NO "Not clean" war - BUT CLASS WAR

[nutritional_value]

Firstly, some of you question my "leftism". Well, my agenda is not so radical that it turns off the center or center-left. Perhaps even some rightists would agree with me. The changes I would like to see are incremental, long-term, because change among the majority takes longer.

An example, I am strongly in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state. But I know that (at the moment) 90% of Israelis are against it. So, how do you solve this problem? Obviously, the more radical your solution, the less chance it has of being adopted.

One of my biggest complaints against the Israeli peace team was that education about peace did not get a high enough priority. It was assumed (at the same time as suicide bombers were killing hundreds) that people automatically knew the benefits. The bombers understood the ignorance and fears of the Israelis, and derailed the peace process. So, education is one long-term solution.

Life/politics is about making compromises, and sometimes accepting that reality is different from the ideal, and will ALWAYS be different from the ideal. Radical change rarely works, no matter how pleasant the utopia might seem.

 

[nutritional_value]

Patelscornershop,

I stand by my claim that Islam is stuck in a culture of repression that is causing internal and external conflict and suffering.

I understand that you are a Muslim, and that my belief might not be agreeable, but it is a fact.

I am extremely willing to accept that Israel and Sharon are doing awful things to the Palestinians.

You should be willing to accept that Muslims are doing some awful things to Muslims as well.

NV

[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: nutritional_value ]

 

[well red]

Well, even from your brief reponse there I wouldn't have thought that "Leftist" was an appropriate label to peg on yourself. Liberal, yes. Leftist, no. Perhaps that's one of the reasons your arguments are so confused?

Edited to add:
If islam is a "culture of repression" (I'm not necessarily arguing with that, I think its a common feature of all organised religion myself), it would appear evident that judaism is also caught up in a "culture of repression" too.

[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: well red ]

 

[nutritional_value]

Well red,

I have Christian friends who assure me that the Pharisees are routinely attacked in church on a weekly basis. Maybe it is stupid, but it is ingrained in Western culture. Why should you suddenly start to defend Western culture?

The fact is that Pharisees are Jews, and this connotation has been a core fact in anti-semitism throughout the ages.

You can call my story a corker, but it is actually true, and no she was not very stupid.

NV

 

[well red]

"these people are quite obviously stupid pricks with nothing better to do with their time"

Is hardly a defence of Western culture, is it?

 

[kissthecat]

Cultures of repression are mainly peasant (countryside) phenomenon. This is due to not having positive links with outsiders etc.'. There are plenty of backward regions (intellectually and culturally in the 'modern west'). Cornwall for instance We have plenty of Muslims here in London I find them just as open to multicultural modern society as anyone else. Try walking down some hick village anywhere and stand out (say dressed as a punk) and you will draw looks even actions of outrage.

edited to add

I have known many Muslims and when away from fellow Muslims can relax on the whole religion thing. But when their actions may effect their family or friends, job etc.', then they have to toe the line. This is similar to Christians having to go to church on Sundays years ago so as not to get a bad name. Given a choice most didn't really want to go.

[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: kissthecat ]

 

[nutritional_value]

Nemo,

I am not motivated by anti-semitism. I have my own agenda and beliefs, and they are definately on the left.

My concern is that anti-semitism is so ingrained in western culture that it is clouding all debate about the issue.

An example in point, in the late 80's, when the first intifada was fought, there was a report one day that 6 Palestinians had been killed by Israel. The article received front page news and indepth coverage.

Another report published the same day, with only a few paragraphs, mentioned that Saddam Hussein had killed 7000 Kurds with poisonous gas.

How do you explain the fact that the west is obsessed with news about Israel when mass murder is taking place elsewhere in the world?

Yes, what is going on in the west bank is awful. Are the Jews evil, demented people? I don't think so. They have been molded by a society of hatred and know nothing else. So how are they supposed to behave.

You criticise Israel without accepting that western society is the cause of what is going on. Instead of trying to solve the problem, you are obsessed with it.

This is why I say that western culture made zionism, and continued conflict has created extremist zionism.

Regarding having beliefs that can conveniently be blasted as stereotyping Muslims (and hence bigoted), I am not concerned about have contrarian beliefs, and so I stand by my claims that Islamic culture is repressing its people.

It is very easy to be politically correct. All you do is shut your mouth. I am not interested in being PC wherever it hides repression. And the degree of repression in the Muslim world is extreme.

I have spoken to many Muslims (people who lived most of their lives in Muslim countries), and they know what is going on. Why can't you all accept the truth as well?

Accepting the truth is the first part of solving the problem.

None of this makes me a bigot. It makes me someone who looks at the world and sees what is really going on. I do not cover my eyes when I look at the world.

NV

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

NV,

Of course Muslims are doing awful things to Muslims. I wouldn't for one moment support the American-backed Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes.

Christians are doing nasty things to Christians too. Look at Zimbabwe. Look at Rwanda. Look at the major wars we had in the last Century. Christians are doing some very nasty things to Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia and so on.

Why single out Islam for criticism? Why judge it by what Arab leaders in your part of the world do? They are a tiny minority of Islam. I notice you haven't made similar commentaries for other religions.

Once you start to go down the path of blaming a whole religion for the actions of some of its adherents then you're on a very slippery slope that found it's ultimate expression in the Nazi gas chambers.

Is this what you're arguing? If so then realise where you're coming from and where you'll be heading. Of course the Muslim world isn't perfect. Most of it lives in the developing world. Other bits of it are controlled by oil interests supporting repressive regimes. Islam always found it's strongest expression in people who were oppressed. Three quarters of the world's refugees are Muslim.

Other bits of the Muslim world are simply different. Of course they don't adhere to the modern western liberal values, because they're not western and have a different outlook. Should they?

What you're really doing is blaming the victim. Its a bit like those anti-semitic Europeans arguing that the Jews were backward on account of some of the appalling conditions they were forced to live in, in Germany and Poland.

And this is why Israel will never be accepted by Arab countries. It's not because most Israelis are Jews. It is because they are considered colonial imperialists. Apart from everything else like the occupation, Israel will fail in peace because Israelis have failed to grasp that they simply cannot impose certain western 'liberal' values (ie. the American way of life, general lack of religion, and individualism) on a culture that is far older and that does not want them. Not for nothing are the Israelis considered an American colony.

So if you're a so-called left-wing Israeli, then Allah help us.

 

[johnwisehammer]

Actually, I suspect that the confusion over NV's "leftism" is a misunderstanding over different use of the concept between political cultures.

In Israel (I am more than reliably informed), the left/right dichotomy has more to do with attitudes towards Palestinians, the occupation, than to do with issues like ownership of resources, role of the state etc that tends to characterise European politics' left/right difference.

Very roughly speaking, it's more like left = more dove-ish, right = more hawkish towards neighbouring states and Palestinians. I suppose you could be an Israeli free marketeer with a positive attitude to a Palestinian state and be considered a leftist.

Would you say that's a more or less fair comment, NV?

 

[Nemo]

I see, so you're allowed to be prejudiced against muslims, but when anyone says anything remotely critical of Israel, they're an anti-semite. Double standards?

And, given that W of W is not here, I must say "politically correct my arse (R, TM)." Accusing a 'politically correct liberal élite' of 'censoring your "common sense"' views just makes you sound like a mindless adherent of ultra-conservatism.

PEACE TO ALL!

[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]

 

[nutritional_value]

PCS,

I single out Islam because of all the societies in the world, Islam is the only one that is not striving to better the lives of its people by adopting modernism.

Islam is the only culture that looks at preserving underdevelopment as a means of maintaining power.

If you look at other societies that could once have been called repressive (S.Korea, Japan, Taiwan, much of S.E.Asia), or are still repressive (China), they are all trying to improve the lot of the people, through modernity.

But the Muslim nations are staying still or going backwards.

I am not going to write a lot more on this because I don't have time to write a more thoughtful response. But an article in yesterday's newspaper (I don't remember which, maybe the Guardian) by Francis Fukyama was very interesting on this issue.

This is why I single out Islam. Not because I hate the religion or the people, but because there is a critical problem that needs solving, and the world seems obsessed with blaming Israel for ALL the problems in the Muslim world (getting the people to hate an external enemy is a good way to avoid solving the real problems).

NV

 

[nutritional_value]

JWH is absolutely correct.

That's how come I can have different labels regarding different issues:

"peace" - far left
"religion" - extreme secular
"politics" - liberal democracy
"economics" - capitalism

On the other hand, my capitalist ideology is dedicated to improving the lives of the poor and repressed of the world, through capitalist methods, so what does this make me?

 

[kissthecat]

I read that article in the Guardian. Made me laugh.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

The world is not blaming Israel for all the problems of the Muslim world. How can it when Israel receives billions in aid and strong backing from western states?

But Israel is the one thing that encapsulates western hypocrisy in dealing with Muslim States, in the eyes of Muslims. Other things are, as I mentioned, propping up people like the Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes.

I think it is you who is obsessed with Israel to the point of being paranoid about it.

In any case, answer these things NV:

How can Iraq strive to achieve a better quality of living for it's people, given that a Christian American sanctions have destroyed Iraq and America is propping up Mr Hussain? Is this modernity?

Is it modernity for a Christian America to support the repressive Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes, amongst others?

How can Afghanistan strive to achieve a better quality of living for it's people, given that the Russsians, and now America, are simply using it as a tool to further their interests? Is bombing them 'modernity'?

Is it 'modernity' to criticise the Iranian revolution when America installed the Shah? Iranians now at least have a chance of electing a givernment, and are even now reforming society.

Yugoslavia was a pretty-well developed modern society. Was it progressive to kill and murder hundreds of thousands of people in Bosnia and Kosovo? Was this an expression of Christian modernity?

Likewise in Zimbabwe. Was this modernity? If not, then are you saying Christianity is backward? Certainly judging by some of the poorest countries in Africa and Latin America, not to mention Russia, we have to say this surely?

Would you be blaming Confuciounism for the rise of Mao and the repression of China? Or Christianity for Colonial China? Remember, this is one sixth of the whole of humanity.

The most useful lesson I learned from the Quran was the concept of 'Munafiqin', which means 'hypocrite'. It is all well and good to blame Islam for certain things, like backwardness. But the people who say it usually forget to take the planks out of their own eyes first.

[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[johnwisehammer]

"I single out Islam because of all the societies in the world"

Islam is not a society (as much as those who want the Caliphate back want it to be). It's a religion, interpreted in many different ways across the globe. The Bashkirs of the Southern Urals and Javanese Indonesians are not part of the same society and even the extent to which their lives are impacted by Islam is very different. In fact, to try and talk about the developmental prospects and approaches for both of them at the same time is simply a waste of time.

Islam simply isn't a homogenous, monolithic force that can be interpreted in one way only across space and time. (Much like Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism, Atheism...)

 

[Johnny Canuck]

KTC, you assume that all here share in a belief that the Sept 11 bombers should be punished for their crime. I wonder if that is a safe assumption, considering the number of posters to these groups who think that the US 'had it coming'...

Stating that 'Islamic culture is repressive' is...a statement about Islamic culture. It is not a statement about any specific Muslim or Muslims. Therefore, the general comment about the nature of Islamic culture, is not defeated by your ability to cite specific examples of 'liberal" Moslems.

Exceptions to a rule do not disprove the rule. Also, it is perfectly acceptable to make general comments about something; this does not mean that the speaker believes that the generality applies to all specifics.

I can say that "Victorian England was characterised by sexual prudishness", even though people like Byron and Shelley engaged in sexual licence at the time. I can say that the Japanese like to save their money (the Japanese have the highest personal savings rate in the world), even though some Japanese may have spent their money foolishly and gone broke. My specific examples at odds with the generality, do not disprove the generality.

The 'Islamic world' is a big one; no doubt there are many ways of practicing it, a one goes from country to country. But there are things that point to at least a desire in that world, for unity. Note Patel's use of the term 'Muslim world'. He appears content to make some generalizations about that world, himself.

Also, why is "an attack on one Islamic nation an attack on all"? Why, if I go after Muslims on the island of Mindanao, should the whole religion take up arms against me? What if Sudan invaded largely Christian Ethiopia? Would the world heed the call for "All Christian nations to rise up against the Islamnic aggressor"? Of course not, because to most people who come from a Christian background, such an idea would seem quaint at best, reactionary and regressive at worst.

I think any good holy book is usually pretty omnibus: it will contain justification or permission for a pretty wide range of behavior. At the moment, I believe that much of the Islamic world is cleaving to those parts of the Koran that might be called repressive: belief in Jihad; subjugation of women, fatwas (Salman Rushdie, who received a death sentence for speaking views in opposition to Islamic belief) etc.

Christianity, and the Bible contain references that would justify many of the same actions, but the general movement of the faith has been away from those - repressive - writings and thoughts.

Of course, certain parts of Christianity still hold extreme views; Fundamentalists, for example, or breakaway sects like Mennonites or Hutterites, who force dress codes, etc. on women. But that is not mainstream Christianity in the present day.

And that, JdubyaH, is the shared culture I speak of. You speak passably good English, and understand certain cultural allusions, so I'm making the assumption that you were born in a country with a Christian heritage. There are many different 'cultures' within a region, country, etc. Like it or not, we share a culture, even though we may be part of other 'cultures' which excludes the other.

Going back to 'Islamic repression', Patel cracked a line that I think should be framed: [paraphrasing] "Islam is the religion of the oppressed. Three quarters of all refugees are Muslim."

I believe him. Problem is, they likely didn't convert after becoming refugees; they started out as Muslims, in repressive Muslim countries, from which they fled. Islam was the religion of their oppressors. (I accept the exception of the Palestinians)

Is the left biased against Jews? I don't know. If you are a leftist, ask yourself this question: "Do I accept that both the Jews and the Palestinians have some just cause for their positions, and I accept that both have been guilty of crimes against the other." With respect, if you can't answer 'yes' to that question, you are biased.

 

[Nemo]

JC, Shelley and Byron were not Victorian poets, so you cannot use them to illustrate your point.

"considering the number of posters to these groups who think that the US 'had it coming'..."

I will say this for the umteenth time, NO ONE HERE THOUGHT THE US 'HAD IT COMING.' To suggest otherwise is a.) to do us a great dis-service, and b.) to grossly misinterpret our suggestions that the USA take the opportunity to examine its foreign policy.

I'm not going to debate religion with you because a.) it is very boring, and b.) everyone else is doing a pergectly good job of it.

PEACE TO ALL!

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Nemo: if you want to play basketball, you must follow the bouncing ball....reread the posts in this thread 7 Oct. 6:34; 10 Oct. 12:05, 12:17, 1:45, 3:53(especially).

Now what were you saying about your good hearted leftist brothers?

 

[rasrave]

Patel, I know that you were kidding when you said that the sanctions on Irak were set in place by Christian countries...I thought the UN was the one who did that (and their membership can hardly be construed as "christian" in majority"). To add to this, please don't feed me some line about "well, the countries that have the veto power are Christian", because Russia and China hardly confirm this
Finally, the line about America "propping up" Saddam is total bollocks (or another joke) as that is hardly the case...last time I checked, they were more interested in receiving his head on a plate
The argument about the living conditions in Irak is one that I recently got into with Kissthecat when I pointed out that Saddam is more than happy to use his own people (up to the point of starving them to death) in a game of international chess...he has plenty enough cash coming in from oil revenues but is too busy rebuilding his military infrastructure to worry about his starving people. In fact (and correct me if i am wrong) did the UN not just recently increase (again) the amount of oil allowed to be put on the international market by Irak??This (by the way) is not even counting the illegal oil exporting going on (a thriving business in the region)...

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Well Johnny,

If you're smart enough to note the use of terminology that I use ('Muslim world')then of course you'll be smart enough to know that I put Christian America in the same context. Because the context is religious.

But the fact is, people generally don't see things in religious terms unless Islam is involved. So you generally come from a viewpoint that says 'Islam is a problem' and then use all sorts of examples to justify it.

I can tell you now that if a Muslim country invaded a Christian (albeit secular) one then you would have all sorts of people jumping up and down and taking religious sides. Jerry Falwell would have a field day, condemning the Muslim 'infidel' for daring to carry out such an atrocity.

But we would hear none of this. We only hear from our esteemed media when it is Muslim people who say similar things. And why? Because people like to make an enemy. There is always an 'other' to defeat. So we make Islam a problem, because we don't fully understand it, and have never bothered to.

Let me give you a few examples from the media:

East Timor rebels (Christian) - 'Freedom fighters.'
Kashmiri rebels (Muslim) - 'Islamic militants'
Palestinian suicide bombers (Muslims)- 'Islamic extremists'
IRA terrorists - 'terrorists' (not 'Christian terrorists')
ETA separatists - 'terrorists' (not 'Christian terrorists')
Timothy McVeigh (Christian) - 'extremist' (not 'Christian extremist')
Jihad (Muslim) - Bad and nasty. Warmongering Islam.
Crusade (Christian) - Full of good intentions. A struggle for goodness.

See what I mean? And those are just a few examples. If you automatically come from a viewpoint that Islam is a problem, of course you are going to justify everything as being a problem of Islam. Why bother to question it? It stands to reason and the comments of a few who disagree can be safely ignored.

In countries that have majority muslim populations (or the 'Muslim world' if you want to put it in religious terms) these things are not reported in such a way, because naturally they do not come from a viewpoint that Islam is a problem. For them it is an economic, social or political problem.

To the credit of the Arabs and some other who are not Western, they will always make a distinction between ordinary people and their governments or regimes. This is why I've found they are far more rational and informed in their view of world affairs than those here in the West who have been fed a shocking media diet of titillation and gossip that often passes as 'news' nowadays. To them the actions of a few must be representatives of the actions of a whole. So if Saddam Hussein is bad, then all Iraqis are bad. If Osama is bad then all Saudis are suspect. Or all Arabs. Or indeed the whole 'Muslim world' and Islam is a problem.

If anyone has been to the Middle East you'll know what I'm talking about.

Ill-informed readers coming from another perspective could equally make out that 'Christian culture' was a problem or that 'Jewish culture' was a problem if similar labels were applied to them. It is not that long ago that Jews were seen as a problem (rememeber The Final Solution?) when propaganda applied similar labels to them.

Let us not fall into the same trap again.

 

[Nemo]

JC, I have read the whole thread and many others related to the issue and not one post I have seen has seriously said that the US deserved it.

I think, however, that you need to read the posts you are citing and know the context because: PCS is not a leftie, and the other posts you cited simply reinforced my point. The fact that you go on and on about us hating the US means that you need to be gently reminded that we are not American-haters.

PEACE TO ALL!

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Rasrave.

I meant what I said. If you apply the same labels to Christianity that people are doing to Islam then you come to the same conclusion.

I came back from Iraq 2 months ago and I've seen for myself what the situation is, and no-one can tell me that Islam is holding back the development of Iraq, which was a developed and very educated country, when a CHRISTIAN America, seconded by a CHRISTIAN Britain in a UN Security Council dominated by CHRISTIAN countries with not a single MUSLIM permanent representative (who I bet would've used the veto, which was why there was no MUSLIM representative in the first place) went ahead and bombed Iraq back into the stone age and even now are preventing it from reaching it's potential as a powerful economic giant in the region. That would upset JEWISH Israel far too much. China abstained from the original resolution to impose sanctions, which makes that resolution legally rather dubious but we'll let that go for now.

Why do I use these labels? Because I want to see how much people are stirred by religious labels. After all, if no-one cared about religion that much, they wouldn't be making such a fuss would they? But they are, which means that these labels really count for something.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about Iraq sanctions, which are despicable (ie. 3 UN Humanitarian co-ordinators leaving office in disgust, weapons inspectors accusing the States of a cover-up, no-fly zones not sanctioned by the UN, imagine working as a teacher or a doctor and not being paid a wage at all) but let me tell you this - how arrogant for people to assume that Iraq should be grateful because we, the superior Christian western world, deem fit that Iraq should be forced to sell it's own oil to simply survive.

What Iraq needs is an economy underpinned by cash. What the West is going to do is to force Iraq to sell its oil just enough (all determined by those nice people in grey suits working in New York) so it doesn't starve. And then expect Iraqis to be grateful for it. Is it any wonder then, that some of them would be so hateful towards America and Britain?

And if you think you know better than me, Rasrave, try speaking to the staff at UNICEF or UN staff working in Baghdad, most of whom would agree with me, and the ones who didn't were too scared to open their gobs.

[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[rasrave]

Patel, using the "religious labels" line on me leaves me cold...it does not mean anything to me because I never brought that up in the first place (I believe you have me confused with someone else on that one). However, and at the (very probable) risk of (yet again ) offending you and others in this message board, i will state my position on religion: Religion is a concept designed for people who at various times needed leadership, organization, and rules on how to play the big game of life. I have no time for it for quite a few reasons:
1)I do not need anyone to tell me whether I am doing something "right" or "wrong". I have a conscience and a brain. If I think that I would not like anything said, done, or implied about me, I would not do it to anyone else...that is my religion!
2) Religions (and I do mean all of them) have a way of transforming caring, kind, intelligent and fair people into raving warmongering (and I borrow the term from this message board!) idiots, all on the basis that someone else doesn't kneel to the same idol as they do. Religions are guilty for killing more people than despots and dictators at any time, I'll vouch...and that is why I have no time for them.However (and unlike many so-called religious people), I am tolerant of others enough that I respect their right to believe in whatever they want, as long as they don't attempt to shove it down my throat...

Concerning the Irak debate, when you say they need an economy underpinned by cash, are you suggesting that we bail them out? I ask this because normally when the dreaded Western powers go in with the money, they are simply "buying" the country, and I know that you are not into that kind of interference, right
Your comments about the "aid workers" that you have spoken to imply that they are afraid to speak there minds in support of the ending of sanctions in Irak...who are they afraid of? the UN police? I don't get that one...
The situation in Irak is a mess, but it would be nice of you to stop blaming the Western powers and the "men in grey suits" for the problem and instead putting the blame squarely where it belongs: Saddam is a vile dictator doing vile things to his country. His arrogance and stupidity have cost his people dearly and will continue to do so for many years to come, sadly...that is fact and depressing, but not only the Western world's fault...

 

[johnwisehammer]

Rasrave: Russia is a Christian country with a variety of religious minorities. Russia is on the UN Security Council.

Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, is a Christian as well, as it happens.

"If you are a leftist, ask yourself this question: "Do I accept that both the Jews and the Palestinians have some just cause for their positions, and I accept that both have been guilty of crimes against the other." With respect, if you can't answer 'yes' to that question, you are biased.

Which is great, except for the fact I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement like that because it would be meaningless. What do you mean by "the Jews"? Every Jew in the world? All the Jews is Israel? All the rightest Jews is Israel? Say what you mean. If one Israeli Jew commits a series of crimes against different Palestinians, does that mean that "Jews are guilty of crimes against Palestinians"? No, I don't think so.

It's impossible to talk about these things without getting your terminology right - and you don't, so the things you say become either so unspecific so as to be meaningless. Jew doesn't equal Israeli; Israeli doesn't equal Jew; state of Israel does not represent/embody all Jews, all Israelis or all Israeli Jews. (And lots of parallel statements about the PNA). It's either ignorant or deliberately obstructive to make such statements because there has yet to be a truly representative entity of either group (and that's assuming there are just two groups we're talking about, and that those groups are Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians - not necessarily sustainable).

