Fundamentalism (General)
Carl and I have agreed to move on from the subject of Islam, and I would like to broaden the discussion. - We are all appalled by acts of terrorism, in which innocent people are the victims of bloody assaults. 9/11 has made an indelible mark on world history. Bush (or his speech writer) used the expression "axis of evil". We condemn the fundamentalists for their pitiless campaigns to destroy the fabric of our society and to impose their values on us. - I wonder, though, if we are equally appalled by the fact that this is precisely what the West has been doing for centuries. One might begin with the Crusades and finish with Iraq.
Fundamentalism
I've only just become aware of your interesting website, so it may be that someone else has already made the points I would like to make. You say the fundamentalists are out to impose their values on us, and we I the west have been doing the same for centuries, beginning with the crusades and finishing with Iraq. I agree about the crusades, but I dont think its been quite the same after that. The terrorists are motivated by religous fanaticism, whereas the west, and especially Britain and America, are motivated by greed. Iraq was not invaded to spread Christianity, even if Bush and Blair do call themselves Christians. They want the oil. In former times the British grabbed bits of Africa and Asia so they could exploit them. The missionaries were just an excuse to give their greed a religious respectability. The Muslim suicide bombers must really believe they will go to paradise because they are defending the true faith. I think the British and American imperialists are driven by more earthy motives. - In the review, you mentioned the Arab-Israel conflict. The west is always preaching about democracy, but in January 2006 Hamas won a democratic election and the west not only refused to recognize their goverment but actively worked to bring it down. I'm not anti-Jewish, but I don't see how Israel can ever hope for peace if it goes on oppressing the Palestinians and the west refuses to put pressure on them to negotiate with the people they are oppressing. If a democratically elected government represnting the majority is forced out of power, what other course do they have open to them except terrorism?
Fundamentalism
by David Turell 
, Friday, October 31, 2008, 15:39 (5865 days ago) @ Walter
In the review, you mentioned the Arab-Israel conflict. The west is always preaching about democracy, but in January 2006 Hamas won a democratic election and the west not only refused to recognize their goverment but actively worked to bring it down. I'm not anti-Jewish, but I don't see how Israel can ever hope for peace if it goes on oppressing the Palestinians and the west refuses to put pressure on them to negotiate with the people they are oppressing. - Walter: Welcome. Your comment about the Arab-Israel conflict is much too simplistic. It would take a 300 page book to explain where we are now. Just remember that the UN division of "Palestine" in 1947 recognized duly purchased areas of the British colony by Zionists. In 1948 5 Arab nations attacked and were defeated. 750,000 "Palestinians" were told by the other Arab countries to flee during that conflict, and they were promised to be returned after the Arab 'victory'. After the '48 war the displaced Arabs were not allowed to emigrate into the other Arab countries, except into Jordan (which originally was "Trans-Jordan", that part of Palestine across the Jordan River) and the rest got sequestered in the Gaza Strip (5x10 miles roughly) and after more wars (started by Arabs) also sequestered in a shrunken West Bank. Somewhat reluctantly Egypt and Jordan made a sort-of peace with Israel, recognizing practicalities. Lebanon is still too weakened by Syrian machinations to be a factor, but Syria and Iran have never given up on their idea of simply driving the Jews into the sea. - Against that background, remember that Arafat was always a terrorist and never could be trusted. Once he was gone, the Bush foreign policy was absolutely chaotic as you suggest. If the Arab League would all get together and promise to accept Israel in perpetuity, then the two Arab parts of Israel could be their own country or become contiguous regions of Jordan and Egypt, but both those coutries have never shown interest in doing that. - Please keep in mind that no native Arab country is a democracy. There are kingdoms or dictatorships everywhere. Since Arabs were either colonized by Europe or ruled by the Turkish Empire for hundreds of years, there is little education in Democracy and it will take a generation or two to develop it, with much resistance from the Saudis and the Wahabi sect.
Fundamentalism
Thank you to David Turell and dhw for replying to my comments. David, you say my comment is much too simplistic, but with respect I have to say your historical account is downright onesided. It makes it sound as if the situation is all the fault of the Arabs. You say the UN division of Palestine in 1947 recognized duly purchased areas of the British colony for Zionists. If you are going to accept the authority of the UN for that, you will have to accept the authority of the UN when it passes resolutions condemning Israel's agression and building of illegal settlements in occupied territories, and calling on Israel to withdraw from those territories. Log onto http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html for more details. And in case your wondering, that is a website run by American Jews Against the Occupation based in New York. Israel only recognizes those resolutions that favour it, and the Americans simply back them up whatever. They also refuse to contemplate the return of Arab refugees, many of whom live in appalling conditions. You say that after the 1948 war they got "sequestered" in the Gaza Strip and later on the West Bank. Sequestered is a nice sounding word. Thousands of Arabs were driven from their homes by the Israelis. Fancy words won't alter the dire truth. - You say it will take a generation or two for the Arabs to develop democracy. But your ignoring the fact that they voted democratically for Hamas, and the west said no. So the western way of democracy is to say go ahead and vote, but you can only vote the government we want. - I want to stress that I'm not anti-Jewish. Nor are the Jews in New York. Nor are my Jewish friends who live in Israel and want a peaceful solution that will be fair to the Palestinians. The Arabs must recognize Israel's right to exist, and they must mean it. But Israel holds all the trump cards, and the west and especially the States must push for concessions instead of supporting the status quo. - Dwh, I have read what you wrote on 23 September. I agree completely and I like your conclusion: "Recognition of shared human dignity, with the relief of poverty and suffering and an open road to happiness, is the only solution."
