so presumably market forces will govern.

Also Steven, you cite a couple of incidents from Islams "enlightened" past. Check out Christian history, the Spanish Inquisition for example. Brutality is not the preserve of "foreign devils" although I suppose I might classify spanish as such :)
The Brits had a passion for separating the body parts for those found guilty of catholicism. Priests were buchered willy nilly.

I still see perhaps 1,000 nutters. CNN last night noted that of the 5,000 suspects currently in custody in Iraq, 20 were thought to be Al Qaeda, but after thorough invetsigation, no tangible proof could be found that they held any such affiliations.

The premise for kicking the shit out of Iraq is looking thinner and thinner.

[John Bridge]

I don't think you had to have been in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive to understand the forces that were at work there. I may be speaking from within because I was there during that period. To me it marks a military turning point in the war more than a psychological one, but the psychology is there too. :)

Aside from the political parallels between Nam and Iraq, the religious aspects are there as well. In Vietnam, Bhudists burned themselves in public to protest the Catholic government, for example. These public displays proved very effective in shaping public perceptions.

Overall, though, it was a purely political operation with little to do with religion. I think it's that way in Iraq also. If we remain there long enough, the various religious factions will unite against us.

[jjwq8]

Too late John,
They are probably united against the US already just that at the moment they are still giving you the benefit of the doubt and are high on the pheromones generated by liberation.

[Steven Hauser]

Hi Jeremy,

I don't know what to do with you. Typically you are so lucid and insightful that I have to really think how to respond. It is great and a real honor to discuss things with you.

Not this time though, you are too emotional to see the simple logic trails I am leaving.

I throw you things you said and you come back with your history is ugly too. Well no shit Sherlock!

If you don't see red yet then hear me out. You say you are married to a Christian living in Kuwait. Well the sins of the fathers should not be visited on the children.

Psychologically, Self mutilation is unhealthy. Physically it is unsound.

Current diatribes made all over the Islamic world leads me to believe that the "enlightened past" is currently taking place.

Further, You talk about anarchy, why don't the people try and control their compadres. Why not make attempts at unity and self control?

About Saddam, I don't know why anybody who callously killed and murdered so many people would not be despised. Explain it to me.

Finally, please revert back to your objective stance or just tell me to piss off.

Steven

[jjwq8]

Steven,

Not my position or intent to give the directives you suggest:D

My concern is that you appear, I repeat appear, to be falling into the trap of labelling all moslems bogie men.

I make no secret that this is a most emotional subject for me. However, since I have just had a decent night's sleep, I may be able to rein my comments in somewhat.

Saddam is not universally despised because of Iraq's history. I suppose I might also suggest that it is a history of modern man.

Iraq was the first place on earth to be urbanized. There are contemporary records dating back thousands of years that confirm that the urban population were happy to accept any leader that essentially left them alone and did not over tax them, the "Englishmans home as castle" originated in Iraq. It would further appear that much of what is considered modern politics first arose there. Keep the indingenous population quiescent by threatening them with foreign bogie men.

As a result, the urban Iraqi has developed over those thousands of years, a character trait that allows them to accept what you and I deem intolerable simply because they are kept comfortable within the limits of their own world.

Importantly however, the leader must be Iraqi. The Iraqis gave the Turks a torrid time during their occupation. They very quickly dispatched a Monarch subsequently imposed by the Brits, not because he was essentially bad, but because he was essentially Jordanian.

That said however, and not because of M's heritage, Iraqis are the warmest and most generous of any of the Arabs, who are most generous by nature. They are also the most likely to settle arguments by force. It is said that the fastest way to start another middle east war is to place three Iraqis in a room together.

They are hot headed. Once you gain their trust they will happily give you their souls. Cross them however and they are unforgiving. Period.

Before he departed office, Saddam made sure that every Iraqi capable of using one was given a gun. Whether they elect to use it or not is a different issue. The point is that there are elements happy to shoot first and ask questions later. Witness the recent incident when unarmed Iraqi police were gunned down on a Baghdad street in front of the cameras.

Under the Baathist and every other regime that preceeded it the imperitive of internal security was taken care of by a government agency. Self policing was never a concept because vox populi had no say in the matter. The Government agencies responsible for all such matters answered to the Goverment (autocrat, dictator, tyrant) not the people.

To expect the Iraqi people to suddenly leap into the void left by the collapse of a mode of government to which they have never experienced alternative is a jump too far.

then you have to remember that Iraq has a fine record of academic excellence. It has been a center of learning for millenia.
Written law originated there. Hamourabi's Code. Many of the principles refining modern mathematics first saw the light of day there. Baghdad has been a centre of artistic culture for as long as it has existed.

