THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

ican711nm wrote:

It has at the very least compelled the rest of the civilized world to begin thinking and coping with the idea that they are all at risk of being murdered and maimed by the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers)

I think 9/11 already drove that point home quite sufficiently by itself.

Its just that "the rest of the civilized world" has disagreed with the Bush people's opinion on "how to reduce or end that risk for their respective posterities."

Foremost point: "Iraq" increased the T.M.M. threat, to us all, by boosting their feeding and recruitment grounds and manoevring possibilities.

ican711nm wrote:

Also, a great many TMMs have been exterminated or incarcerated.

And a great many new ones have been recruited, thanks to the uproar and bitterness created by the Iraq war.

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

... But let’s state the outline that POTUS has given:

1). Hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government
2). Help establish security
3). Continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.
4). Encourage more international support
5). Move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

JM, anything I write here in response to your well thought out post is not disagreement with your ideas. I don't know now whether I agree or not. I'm using your response to help me more effectively think through the problem.

Suppose it were actually true that all five of these steps are necessary to the success of any one of these steps. The question then would be how much progress in any one step is necessary to making some progress in any other.

For example, perhaps Iraqi security and real Iraqi sovereignty are not inseparable or independently achieveable. It may be essential to Iraqi security to enlist Iraqis in providing their own security. To accomplish that, it may be necessary for Iraqis to have sovereignty over their own provision of security. To maintain and grow that security it may be necessary to maintain and grow that sovereignty.

The same kind of thing may be true for continuing to build Iraq's infra structure. That is, perhaps it cannot be done without concurrently buiding security and sovereignty. Likewise, perhaps none of that can be accomplished without obtaining international support and holding free elections.

In summary, perhaps progress toward none of the five is achieveable without some concurrent progress in each of the five.

If that's true, then procedures for improvement must be iterative as well as concurrent. That is, steps should be specified in terms of a sequence of cycles of improvement of all five. Please pardon the analogy, but it's the best I can do at the moment: flying an aircraft effectively requires a pilot to guide the simultaneous progress/behavior of a number of aircraft subsystems. Examples of such systems are those that control motion, direction, lift, and separation from other aircraft or dangerous weather phenomena. That guidance requires the pilot to be sensitive to a large number of simultaneous inputs that must be perceived and analyzed concurrently. That guidance must be learned. It is not a natural consequence of simply having good intentions. It has to be a healthy respect for one's own fallibility, the uncertainties presented by the finite reliability of aircraft systems, and the uncertainties presented by the atmosphere (e.g., weather). It's not about the pilot not making errors. That is an unachievable goal. It's all about the pilot promptly detecting and promptly initiating correction of errors.

0 Replies

But monotheism implies exclusivity, infallibility, superiority, intolerance and all the other -ities and -isms that leads ultimately to conflict.

As for Kerry, if he becomes President, it will make very little difference. America's need for foreign oil won't have gone away. Maybe his administration will be a little more competent, but only on the basis that it is not hard to better the current incumbent of the White house.

I dislike organised religions. Religion should be a private matter. Organisation builds political power and that power is rarely used to do good.

But I believe what we are seeing today is not the latest manifestation of the 1000 year struggle between Christianity and Islam (as Prof Lewis suggests) but a specific reaction to Western imperialism in the Arab world since the end of WW2.

Nearly all that activity has been related to the West's dependence on Middle Eastern oil. (When Britain ruled the waves, and the Royal Navy switched from coal to oil fired boilers, the very borders of Iraq were drawn up around oil...so we know a thing or two about that country. Pity you didn't ask us Mr Rumsfeld, we could have explained).

We, The West have treated the Arabs badly. In our efforts to secure oil we have trampled all over their sensitivities, been disrespectful to their culture history and religion, set up sheiks and despots to rule over parcels of land we have drawn up, and sold them arms to defend the ruling elites against their own people. On top of that, we or rather America has set up a Jewish colony in the heart of Arab lands, and supported it even as it stole Arab property and threatened the middle east with nuclear anihiliation.

The fundamental cause of terrorism is not Islam. It is a reaction against Western imperialism. The Arabs have just had enough of us. They want us OUT. Islam is used to inspire this reaction and stir up the Muslims out of their passivity. Take away Islam and you would still have terrorism, but take away the source of the irritation and there is a chance that the disease could be controlled.

But of course things are not going in that direction. Things are on course to get worse and maybe a lot worse before they get better. Why? Simple. America needs to act because world oil supply is peaking, because the dollar is threatened, and since the demise of the USSR, there is no one around at the moment to stop them.

They (the neo cons and the PNAC boys and girls) see a window of opportunity, and immediate justification in the aftermath of 911, to do a little geopolitical re organising in the middle east to America's taste. That is the ultimate cause of modern terrorism, not Islam. In fact regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq took place in the full knowledge that it would increase the backlash from Islamists at least in the short term. In other words adventures like the invasion of Iraq took place despite increasing the risk of terrorism, not because of terrorism itself.

0 Replies

mporter wrote:

Ican 711- You reprint concerning Wahhabism is very important and it starkly outlines the fact that, as far as the radical fringe of Islam is concerned, this is, as you have mentioned before, World War III, and the petty items complained about by the liberal left will pale into insignificance if, God forbid, the Islamic madmen, would strike again at our country.

The prevailing belief among the left is that when two or more things occur concurrently, one of them is the cause of the other(s). Specifically, they claim that expansion of TMM is caused by US attempts to remove the TMM.

As you know, we have evidence otherwise. The left's belief is easily refuted by evidence. Did the TMM grow during the Clinton administration? Yes! They grew rapidly. Did the Clinton administration attempt to remove the TMM? No! The Clinton administration, as well as its predecessors, attempted to contain but not remove the TMM. The TMM grew rapidly in the 1990s regardless. In fact the TMM perpetrated a rapidly increasing multitude of intentional murders and maimings during the 1990s.

As you have pointed out above, the post of Stephen Scwartz's speech on Radical Islam provides compelling evidence that the TMM will grow because of their own intrinsic reasons completely independent of any attempts on our part to resist them.

0 Replies

The President of the United States POTUS is an arse, on which Tony Blair is a pimple.

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

Sounds like you've bought the sh*t, hook line and stinker....

Can you be more specific about exactly what "sh*t", you think I have bought "hook line and stinker".

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

The President of the United States POTUS is an arse, on which Tony Blair is a pimple.

Your reasons for believing that are Question

0 Replies

I think the expression is "...and sinker" actually, but as its sh1t you are refering to, stinker might be appropriate

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Its just that "the rest of the civilized world" has disagreed with the Bush people's opinion on "how to reduce or end that risk for their respective posterities."

Disagreement is understandable and acceptable. I do not know the alternative upon which the "the rest of the civilized world" agrees, and therefore cannot determine whether I agree or disagree with "the rest of the civilized world".

I do understand that some folks think we should turn the whole problem over to the UN. But these same folks don't say what they want the UN to do and why they think the UN is competent to do it.

nimh wrote:

Foremost point: "Iraq" increased the T.M.M. threat, to us all, by boosting their feeding and recruitment grounds and manoevring possibilities. ... And a great many new ones have been recruited, thanks to the uproar and bitterness created by the Iraq war.

Correlation is not cause Exclamation

That increase itself has been increasing throughout the 1990s and will continue to increase until the TMM are removed from the human race. The cause of that increasing increase is neither the time over which it has occurred or our attempts to remove the TMM. That cause is intrinsic to the very nature of the TMM itself.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

But monotheism implies exclusivity, infallibility, superiority, intolerance and all the other -ities and -isms that leads ultimately to conflict.

No it doesn't! Monotheism implies whatever the individual chooses to perceive to be the nature of the one God. Many undividuals perceive the one God to be infallible, omni-loving, omiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnificent, and omnifarious. If such a one God actually exists, by definition it could not imply "exclusivity, infallibility, superiority, intolerance and all the other -ities and -isms that leads ultimately to conflict." My own personal perception is that the one God is identical to the observable inferable universe. Determining the nature of that version of the one God is the subject of both science and philosophy. The complete nature of Its intelligence is not yet known.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I dislike organised religions. Religion should be a private matter. Organisation builds political power and that power is rarely used to do good.

Wow! We agree!

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

... Western imperialism in the Arab world since the end of WW2.

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

What was the reason for Middle Eastern imperialism in the European world more than a 1000 years ago? Oil? I think not. I think Middle Eastern coveting of the European world's land was the reason. Thankfully the West pays for and does not steal arab oil, the discovery and lifting of such was originally performed by the West. Had that oil not been discovered in the Middle East, there would be fewer arabs living in the Middle EAst.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

We, The West have treated the Arabs badly.
The fundamental cause of terrorism is not Islam. It is a reaction against Western imperialism. The Arabs have just had enough of us. They want us OUT. Islam is used to inspire this reaction and stir up the Muslims out of their passivity. Take away Islam and you would still have terrorism, but take away the source of the irritation and there is a chance that the disease could be controlled.

A chance

What is that "chance"? Rather, what is that probability? Specifically, what is the probability that the TMM will dismantle its operations if the west totally removes itself from the Middle East? Isn't the chance greater that the TMM will behave like Saddam Hussein and/or the Taliban and murder or maim arab dissenters.

Why did the people of Japan, Germany, and Italy not turn to creating their own TMM when we occupied them after WWII? Didn't we treat them the same as we treated the Arabs? Why have so many Middle Easterners left the Middle East and emmigrated to the West, if they were treated badly enough to justify their murderering and maiming the West's population?

0 Replies

Hussein Sharistani has declined the position of prime minister of Iraq.

0 Replies

He's smart; didn't want to become a target of assassins.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why did the people of Japan, Germany, and Italy not turn to creating their own TMM when we occupied them after WWII? Didn't we treat them the same as we treated the Arabs? Why have so many Middle Easterners left the Middle East and emmigrated to the West, if they were treated badly enough to justify their murderering and maiming the West's population?

A common conservative argument. The difference is, Germany, Japan, and to a lesser extent Italy, were industrialized nations with more in common with us than not.

Iraq is a country in a region that hasn't known political stability for years. The economic model of the region, supported by our society, makes a few people extremely rich, and the rest extremely poor. The money flows right back out into Western investments - Paris, New York City - and not back into the Iraqi economy. Even if that is the fault of the richest oil barons, and not the western world, we still support the system. The Iraqi citizen isn't stupid, he knows this.

Does this give terrorists the right to kill people? No! Does it piss them off quite a bit? Yes. I can understand their point of view more - if I felt like America was being constantly screwed by another country I would be pretty angry as well.

There are 3 ways to deal with that anger:
-move to the western country and get a piece of the pie
-grin and bear it (most people do this)
-get pissed off and decide to fight.

This isn't as much an Arab thing as a pissed off PEOPLE thing, that's what we need to realize. When someone is willing to die to kill you, there comes a point when failing to ask yourself, "am I perhaps contributing to the problem here?" is tantamount to idiocy and gross incompetance.

Fighting terrorism the way we are going about it is like a doctor trying to fix the sympotoms of an illness, and ignoring the cause of the illness.

Cycloptichonr

0 Replies

Cyclo, Welcome to A2K.

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K!

Quote:

Does this give terrorists the right to kill people? No! Does it piss them off quite a bit? Yes. I can understand their point of view more - if I felt like America was being constantly screwed by another country I would be pretty angry as well.

Which terrorists are you referring to?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This isn't as much an Arab thing as a pissed off PEOPLE thing, that's what we need to realize. When someone is willing to die to kill you, there comes a point when failing to ask yourself, "am I perhaps contributing to the problem here?" is tantamount to idiocy and gross incompetance.

I think there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) thing is a pissed-off-sect-of-Islam-people thing. Refer to the TMM FATWAS to determine what the TMM are pissed off about. They have been quite candid about what has and is pissing them off. They are primarily and extremely pissed off about the West's rejection of their system of beliefs. They are secondarily and significantly pissed off about westerners residing on their lands that are leased by their leaders to westerners.

The leaders of the TMM are not poor. They are in fact quite rich by western standards. Based on their own declarations, if we were to remove all westerners including all western troops from the Middle East, the TMM would continue to be an extremely pissed-off-sect-of-Islam-people. While probably applying Saddam and/or Taliban like controls over the rest of the residents of the Middle East, they would continue to proceed systematically to reduce the number of westerners who reject their system of beliefs.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fighting terrorism the way we are going about it is like a doctor trying to fix the sympotoms of an illness, and ignoring the cause of the illness.

I think a better analogy would be that it is like a doctor trying to rid a person's body of cancer without pausing to determine the original/continuing cause of that cancer lest the patient die during that pause. While knowing the original/continuing cause would probably be quite helpful to the doctor, he can reasonably expect that the patient will die before the doctor can obtain and apply that knowledge. So what ought he choose to do? I say, leave it to others to research cause, while he tries to remove the cancer by surgery and/or cancer toxins.

In other words, until we have evidence to the contrary, let us not blame the body for the cancer; let us instead blame the cancer for the cancer; let us not blame the murdered and maimed for their murder and maiming; let us blame the murderers and maimers for their murdering and maiming.

0 Replies

cycloptichorn wrote:

When someone is willing to die to kill you, there comes a point when failing to ask yourself, "am I perhaps contributing to the problem here?" is tantamount to idiocy and gross incompetance.

I think this is more accurately stated:

ican711nm wrote:

When someone is willing to die to kill you and you are not threatening to kill him except in self-defense, there comes a point when failing to ask yourself What is contributing to that person's behavior? is tantamount to failure to seek a long term cure of that willingness.

The willing TMMs have made it quite clear why they are willing. Their rich sponsors and their clerics have convinced the willing TMMs that they can better their condition by dieing in an attempt to kill infidels. They are convinced that that way they can gain entry into paradise and thereby flee their current reality. There are better ways to flee one's reality. For example one can move to a better place and thereby change one's reality, or one can change the nature of one's reality by virtue of one's own efforts.

0 Replies

I heard on the radio today that the NYT made an apology for not doing due diligence on their story of WMDs in Iraq before the war started. The relevance of that story is that many people rely on the NYT to report accurate news, and come away with information that may be in error - such as Saddam having WMDs. When the NYTs started that story, many other media picked up the news and shared it with the American People - which led to more misinformation. We can understand now why most of us were confused about Saddam having WMDs.

0 Replies

Welcome, Cyclops...

Quote:

I think the expression is "...and sinker" actually, but as its sh1t you are refering to, stinker might be appropriate

LOL, Steve.

0 Replies

Thanks for the welcomes.

Quote:

TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers)

A great example of Framing, another very commonly found tactic amongst the modern conservative.

Quote:

The willing TMMs have made it quite clear why they are willing. Their rich sponsors and their clerics have convinced the willing TMMs that they can better their condition by dieing in an attempt to kill infidels. They are convinced that that way they can gain entry into paradise and thereby flee their current reality. There are better ways to flee one's reality. For example one can move to a better place and thereby change one's reality, or one can change the nature of one's reality by virtue of one's own efforts.

If the rich sponsors are simply duping terrorists into sacrificing their lives, then logically the best way to stop the flow of new terrorism would be to go after these rich sponsors, correct? Once again, going to the root of the problem would help here. But, are we bringing in the hundreds of Saudi families that we suspect are involved in terrorism? No. Why was the Bin Laden family allowed to leave the country after sept. 11th? Why aren't we questioning them now? It seems to me that if we are truly commited to stopping terrorism we shouldn't be ignoring the roots of it for political reasons.

I suppose the fact that the Bush family has major connections with the Bin Laden family has nothing to do with any of this.

www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=480

Quote:

They are primarily and extremely pissed off about the West's rejection of their system of beliefs.

Close. They are pissed off that they have told us, 'we feel that your way of life is screwing ours up royally!' and we are telling them 'piss off and go back to supplying our oil.' The inequity of the situation is staggering. We've bought out their official leaders with oil money, so unoffical ones take control and use terrorism as their army.

Quote:

In other words, until we have evidence to the contrary, let us not blame the body for the cancer; let us instead blame the cancer for the cancer; let us not blame the murdered and maimed for their murder and maiming; let us blame the murderers and maimers for their murdering and maiming.

You ever have two friends, who start fighting over something, and after a while things have gotten so bad you can't even agree over who started the fight?

Instead of BLAMING people for anything, let us SOLVE the problem. It doesn't matter what has happened up to this point. What matters now is fixing Iraq.

One-shotters:

Brand - X : I am referring to the concept that nothing really justifies any sort of terrorism. But people can be pushed to the point where they do unjustifiable behavior out of desperation, ignorance, and hate.

Cicerone : The NYT thing is exactly why I try to find multiple sources of information on important news stories. Everyone screw up sometimes, some more than others. In this case the Times made a gross mistake, but at least they are admitting it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know