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Sunday, November 02, 2008, 04:37 (5864 days ago) @ Walter
edited by unknown, Sunday, November 02, 2008, 04:46
You say the UN division of Palestine in 1947 recognized duly purchased areas of the British colony for Zionists. If you are going to accept the authority of the UN for that, you will have to accept the authority of the UN when it passes resolutions condemning Israel's agression in appalling conditions. You say that after the 1948 war they got "sequestered" in the Gaza Strip. >The Arabs must recognize Israel's right to exist, and they must mean it. - I agree only with the last sentence of your entry. The Arab nations were aggressors in 1948, 1967 and in 1973. Only Jordan and Egypt have accepted a "peace" of sorts with Israel. Granted Israel joined with Britain and France in the Suez crisis, but Britain and France should have known better. All were wrong. After 1948, should Israel accepted back the 750,000 Arabs who fled at the urging of the other Arabs? Of course not. A 3/4 million fifth column in your country. Don't be crazy. Think about it. - The Israelis took the Golan in two hours in self-defense. If you lived in the valleys below the Golan Heights (Arid hills) would you have tolerated the regular bombardments of settlements in Israel? The stupidity of the Syrians is laughable. Read "Our Man in Demascus" for the real story: Ari Cohen infiltrated the Syrian parliment and comvinced them to put shading trees over the two lines of dugouts and trenches to shade the troops!! He died for his efforts. They should keep the Golan (which is a worthless arid string of hills) until there is an absolute guarantee of peace with Syria. With Hezbollah irritating Israel from Lebanon, fat chance. - And for 'sequestered', perhaps you will accept "diplomatically imprisioned". No Arab country will accept those Gaza Arabs. They keep them in the strip to irritate Israel. - If I were Israel I'd tell Egypt you've got one year to provide an infrastructure for Gaza. Then I'd cut off all communication with the strip and build an impenetrable border fence and give up all control. I'd do the same with the West Bank and Jordan. - Asd for the UN it has become a corrupt and fraudulent disaster. Read Volker's reports. He is trustworthy. I don't care what they do now. Only WHO and Unicef are worth anything. Their 'peacekeeping' in Africa is laughable. It is a money transfer system to placate third world countries, most of whom are not civilized enough to run their own affairs without fraud. - If you want a Sabra's viewpoint read www.yonitheblogger.com He is a real Israeli. - And as for NY Jews, they are emotional liberals, not clear-thinking intellectuals. Give me Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, any time. Some of us Jews can really think clearly.
Fundamentalism
I'm afraid it's the people who you call clear-thinking intellectuals who will not only perpetuate the Palestinian tragedy but will continue to make it worse. Oppression creates nothing but resentment. If people have no hope for the future, they turn to the fundamentalists. Thats why Hamas won the election. Its the fundamentalists who are prepared to give them help and some sort of hope. Your solution is presumably to eradcate the fundamentalists, but the more you try, the more of them you create. Your socalled clear thinking creates a spiral of violence. - Why do you talk of emotional liberals? Does emotion have no part to play in human relations? Or do you think politics has nothing top do with human relations? Or with relief of suffering? Or with a fair society? And is it emotional to argue that starving people will fight you for food, so its better for you to give them food than starve them? - The liberals are not arguing against Israel's security. The Arab world must unite to recognize Israel and to provide safeguards. That's essential. But Israel and it's western backers must recognize the human tragedy of the Palestinian Arabs and must give them hope for their future. Your yonitheblogger seems quite happy to let the war continue rather than make any concessions. If you see him as a "real Israeli", how do you believe the Palestinian tragedy will end? And how would you like it to end?
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Monday, November 03, 2008, 00:17 (5863 days ago) @ Walter
Oppression creates nothing but resentment. If people have no hope for the future, they turn to the fundamentalists. > > Why do you talk of emotional liberals? Does emotion have no part to play in human relations? > > The Arab world must unite to recognize Israel and to provide safeguards. That's essential. If you see him [ Yoni] as a "real Israeli", how do you believe the Palestinian tragedy will end? And how would you like it to end? - I'll answer your comments one at a time: Your comment on oppression is absolutely correct. Bush asks for 'democratic elections' and up pops Hamas. What did he expect. Stupid foreign policy. - Liberals act primarily on emotion. I remember my thinking as a child and young adult from New York. By age 40 I gradually became very conservative, probably libertarian in many ways. Emotion gets in the way of logic and reason. As a physician (Internist/Cardiologist doing primary care) I had to analyize my feelings about each patient. Neutral, no problem; liked them as a friend, required more thought as to my decisions; dislike the patient and send them elsewhere so their care might be better maintained. Of course I am emotional, but I've had to recognize it, and as I apply logic to my political thinking an avoidance of emotion is necessary. Problem solving must be logical and rational. An overlay of emotion will color any decision, perhaps inappropriately. Note I said perhaps, because despite emotion a correct decision can be made if emotion is felt and accounted for. - The Arabs must guarantee Israel perpetual safety. Who will enforce the agreement? The UN? Don't make me laugh. The Blue Helmets are worth nothing in Africa. Only the USA and China are strong militarily. The Chinese won't care. Yoni is a Sabra, born in Israel and fought for them. If your little country is repeatedly attacked and/or threatened, how would you feel? - What do I like to end the mess: The Palestinians are pawns in a diplomatic game. You have not commented on why they are trapped in Gaza and the West Bank. The first step is open emigration to anywhere in the Arab World. Can't do it now. Second step is the peace guarantee reinforced by the 'great powers' USA, UK, France, Germany, and Russia. Third, Israel gives up Gaza and most of the West Bank. Fourth, the Old city of Jeruselem is declared an international city and modern cosmopolitan Jeruselem is the Israeli Capital.
Fundamentalism
We seem to be a lot closer in our thinking than I thought we were! Thank you for a really interesting post. But I will do the same as you, and go through it point by point. - You cannot say one moment that it will take the Arabs a generation or two to develop democracy, and then say Bush was stupid to ask for democratic elections because the Palestinians voted for Hamas. Democracy in Arab nations should not mean voting for what the Americans want. On the other hand, its clear that if progress is to be made, any democatically elected Palestinian goverment must renounce any intent to wipe out Israel and must be prepared for genuine negotiation. - What you say about emotion makes very good sense. The point I was making though is that political thinking should include human compassion. In fact, I think it should be based on human compassion. That doesn't mean throwing caution to the winds. I've stressed all along that Israel must have safeguards. But it does mean not treating the Arabs as some kind of subspecies. I don't think we disagree on this though. - I really like most of the rest of what you say. I agree that the Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank are being used as political pawns. But I think you oversimplify the game when you suggest open emigration to anywhere in the Arab World. The latest UNRWA figures give the number of Palestinian refugees as 4.6 million, and just as its totally unreasonable for the Arab world to expect Israel to give them the "right of return", its unreasonable to ask the Arab countries simply to open their doors. This is a human catastrophe on a vast scale. The only solution I see is for the west and the richer Arab countries (like Saudi Arabia) to pour money into those countries (like Jordan) that have shown themselves willing to accomodate the refugees, and to offer huge inducements to others to do the same, to build up their infrastructure and alleviate the poverty and suffering. Your second, third and fourth steps (the 'great powers' enforcing a peace guarantee, though this would have to work both ways, Israel giving up Gaza and the West Bank and declaring Old Jerusalem an international city) in my view would create a good basis for settlement. I notice you said "most of the West Bank", and obviously there are disputed territories with illegal settlements which will need to be sorted out. But these would not in my view be a sticking point to compare with the refugee problem and the status of Jerusalem.
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Monday, November 03, 2008, 15:55 (5862 days ago) @ Walter
edited by unknown, Monday, November 03, 2008, 16:34
You cannot say one moment that it will take the Arabs a generation or two to develop democracy, and then say Bush was stupid to ask for democratic elections because the Palestinians voted for Hamas. - Yes, we are in closer agreement that you realized. - As a teenager, before the country of Israel, I did an English paper on the problems in the British colony of Palestine. I thought the Zionists were foolish to go there, but where else could they go? Remember Roosevelt would not let in German Jewish refugees (Ship of Fools). Now I know different. The Turkish Empire, ruling thru Sharia Law handled an authoritarian state well. They allowed all regions to be semi-autonomous. As long as all ethnic groups got along, the region stayed productive and paid taxes to the Turks, each region could 'do its own thing'. Actually then a good spot for the Zionists. They bought their land and things remained quite (relatively, that is). - WWI changed all that. Churchill split up the area without regard for ethnicity. The area called Palestine was split into a narrow strip East of the Jordan and Trans-Jordan to the West. The colony of Jordan became a monarchy, (as if by magic) and "Palestine" just a colony. Palestine has never been a sovereign country. - I should have been clearer in my 'two generations' estimate. How long did Europe take to assimilate the "Enlightenment"? I don't think Russia is there yet. All Arab countries are authoritarian now. It takes generations in a population to develop a craving for a democratic government. Two generations may be too short. Bush was trying for instant gratification of his policies, but then he is not a deep thinker.
Fundamentalism
Walter has drawn a distinction between the religious fanaticism of the Muslim suicide bombers and the motivation for western interference in other societies. - Thank you for this, and welcome to the site. Perhaps my post was a bit too elliptical. I wrote that "we condemn the fundamentalists for their pitiless campaigns to destroy the fabric of our society and to impose their values on us", but we have been doing the same thing for centuries. I didn't mean to imply that we were always motivated by religion, and you are absolutely right that greed has been and still is a major factor. So too is fear. I think that during the Communist era, that was a major influence on US foreign policy, and it is clear that 9/11 has triggered a similar backlash. I'm also interested in David's response to your post, in which he says that in Arab countries "there is little education in Democracy and it will take a generation or two to develop it" ... which seems to be based on the questionable assumption that everyone ought to adopt the western system of democracy. In brief, though, I was simply trying to point out that while we so readily (and in my view rightly) condemn the violence of the fundamentalists, we in the west are no less violent in our treatment of those who for whatever reason stand in our way. The Iraq war is a prime example of brutal western interference (though of course that does not vindicate Saddam's own brutality). - As for the Arab-Israel conflict, perhaps I could refer you to my post at 12.56 on 23 September under "Islam".