Say what you like, but Saddams nuclear (and other questionable) programmes were the result of indigenous thought and research. What I am getting at is that Iraq is not an uneducated back-water incapable of producing a cadre capable of self-rule without the guiding hand of Paul Bremer.

Iraq will find an alternate to Saddam, but the alternate will not be the one that best suits US or any other foreign interest. To succeed it must first suit Iraqs interests. Nothing that creates the potential for the disintegration of the country will be accepeted.

As to Islam.

It is not a faith to which I subscribe. I can find nothing in it that makes it better than the Christianity I fail to practice.
My principal objection to it is the belief that God is to be feared and respected. I prefer the tenet that God is love. I also cannot accept that faith, any faith, is beyond reasonable criticism.

If you can find the time look into the very roots of the religion. Read up on an excommunicated Christian priest called Bu Heira. He was the teacher and mentor of a very young Mohammed. It is for this reason that Islam and Christianity share so much theology. It is also the reason that there are so many arguments between proponents of each.

When challenged I like to quote there own religious text at Moslems to prove the basic inplausibility or there position. I like to prove that Mohammed was a dummy. Simply, Christian and Islamic thought both hold that God is omnipotent, is capable of anything, with a snap of his fingers he can make it so.

With all this power at his finger-tips, it still took God years to teach the Koran to Mohammed.

[Steven Hauser]

Hi Jeremy,

I like it when you get a good nights rest.:)

Hmmm.. I really don't have anything to add to your comments.

I don't think that I believe that all moslems are bogiemen. I do say that I research things before I express an opinion.

I believe your concern of appearance starts with my response to your post of V I E T N A M.

I feel compelled to explain. You set up a scenario that shows how we could lose our will to succeed in Iraq.

John and Howard agreed to a point.

I have spent most of my life developing, implementing, and directing strategies to succeed with a stated goal.

The way I understood the equation was how do we win. The answer was to not flinch and turn the areas into a parking lot.

You confirm why when you describe Iraqi's and humanity. The will to resist will always be there. The intellect, history,and passion you speak of are not contested.

Those are the very reasons why I answered the question the way I did.

Now, The next logical question would be is there any other way? That answer is far murkier and open to debate.

The country must choose their own constitution and leaders. They must be representative of all people in the country. The South can not secede. The Northwest can not be be separate. The people must be able to get into a room and commit to something other than genocide.

I did not claim to have the answers.

To Islam, your answers are dangerously close to mine.:D

I can't find boo about Bu. Do you have any ideas?

Oh, it was terribly presumptious of me to chastise you I apologize. Frankly I was going to delete the post but decided against it. I thought John would like to see me make an ass out of myself.

Thanks, Steven

[jjwq8]

Careful Steven,

When you admit to being a bozo in public you are treading perilously close to turf I consider my sole preserve. :shades:

Bu Heira is deeply buried fact of Islamic life. The texts detailing the early life of Mo and Bu are incarcertaed in a coptic monastery in Sinai. Come to think of it there may be no english texts. There is an american evangelist who delights in debating moslem scholars and I know he has made reference to Bu so perhaps there are tracts available. I shall do some serious googling and let let you know.

[John Bridge]

Nobody has any sort of proprietary claim on making an ass of himself in public. I consider it my right to do so. It's right up there with life, liberty and hapiness. :D

[jjwq8]

Yeah but John, you're in Texas, who the hell is going to notice? :D

[John Bridge]

You've been here. :D

[jjwq8]

Nope, but I have experience of some of your finest ambassadors :D

[John Bridge]

Come to think of it, I'll bet you've met a lot of the people I have. A good percentage of the Houston population is either over there, is heading over, or has been there. ;)

[jjwq8]

YEP,
J. R.
Miss Ellie.
Jeb Clampett,
Everone!
:D :nod: :D

[Mike2]

So Jeremy, now that the Rat's been dug up, what's public sentiment like where you are?

CNN's been hyping this up big time. Last night it was selected Arab interview spots leading us down the path where...... even tho the Arabs agree he was a Rat, he was an Arab leader & is currently an Arab hero; many Arab's think it's an ugly American propaganda scheme showing Sadam is such a disheveled state, and especially demeaning showing him receiving a medical exam by a American doctor; and finally, the reason he looks so disoriented is that "we" drugged him before putting him on camera. So that was the CNN pitch from Atlanta's Left Bank. What you see, hear jjwq8?

[jjwq8]

Does this answer your question?

[Mike2]

...yes it sure does. Guess that's a rap. :drevil:

[jjwq8]

Latest rumour hereabouts that seriously tickled me.
Saddam is to be given plastic surgery, a new name and bio and installed as the new leader of Democratic Iraq :D :D :D

You know that may just happen too :yeah: