Friday, February 04, 2005
Declaration of Independence
Why is this Iraqi angry with America?
When I read the American Declaration of Independence I am moved by the noble humanistic ideals expressed. I can sense the noble spirit behind it. The word ‘independence’ takes a meaning beyond the political independence of country from a colonial one… more like an independence of the human spirit.
And when I examine the Constitution, I see those words taken from the rhetoric domain and transferred into political reality in the most impressive practical idealism… complete with checks and balances.
On top of that, when I look into the biographies of some of the people involved, I feel that their honor and integrity still shine after more than two hundred years. My personal favorites are Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and Adams, in that order.
Those people were imperfect human beings like the rest of us but had visions that transcended their own narrow and immediate interests and tailored a system for the good of the whole, yet preserved individual aspirations. Many were religious people, some of them deeply so, yet they did not allow religion to dominate society in a rigid fashion.
The result was that the foundation they designed endured and supported a massive political and economic structure that was built upon it for more than two centuries.
But now, when I look at America I see a nation that has retained the form of that system yet lost much of its spirit and true content.
I look at the some of the issues deemed important by the electorate… and I feel sad.
I look at the politicians, and I mostly feel dismay and disappointment. I look at the candidates and I see actors, more worried about their “image” than about what they want to say; compromise artists and appeasers for those forces that hold the throne and control the coffers. When was the last time you had a truly grand statesman running America? Why?
The answer is simple. Would any idealist visionary, true to the spirit of the Founding Fathers have a chance to be elevated by the major party machines or funding contributors? My contention is that the initial filters discourage, even expel, people of the required caliber.
What chance did “outsiders” have against the gigantic red-blue polarizations and their huge spending machines? How many Americans had a chance to hear what those people had to say? How many Americans were interested?
Complex, varied life is packaged in two colors, in two huge containers, with all the wide range of social, political, religious, economic issues (each of which itself a complex maze of issues).
Is this abnormal? It is more like the normal course of evolution of a system… to fine-tuning if you like. But the problem is that these complex stratification and filtering stages produce mediocre results.
What has this got to do with Iraq? How insolent is this Iraqi attacking the system that produced the world’s sole hyper-power?
My grudge is this:
Because these people have lost sight of the original American ideals (that I personally cherish and respect) but they retained the form and the rhetoric without the substance, practical, shortsighted, we-versus-them cold-war mentality. These people are now playing God and tailoring Iraq “in their own image”. I wouldn’t have complained if that “image” were based on the original ideals. But it is based on the form with an ugly content.
I contemplate our new ‘major players’ on the Iraqi political arena, made or incubated in foreign lands and I see anything but Founding Fathers. Perhaps “Foundation” Fathers or ‘Fund’ fathers… but not Founding Fathers. The new deal and the new democracy were designed around these people.
These people will entrench. No, they have already entrenched. They will write a constitution to maintain this status quo; A compromise, half-baked solution that reflects not the true spirit and the richly diverse mosaic of the country… but the three or four external colors from the dark ages.
And you, no matter how well-meaning you may be… you cannot give what you no longer have!
When I read the American Declaration of Independence I am moved by the noble humanistic ideals expressed. I can sense the noble spirit behind it. The word ‘independence’ takes a meaning beyond the political independence of country from a colonial one… more like an independence of the human spirit.
And when I examine the Constitution, I see those words taken from the rhetoric domain and transferred into political reality in the most impressive practical idealism… complete with checks and balances.
On top of that, when I look into the biographies of some of the people involved, I feel that their honor and integrity still shine after more than two hundred years. My personal favorites are Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and Adams, in that order.
Those people were imperfect human beings like the rest of us but had visions that transcended their own narrow and immediate interests and tailored a system for the good of the whole, yet preserved individual aspirations. Many were religious people, some of them deeply so, yet they did not allow religion to dominate society in a rigid fashion.
The result was that the foundation they designed endured and supported a massive political and economic structure that was built upon it for more than two centuries.
But now, when I look at America I see a nation that has retained the form of that system yet lost much of its spirit and true content.
I look at the some of the issues deemed important by the electorate… and I feel sad.
I look at the politicians, and I mostly feel dismay and disappointment. I look at the candidates and I see actors, more worried about their “image” than about what they want to say; compromise artists and appeasers for those forces that hold the throne and control the coffers. When was the last time you had a truly grand statesman running America? Why?
The answer is simple. Would any idealist visionary, true to the spirit of the Founding Fathers have a chance to be elevated by the major party machines or funding contributors? My contention is that the initial filters discourage, even expel, people of the required caliber.
What chance did “outsiders” have against the gigantic red-blue polarizations and their huge spending machines? How many Americans had a chance to hear what those people had to say? How many Americans were interested?
Complex, varied life is packaged in two colors, in two huge containers, with all the wide range of social, political, religious, economic issues (each of which itself a complex maze of issues).
Is this abnormal? It is more like the normal course of evolution of a system… to fine-tuning if you like. But the problem is that these complex stratification and filtering stages produce mediocre results.
What has this got to do with Iraq? How insolent is this Iraqi attacking the system that produced the world’s sole hyper-power?
My grudge is this:
Because these people have lost sight of the original American ideals (that I personally cherish and respect) but they retained the form and the rhetoric without the substance, practical, shortsighted, we-versus-them cold-war mentality. These people are now playing God and tailoring Iraq “in their own image”. I wouldn’t have complained if that “image” were based on the original ideals. But it is based on the form with an ugly content.
I contemplate our new ‘major players’ on the Iraqi political arena, made or incubated in foreign lands and I see anything but Founding Fathers. Perhaps “Foundation” Fathers or ‘Fund’ fathers… but not Founding Fathers. The new deal and the new democracy were designed around these people.