Fundamentalism
by xris , Monday, November 03, 2008, 20:20 (5862 days ago) @ dhw
We in the west can make mistakes that can be condemned and corrected...Islam can not accept its mistakes because it is written...
Fundamentalism
Xris writes: "We in the west can make mistakes that can be condemned and corrected...Islam can not accept its mistakes because it is written..." - As one of the west's mistakes, I cited the Iraq war. How do you "correct" the loss of civilian life (estimates vary wildly between 90,000 and 650,000 plus), the hundreds of thousands of people injured and orphaned, over 4 million refugees? How do you "correct" the manner in which the west arbitrarily sliced up Africa and Asia (think of the way Pakistan was formed through the partitioning of India) or, as David Turell has pointed out, the Middle East ... massive blunders for which people go on paying, generation after generation? - I share your revulsion at the cruelties of Islam, but the end result is no different from those of non-Islamic regimes. And we must guard against the perils of blanket condemnation. Two articles in yesterday's Guardian embody the extremes: Muslims in Somalia stoned to death a 13-year-old girl for adultery, though her father said she had been raped by three men. The stoning took place in a stadium before a crowd of 1000. This is the horrific side we all condemn. But another article reports on a "centre for deradicalisation" in Saudi Arabia, where "there is a staff of 100 clerics versed in moderate Islam". Despite what you have rightly identified as the textual basis for violence, moderate Islam is not merely possible ... it is a very real force which should be recognized and respected.
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 05, 2008, 00:40 (5861 days ago) @ dhw
As one of the west's mistakes, I cited the Iraq war. How do you "correct" the loss of civilian life (estimates vary wildly between 90,000 and 650,000 plus), the hundreds of thousands of people injured and orphaned, over 4 million refugees? - You have raised a question of international ethics. Should Saddam have been allowed to continue his career of arranging for death? Seven years of fighting with Iran, for what purpose? At what cost in lives, his soldiers and theirs. Killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. The invasion of Kuwait, and the continuing threat of developing the WMD's. If there is a mass killer in a shopping mall do you gun him down, or turn the other cheek and get shot yourself? Are we our brother's keeper? - After WWII we had a UN that had some teeth. But quickly with the addition of a zillion third world countries, we now have a paper tiger. Should a consortum of the most powerful states act as a world policeman? On their own? Or invited? Are individual ethics different than sovereign national ethics? - We are only 8-10,000 years from being savages, not enough time for evolution to calm our brains. The hunter-gatherer society was small groups up to 30-40 individuals gathered together from self protection. We all still have the tendency to live with our own kind, to protect our own kind more, to favor our own kind more. It comes from the h-g stage of civil development. Now societal rules control those terrible individual urges that may appear. This is at the individual level, and it works fairly well, but there is no precedent for a nation level. The League of Nations was a total disaster. I view the UN as not being far behind. - What do we do about Darfur? The civil war in the Congo? Let them fight and wipe themselves out? - I think you are wrong about Iraq. What do you do when you see a rape in progess? Save the lady or run away? I think it is time for the greater powers to police the world when a criminal level of activity is going on. What does everyone else think?
Fundamentalism
I had intended to reply to David Turrell's post on Israel, but I see the discussion has moved onto Iraq. I'm surprised that David supports the war even now, after all the lies have been exposed, not only about WMD and links to terrorism , but also about the run-up to the whole tragedy. I agree with dwh on just about everything, so I wont repeat his arguments, but he has missed out the all-important factor of oil. Theres overwhelming evidence that oil was a major factor behind the invasion right from the start. Bush and Blair lied to us, and who will ever forget the sight of Colin Powell at the UN pointing to a blurred photograph and stating categorcally that it was a site of WMD? - One other point. You say the UN is toothless. One of the reasons why its toothless is that the major powere like the US are only prepared to go along with decisions they like. If the world's most powerful nation flouts the authority of the UN over Iraq, just as Israel ... backed by the US ... flouts UN resolutions over illegal settlements, there's no chance of ANY international organization having teeth. The same applies to all the major powers, of course, but that's no excuse for the US. If you believe in democracy, you can't pick and choose which bits you'll go along with.
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 05, 2008, 16:41 (5860 days ago) @ Walter
One other point. You say the UN is toothless. One of the reasons why its toothless is that the major powere like the US are only prepared to go along with decisions they like. If the world's most powerful nation flouts the authority of the UN over Iraq, just as Israel ... backed by the US ... flouts UN resolutions over illegal settlements, there's no chance of ANY international organization having teeth. The same applies to all the major powers, of course, but that's no excuse for the US. If you believe in democracy, you can't pick and choose which bits you'll go along with. - I agree with you exactly, which is why I raised the issue of nation ethics. Individual person ethics are somewhat controlled by societal rules, and the fear of anarchy if we have full out libertarianism. How do we get to a worldwide set of nation ethics, if we can? My feeling is that our emotional set is still in the hunter-gatherer phase (only 8,000 years ago) and group-think at a national level is still set there. The discomforts within the EU are a good example: they yelled at the Irish being the first to support banks, and now they are all doing it. - As for Iraq: yes, I supported the idea when our troops went in. The post-war handling was atrocious. It seems no one studied how post-war Germany was handled in the 1940's. There were huge resistance groups that were quickly decimated.
Fundamentalism
I find it disturbing that Carl thinks the "most notable" thing about the invasion of Iraq was the incompetence of US leadership, and David supported the invasion but says the "post-war handling was atrocious". It seems that in principle you are both in favour of your government lying to its people and the rest of the world (about WMD and Al-Quaeda), and invading another country in order to get at its oil or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man, so long as its done competently.
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Thursday, November 06, 2008, 17:20 (5859 days ago) @ Walter
I find it disturbing that Carl thinks the "most notable" thing about the invasion of Iraq was the incompetence of US leadership, and David supported the invasion but says the "post-war handling was atrocious". It seems that in principle you are both in favour of your government lying to its people and the rest of the world (about WMD and Al-Quaeda), and invading another country in order to get at its oil or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man, so long as its done competently. - Walter: Although we disagree, you raise a good point. We cannot police the world with the UN. It hasn't worked. We have a society of nations. Should there be rules and policing as in any society to set norms of behavior? We do it at the individual citizen level, but how about the international level? I don't think that will work because each nation has its own national interests that come first. The EU is a great example. This is why I have rasied the issue of just how civilized are we as humans. The hunter-gatherer period is not that long ago for most of us. There is still a kill or be killed, stick with your own kind mentality which underlies every emotional problem. I'd like to hear if you have any answer for this. I don't, except the usual one, keep talking, keep negotiating ,and look what happened to Neville Chamberlain. - As for Carl's comment about oil: 20% of USA oil is self-produced, 60% comes from the Western Hemisphere, and only 20% from the Middle East. That is strong evidence that oil was not the reason.
Fundamentalism
Walter says "I find it disturbing that Carl thinks the "most notable" thing about the invasion of Iraq was the incompetence of US leadership, and David supported the invasion but says the "post-war handling was atrocious". It seems that in principle you are both in favour of your government lying to its people and the rest of the world (about WMD and Al-Quaeda), and invading another country in order to get at its oil or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man, so long as its done competently." I looked back at my post, and I never mentioned oil. I would be surprised if I did, because that is not one of my convictions, though I can see it as a possible ancillary motive. There are two possibilities of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. One is that they honestly believed (with some paranoia) that Saddam was dealing with Al Qaeda and had biological and chemical weapons and a nuclear program with radioactive material. Most of the World believed this because Saddam went to lengths to pretend it was so. Even his own people believed it. The other possibility is that they knew the truth and deliberately deceived the entire world (including Colin Powell) for other motives. There is no doubt that they had a grudge against Saddam they wanted to settle. Remember, Cheney was secretary of defense under Bush I, and would not have been pleased at being orderd to stop his troops at the Kuwait border. If the premise for invasion had been true, that Saddam had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and was dealing with Al Qaeda, I would have approved of the invasion as justified self defense. The fact that the premise was untrue but was acted on could be either deception or incompetence. History will have to judge that. The fact that the entire operation was incompetently administered is beyond question.
Fundamentalism
Both David and Carl have misread my post. I was the one who mentioned oil (which many sources have identfied as a major factor behind the invasion). After that I wrote: "...or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man." Your actual statement was: "It appears the only clear objective of the Bush/Cheney administration was revenge against Saddam." - The argument that Saddam already had WMDs was clearly ridiculous. Ask yourselves if you would attack a country led by a brutal dictator who you thought had WMD which he could launch against you within 45 minutes? The only evidence they had was falsified. The so-called "dodgy dossier" typified the UK government's determnation to go ahead, regardless of the truth. As for Al-Quaeda, there wasn't a shred of evidence for that either. So ask yourselves why they made the claim in the first place? - As regards oil, David says the USA only gets 20% of its oil through the Middle East, which he regards as "strong evidence that oil was not the reason." Its not evidence of anything. Iraq has the world's second largest reserves of oil, behind Saudi Arabia. Do you honestly think your goverment didn't consider that? Are they that naive? Or are you? - Whichever way you look at it, downright lies or gross incompetence on such a scale that it would demand immediate resignation if not prosecution, the invasion was a crime against humanity of gigantic proportions. The American and UK governments were told beforehand that it was illegal (log onto http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm) and they could be charged with war crimes, but they went ahead. And now Bush and Blair ride off heroically into the sunset, leaving a trail of blood behind them.
Fundamentalism
Walter says "And now Bush and Blair ride off heroically into the sunset, leaving a trail of blood behind them." With approval ratings around 25%, rejection by his own party and the label of "incompetent" already applied by historians to his administration, Bush's ride into the sunset is not very heroic. "The argument that Saddam already had WMDs was clearly ridiculous. Ask yourselves if you would attack a country led by a brutal dictator who you thought had WMD which he could launch against you within 45 minutes?" Saddam was believed by the military to have WMD, and the troops were equipped and trained to deal with that. Hey! War is dangerous. Walter has assumed the verdict of history. He may be right.
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Friday, November 07, 2008, 16:51 (5858 days ago) @ Carl
All of this discussion about Iraq still begs the question I raised. We are One World and with world trade the way it is, we are one economic world, suffering thru mutual growth and mutual recession. But how does the world govern itself against rogue nations? Iran, previously Iraq, possibly in the future China and once again, Russia? As Carl says, war is dangerous: it destroys things and kills people. And I still think we are hunter-gatherers under a thin skin of civilization. So far weapons of mass destruction has worked, but that is living on a sword's edge.
Fundamentalism
I'm still unhappy about Carl and David's attitude towards the Iraq catastrophe. Carl only seems to be concerned about the incompetence of the campaign, and David wants to know how we should deal with rogue nations generally. Fair enough subjects, but you just don't seem to be concerned about the ethical implicatons of this war. - Incontrovertable facts: the pretext on which the US went in was that Saddam had WMDs. Al-Quaeda links were thrown in as a sweetener. The UN was opposed to the invasion. International lawyers said it was illegal. Bush and his poodle Blair took no notice and went in all the same. As a result, there are millions of people dead, injured, homeless etc. There were no WMDs. Saddam had no link with Al-Quaeda. - Speculation: either Bush and Blair lied, or they were guilty of incompetence on a scale that beggers belief. - After detailed investigations, Nixon was threatened with impeachment over a burglary and a succession of lies. After detailed investigatons, Clinton was impeached over a couple of sex scandals. After detailed investigations, the head of the BBC was forced to resign over remarks about dossiers being "sexed up". Bush and Blair bring death and chaos to a foreign country. There are no detailed investigations. They get off scot free. (Carl, I used the word "heroically" ironically.) What does this show the rest of the world about western priorities?
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Sunday, November 09, 2008, 01:19 (5857 days ago) @ Walter
Incontrovertable facts: the pretext on which the US went in was that Saddam had WMDs. Al-Quaeda links were thrown in as a sweetener. The UN was opposed to the invasion. International lawyers said it was illegal. Bush and his poodle Blair took no notice and went in all the same. As a result, there are millions of people dead, injured, homeless etc. There were no WMDs. Saddam had no link with Al-Quaeda. - I must beg to differ. The absolute fact that Iraq had no WMD's came to light only after the war started. Saddam, actually to protect his weakened country according to current analysis, boasted continuously of them. There has been some connection with Al-Quaeda demonstrated. It seems to depend on which analysts you read or listen to what the truth is. I tend to believe what I have read. The millions of dead are primarily the fault of Sunni and Shiite resistance groups killing each other and innocent neutral citizens. Saddam killed at will also until he was stopped. - As for the UN, I think you know my opinion. A paper tiger that is mainly a charitable conduit for third world countries. The orgainization itself is riddled with fraud, per Paul Volcker. The World Court and groups of 'international lawyers' have not been unanimously accepted by enough of the world to matter. Texas recently executed a deserving murderer whom the World Court demanded not to be killed. I'm glad Texas did not give up its own sovereignty. Note that in the States, the states have their own right to sovereignty. All Bush could do was ask Texas 'pretty please', which was ignored. - This is why I have raised the issue: we are still hunter-gatherers at heart. Can this group find a better solution?
Fundamentalism
Carl, I am reassured by your agreement that Iraq was a complete disaster, and Bush should be charged with international crimes if he was guilty of deception. I think you are beginning to get the message. But there is still a long way to go. - You missed the point about Nixon and Clinton, whose conduct was officially investigated while they were still in office. Clinton was found not guilty, and Nixon resigned before he could be chucked out. There has been no inquiry into Bush's conduct (or Blair's), and I asked what sort of message that sends out to the world. Its OK to bomb foreigners under false pretences (whether through deception or through incompetence), but if you tell a few porkies at home, out you go. At least we now agree on this. I presume "malice aforethought" is a joke. The charge would be war crimes and probably crimes against humanity. - You are plain wrong over the UN approving the invasion. The mandate you refer to was passed in June 2004 (over a year after the invasion) to allow US troops to stay in Iraq and provide security and support for the transitonal government, though it's a mute point whether their presence does more harm than good. The UN never approved the invasion, and the Secretary General Kofi Annan said categorcally that it was illegal. When the US and Britain draughted a resolution to put to the Security Council, they could only muster support from four countries (they needed 9 out of 15). - Carl and David, I have not forgotten that the Iraqis have contributed to the millions of dead etc. My argument is that the US and UK are directly responsible because they created the conditions for civil war ... something that was predicted by many commentators in the run-up to the war. The chaos we created unleashed all the forces that Saddam kept under control ... quite apart from providing the breeding ground for new generatons of west-hating terrorists. This is no defence of Saddam, he was a brutal dictator and the world is well rid of him. But he was not the reason given for the invasion. - David, I