Alternatively, I could say yes, but also that the cause and guilt on each party is in different proportions - does this make me biased? How about if I'm not so much interested in guilt or blame as much as loking for paths to normality, not trying to play God (or perhaps "play Bush" from now on) and impose my version of justice on the world?

[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: JWH [usual rubbish] ]

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Rasrave,

I used the religious label because the conversation was about religion and I was trying to how the use of the label was subjective and innacurate. I was not using it on you in any way.

Apologies to any confusion caused.

I'm like you. People can do what the hell they like. Religion or no religion. As long as it doesn't affect others.

As regards Iraq, the PEOPLE of Iraq (lets forget all this bullshit about dictators, as if we really cared about them in the first place) wants America to do.....

....wait for it......

Nothing.

Yes. Thats right. Absolutely nothing. Iraqi people want to be left alone, Saddam or no Saddam. That is to say, no interference from anyone. No sanctions. No nothing. They'll work out their own problems by themselves. Just keep your hands off their affairs.

They think about Saddam the way we think about our political leaders. Some think he's the best thing since sliced bread, and others think he's a bit of a twat. Either way, thats their decision, and not a decision for Americans to make, now that Saddam is not in Kuwait, and not that it should matter to Americans even if he was.

Why Americans should have interfered in their affairs in the first place is not something that is lost on Iraqis. It's all about the oil of course. America funded Saddam when the Iranians were baddies and now the Iraqis are baddies so their people suffer. They just want to be left alone. They want to have a standard of living. They want jobs and a decent education and decent food. Something that most people want. They're not bad. they're not criminals. They're like you and me.

They want America to stop being the conscience of the world and stop determining what is wrong or right. As Gandhi once quipped to the British: 'Oh, I'm sure there will be problems - but they will be OUR problems. Not yours.'

The 'men in the grey suits' analogy was actually used by a senior UN officer. He said that the people who sit on the 'oil for food' committee are actually very junior staff in their respective countries' diplomatic corps, and don't really know much about what they are doing. The US government refuses to allow them to go to Iraq so they can better decide how the programme should be run. They keep quiet because they don't want to lose their jobs.

[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[Johnny Canuck]

JdubyaH: I've read your posts about your labour-imbued life, but I think that you are really a tenured Professor of first year Rhetoric at East Anglia Agricultural College. I say this because of your penchant for what I would call 'weaselability'

It's my own fault. If I don't craft my words with utter precision, you will inevitably accept my offer to miss the point and instead crawl through the loophole. It would appear that you are one of those people for whom the phrase "Do you catch my drift?" would be utterly meaningless.

'Jew' can mean a lot of things, but in the context of my post, and the context of the discussion, I would have thought that a bright lad like yourself could have....caught my drift.

In the original argument, I used 'Jew' to refer, I suppose, to the political authority in Israel with the power to make the decisions which could result in harm or injustice coming to Palestinians. However, now that I think of it, individual Jews residing in Israel may have unjustly harmed Palestinians, so my 'Jew' could include them as well. Confusing, innt it? Better to just catch my drift, as opposed to making me search for a large crayon with which to draw a connect the dots diagram (hopefully without so many dots as to cause further confusion..)

Patel, the reason your whole Christian World thing is received with some amusement, is because the Christian First World is extremely secular. I can't quote stats, but the majority of people in North America don't attend church, or take part in a (Christian) religious life.

The call to arms of the Christian World would be met with the same amusement, along with no small measure of confusion, since such concepts have little meaning here anymore. It may have been true, even as recently as 500 years ago. And yes, there are religious Christian zealots, like Jerry Falwell, but, as I have said earlier, they are the exception that tends to prove the rule.

Why do those pesky Americans keep bothering Saddam Hussein? Could it have anything to do with the fact that he is a dictator who invaded a neighboring country, and then, even when beaten, refused to give up his weapons of mass destruction? Yes, the US created the no fly zones and sanctions, and has since fired arms in anger there, but considering the continuing threat that they felt Saddam presented, would you have preferred the alternative? Namely, totally subjugating the country, including a "Battle of Baghdad" in order to kill Saddam and be sure, once and for all, that he had no more nukes, anthrax, or sarin.