said there were no WMDs and you say you beg to differ, because thisa fact only came to light after the war started. You've missed the point. The war was started because Bush and co said there WERE WMDs. The inspectors and the majority of the UN said there was not enough evidence, and that was why they opposed the invasion. The US had no right to start a war under those circumstances. You say about Al Quaeda, "it depends which analysts you read or listen to what the truth is. I tend to believe what I have read." That doesnt make sense unless you only read the analysts who share your beliefs. - What upsets me most about Carls comments is that you say its dishonest to judge Bush and Blair with 20/20 hindsight. My reasoning process is absolutely not overridden by my horror at the outcome, and its highly presumptous of you to even think that. Hundreds of thousands of us protested against the war even before the invasion, and if youir own condemnation of it is with hindsight, that is to your discredit. In February 2003, i.e.. before the invasion, there were massive demonstratons all over the world, including many in your own country, but perhaps you were not aware of them. 3 million people demonstrated in Rome alone. Robin Cook the British Foreign Secretary resigned in protest, with dire warnings about the number of innocent people who would be killed, and many commentaters predicted precisely what would happen. I got into heated arguments with people like yourself who simply didn't understand what was going on, but most of the people I know were as opposed to the invasion then as I was and I'm pleased to say that most of the others now acknowlege that they were wrong. The consequences were already clear before the invasion took place, although I will grant you that none of us could have predicted the actual scale of the disaster. When the invasion did take place, we all hoped it would be quick and somehow the coalition would find a way to keep the country under control. Now we hope that order will be established. But we also want to see those responsible for the chaos held to account.
Fundamentalism
The Iraq War has led to a skirmish between Walter on the one hand, and Carl and David on the other. - First of all, let me say that I stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Walter (an expression used ad nauseam during the unholy Bush-Blair alliance). The facts he has listed are indeed incontrovertible. However, I can't help wondering ... especially in view of certain remarks made by Carl ... whether the American government didn't make a better job of deceiving people during the run-up to the war. Why else would Carl make the extraordinary statement that "it is dishonest to judge Bush and Blair with 20/20 hindsight" ... as if prior to the invasion there had not been worldwide condemnation, massive scepticism over their unsubstantiated claims about Iraqi WMDs, and well documented warnings about the consequences from many specialists in the field, including academics and health experts. - Walter's main point, however, is by coincidence echoed in today's Guardian. An article by Max Hastings castigates the government for wasting £182 million pounds on an inquiry into 'Bloody Sunday' (in January 1972, 14 innocent people were killed in Ireland by British soldiers). Hastings concludes: - "By contrast, there is a real argument for an inquiry into how Britain became engaged in the 2003 Iraq invasion, to ensure no future prime minister makes the same mistakes or perpetrates the same deceits, and that the intelligence service never again becomes entangled in such chicanery." - This, if I have understood him correctly, is what Walter is demanding. The words "deceits" and "chicanery" would be libellous if untrue. I very much doubt, however, if this government will set up an inquiry, or if Blair (widely known as Bliar) will sue Max Hastings.
Fundamentalism
Both Walter and dhw have neglected to mention the elephant in the living room - the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the aborted attack on the U.S. capitol building. They speak as if the Iraq war occurred in a vacuum. What is their feeling about the Afghanistan invasion?
Fundamentalism
by David Turell , Monday, November 10, 2008, 16:12 (5855 days ago) @ Carl
Thank you, Carl. I have the same questions. How about the London bombings, and those in Spain.
Fundamentalism
Carl asks about the 9/11 atrocities, and says that Walter and I "speak as if the Iraq War occurred in a vacuum. What is their feeling about the Afghanistan invasion?" David says, "How about the London bombings, and those in Spain?" - I obviously can't speak for Walter, but I will answer for myself. The Afghan invasion was a direct response by the US, supported by a large number of other nations, to the terrorist atrocities of 9/11 that you have listed. This was known to be an Al-Qaida operation. The object of the invasion was to seek out the criminals and put an end to the terrorist organization itself and the body that aided them (the Taliban). The General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations agreed that the US and their allies were entitled to take action under the UN Charter, Chapter 7, Article 51 (al-Qaida had in effect declared war on the US). You ask about my feelings. The US had come under direct attack, and in my view they had every right to fight back. Unfortunately, not even the US and its allies can ever win a war in Afghanistan, any more than the Russians could before them, and some experts think the time has now come to negotiate. But that is by the way, and I was in favour of the attack on Al-Qaida and the Taliban. - The London and Madrid bombings were in 2005 and 2004, so what on earth did they have to do with the Iraq invasion in 2003? The only possible connection is that some Muslims have been radicalized by the war in Iraq, i.e. it may well have been a causative factor. You both talk as if opposition to the war somehow entails support of terrorism. It doesn't. But no link has been found ... not for want of trying ... between Saddam and Al-Qaida. No WMDs have been found either. Those were the reasons given for the invasion, and there was mass opposition to it all over the world (including the UN). The reasons given were false, whole cities have been destroyed, and millions of innocent lives lost or ruined as a result (direct or indirect) of our intervention. Those responsible, to quote Walter, "should be held to account". - I have answered your questions. I would be interested to know why you have avoided responding to the points raised by Walter at 9.54 on 9 November, and myself at 13.10 on 10 November.
Fundamentalism
dhw: "The Afghan invasion was a direct response by the US, supported by a large number of other nations, to the terrorist atrocities of 9/11 that you have listed. This was known to be an Al-Qaida operation. The object of the invasion was to seek out the criminals and put an end to the terrorist organization itself and the body that aided them (the Taliban). The General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations agreed that the US and their allies were entitled to take action under the UN Charter, Chapter 7, Article 51 (al-Qaida had in effect declared war on the US). You ask about my feelings. The US had come under direct attack, and in my view they had every right to fight back." - The purpose of my question on Afghanistan was to establish a base principle. If you had been of the opinion that the Afghanistan invasion was unjustified, we would have a different conversation. However, you agree that the terrorist attacks justified response. - Dhw: "But no link has been found ... not for want of trying ... between Saddam and Al-Qaida. No WMDs have been found either. Those were the reasons given for the invasion, and there was mass opposition to it all over the world (including the UN). The reasons given were false, whole cities have been destroyed, and millions of innocent lives lost or ruined as a result (direct or indirect) of our intervention." - This is after-the-fact information, the 20/20 hindsight I referred to. It addresses the question of whether the reasons for invading Iraq were true. It does not address the question of whether the reasons were dishonest. If Bush honestly believed that the WMD and Al-Qaida charges were true, then he was not dishonest. Clinton was charged with perjury, a crime. Nixon would have been charged with obstruction of justice, a crime. So far, all we have shown of Bush was that he was unwise and incompetent. If those were crimes, the U.S. prisons would be full of politicians. What has not been shown is that Bush was dishonest. Emotion is as important as reason in understanding war, and Bush was understandably emotional at this point and did not want to be guilty of permitting another attack on the U.S. I suggest that, instead of firing broadsides at one another, we approach this incrementally. I will allow you to respond to what I have written here.
Fundamentalism
Carl says, "I will allow you to respond to what I have written here." He has written: "If Bush honestly believed that the WMD and Al-Qaida charges were true, then he was not dishonest." Thank you for allowing me to respond! - 1) General: I can scarcely argue against the statement that if someone is honest, he is not dishonest. That, however, is what we need to know, about both Bush and Blair. All we do know for sure is that they made claims which turned out to be untrue and which resulted in millions of lives being ruined. War must always be a last resort, and they defied the UN to wage it, even though they were told that the evidence was inadequate. After independent investigations, Clinton was impeached in order to find out whether he did or didn't lie over his earth-shattering affair with Monica. Until we have similar independent investigations into the conduct of Bush and Blair, we cannot know the truth. If they lied, you have agreed that they must be punished, and if their blunders were through incompetence, they will walk free. But at the moment, neither man is being held to account. What message does this give to the world? In my view, even your own post if made by a public figure (assuming you are not one already) would be acutely embarrassing: It's all right to defy the UN and bomb innocent people if you just made an honest mistake ... especially if you are "understandably emotional". However, I think we are generally in agreement, and the only real difference between us is that you are prepared to wait for history to deliver its verdict, whereas I think there is an urgent need for the truth to be revealed now through an independent inquiry. - 2) Personal: You say that the false reasons constitute "after-the-fact information, the 20/20 hindsight I referred to." Your reference to 20/20 hindsight was directed against Walter, whom you accused of dishonesty. I can only speak for myself. Having watched Blair make his 45-minute-WMDs speech to the House of Commons; having watched the UN debate in which Powell presented his blurred photographs, Straw bumbled, and Dominique de Villepin eloquently stated the case against invasion; having heard Hans Blix say there was no evidence of WMDs and the inspectors needed more time; having listened to and read the comments of innumerable experts on the terrible potential consequences of an invasion, I was 100% opposed to it. This was not hindsight. Of course the proof came afterwards ... that is the nature of forecasts. But I honestly believed at the time ... along with millions of others ... that invasion would be wrong, that we were not being told the truth, and there was a hidden agenda. And as you know, if someone honestly believes something, he is not dishonest. - 3) In your post of 14.49 on 8 November, you stated "The UN did approve the invasion. That is the mandate that is going to expire at the end of this year." This, I'm sure, was an honest mistake on your part, but now that you know the truth ... namely that Bush and Blair wanted a mandate from the UN and failed to get it ... perhaps you will allow me to ask you whether that changes your perception of the invasion. - Lastly, I do not recall firing any broadsides, though on the Al-Qaida/US analogy I would say that if you accuse someone of dishonesty, you must expect them to fire back. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, we are strangers able to exchange ideas, and if we didn't have disagreements there would be no discussion, but these should not become personal. I think we can shake hands on that.
Fundamentalism
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Thursday, November 13, 2008, 20:17 (5852 days ago) @ dhw
We debated the Iraq invasion at Leicester Secular Society and apart from one non-member were totally against it. This was before it went ahead. You may recall that there were big anti-war demonstrations in London, which many of our members attended. - I've always had the impression that Blair somehow came under the influence of Bush, perhaps because of their mutual religious sympathies.