Saddam can keep his oil, if his citizens want it. They can drink it, as opposed to eating the food that oil revenues would buy for them if that's their pleasue. The sanctions have shown that the world can survive without Iraq's oil. Maybe they can invent their own Microsoft, so that all Iraqis can get a job, and not rely on oil money.

Check your facts; the American meddlesome phase of geopolitics was made largely irrelevant, and therefore started to dry up, when the Cold War ended. Thanks to the terrorists, the US has been brought back into geopolitics big time.

As far a 'Bush the warmonger', yes, he is now waging war. But get this: the amount of time he waited before striking caused a growing sense of frustration and anger in his own people.(Get ready folks! Here comes the inflammatory part...) There are many who would have transformed Afghanistan, and Iraq for good measure, into radioactive glass, within 72 hours of Sept. 11...

Good news today; bombing strikes in Iraq increasing to 'command and control' targets...

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Why do those pesky Americans keep bothering Saddam Hussein?

Yes, why do they keep on bothering him? They made him a dictator and funded him and gave him arms. Pesky bloody Americans. Leave him alone. You've achieved your objectives.

Geopolitics. Bollock-politics. The States just can't stop sticking it's meddling fingers into the arseholes of dictators. So when it tastes shit, you moan. Get real.

Plus, Johnny-boy. Check your facts before you mouth off (in the typical dumb North American manner) about something you are completely clueless about. You know nothing about Iraq. Iraq WAS the most educated and skilled country in the Middle East, but now, because of sanctions, no-one can be paid a wage because Iraq has absolutely no cash in it's economy - something that you're supporting. Millions of skilled Iraqi professionals are forced to work in the States and Europe as a result. Probably many Iraqi doctors saw to the injured at the WTC.

So on the one hand, you ensure that Iraqis have no jobs, and then have the nerve to accuse them of being too dumb to create jobs.

The only dumb jerks here are some Americans and Canadians who know sod all about 'Geopolitics'.

[ 14 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[johnwisehammer]

"I've read your posts about your labour-imbued life"

Ooh, I doubt you have, you know. (What's wrong with East Anglia Agricultural College?)

Look, dimwit, I'm not trying to fuck you around (too much) but that fact is that if you want to understand/discuss Palestine/Israel, you're going to have to be grown-up and well-informed enough to use the right words to express what you are saying. It's not okay to use using "Jews" and "Israel" interchangably because they mean two completely different things (ditto "Palestinians" and "the PNA").

To achieve this, you may be required to realise that the words you choose have political and conceptual significance (unless, of course, you just want us to ignore them like the meaningless bollocks they really are - an option becoming increasingly attractive).

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Ahhhhh! I think I'm gonna bawl like a baby! You've moved me up from 'fuckwit' to 'dimwit'.(Sob!)

In the words of the immortal Sally Field: He likes me! He really likes me!

Similarly, I will move you up the taxonomic ladder from 'imbecile' to 'shitforbrains' if I ever see a glimmer of a chance that you will debate the underlying arguments made in my posts, and avoid taking the sucker bet of arguing semantics. I always thought that the thing that separated humans from soulless, adding-machine-brained computers was the ability of humans to extrapolate and discern meaning, and not to require instruction in literal, nonchanging language. Which is it? 'I, JWH', or 'I, Robot'?

Patel, please help me. I'm very weak on history....

Someone told me that Iraq and Saddam invaded Kuwait. Is that true, or was I in such a belladonic haze that I imagined the whole thing?

Surely it was a dream? Surely all those educated doctors wouldn't do such a thing? Especially if they were so educated and so wealthy?

 

[nutritional_value]

Johnny, don't be ridiculous. There was no invasion. It was all a US plot. The CIA created a virtual world in which they could program the Iraqis to invade Kuwait. Then, using NSA supercomputers, they developed highly realisic footage of the invasion which CNN transmitted worldwide. We, poor fools, believed the whole story, and the Iraqi people, led by the benevolent Saddam the Great, are still suffering.