These people will entrench. No, they have already entrenched. They will write a constitution to maintain this status quo; A compromise, half-baked solution that reflects not the true spirit and the richly diverse mosaic of the country… but the three or four external colors from the dark ages.
And you, no matter how well-meaning you may be… you cannot give what you no longer have!
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 10:52 PM 
Comments:
You have no idea what we have as Americans. In our country politicans and the police go to jail. Our presidents can be put on trial or made to resign. Name another country that happens in. About our politicians your right they suck! Thomas jefferson put the 2nd amendment in the constituion just for the purpose of keeping the goverment in line with an armed citizery.
_____________________________________________________________________
It’s been said a cynic is a frustrated idealist.
When you refer to external colors from the dark ages are your referring to what Amir Tahiri names as the 4 political families: Al Uruqah, Islamist, Westernisers & Al Urubah?
_____________________________________________________________________
Why do you expect from us what no one else in the history of the world has been able to deliver. Yes, they were great sentiments in the Declaration and, no we don't always live up to them. But we try.
Now, we're trying to give you a chance to try to approach those standards as well. You don't have to believe me when I tell you what our intentions were, it doesn't really matter. Hate us, love us, I don't really care.
What I do care about is that the people of Iraq don't lose this chance to set things right for themselves. You have the chance to build a country that is closer to those ideals of the Declaration then the one you have now.
Don't screw it up.
Join the Democratic process in Iraq and if you don't like what's happening - work to make it better. But do so within that democratic process. The people will let you down. You'll get venal politicians who vote for incredibly stupid stuff and who care more about winning the election then they do about the country.
Absolutely true, it WILL happen.
And yet democracy is still better than any other system out there.
A lot of people say that in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. Perhaps that's what has happened here as well. Even without death threats Iraq had a higher election turnout than we did. So, it's up to you, your friends, your neighbors and your countrymen. Get to work to make a government of which you can be proud. And, in the future, you don't like the idiots that get elected, accept it, until the next election and, in the meantime, work even harder.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
"But if there
was yet a thirst in their ambition, that must still be fed with
new trophies and triumphs, the Parthian and German wars would
yield matter enough to satisfy the most covetous of honor.
Scythia, moreover, was yet unconquered, and the Indians too,
where their ambition might be colored over with the specious
pretext of civilizing barbarous nations."
Beware of 'civilizers' bearing gifts of 'democracy'or 'civil government'.Remember the US 'liberation' of the Philipines in 1894 or French 'liberation of Spain in 1807.
Exporting 'democracy' is usually just camoflage for western security ambitions.
'That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun.'
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu,
You are right to be "moved by the noble humanistic ideals expressed " in the American Declaration of Independence. But those are IDEALS. The framework for our country was born of compromise, and there were bitter arguments over the details. Some might argue that the best features of our constitution were the result of compromise, the dilution of deeply held convictions. That is how democracy functions. Political leaders have been actors since the beginning of time. Humanity and our political and economic systems are inherently flawed--there is no way to guarantee 100% equality of outcome, we can only pick a system that is less flawed than all the others. Government is at once tyranny and a necessary evil. Don't blame us for the imperfection of our government, it has always been imperfect, as all others have been. There is not a political party in America that even comes close to fitting my ideals, and yes there are cronies, special interest groups and pressures to maintain the staus quo. But there is not a government on earth, barring my ascension to post of grand exalted ruler of the world, that would fulfill my ideals. So I vote, I write letters to the editor of my local paper, I attend city council meetings--I participate, without the fear of being murdered for that participation. I can VOTE for change. That, in itself, is a beautiful thing. This is my grudge: you can dismiss our "well-meaning" intentions and tell us that our country is but a pale dilution of the grand ideals of its birth, but many people in Iraq had the opportunity to vote for the first time in an election that did not have but one possible outcome: a tyrannical status quo under a brutal dictator. Not perfect enough for you? It never will be.
Nick, USA (atheist and independent, glad to be out of the dark ages)
_____________________________________________________________________
Gee, Abu, have you developed some sort of death wish? You can’t criticise the USA like that - you’ll be getting a midnight visit from the Marines before you know it.
"I look at the some of the issues deemed important by the (US) electorate… and I feel sad."
Let me inject a little note of personal venom here, it may infuriate Charles (and Fathom who I see has re-emerged from the deep.)
One of my daughters is a scientist, doing cutting-edge genetic research. Her doctoral work, on prevention of blight, was part of an effort that has major implications for world agriculture. She is now rooting around deep inside the wheat genome - God knows what will come of that. Most of the world presumably welcomes and appreciates her research.
But in one great country, her work means nothing, because it depends on certain essential "evolutionary" assumptions about natural selection and mutation rates. And in that great country, about half the population "believe" fervently in some ridiculous nonsense called Creationism, which denies those basic assumptions. As far as these fanatics are concerned (and they include the President and his core red state support) my daughter has been wasting her time for ten years, deluding herself that she is in a laboratory, being very handsomely paid for doing nothing. She would be unable to teach in many States of that country without denying that she has ever got any results. (Although the natives would doubtless be happy to eat the fruits of her research.)
Apparently no other country subscribes to this madness to anything like the same extent. And the Catholic Church doesn’t. (What’s the Islamic attitude to basic science, Abu? Is there any conflict between science and religion?)
While such "tyranny of ignorance" seems to be "deemed important by the electorate" what hope can there be? There was a TVNZ crew following the US elections last year. One segment consisted of an interview with a mid-western "soccer Mom," who was taking pistol lessons because she was quite convinced that the terrists were just beyond yonder hills, coming to get her, and that Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11. The interviewer kept a straight face, but you could see that he was wondering whether he had somehow strayed into the New Guinea highlands. The terrifying thing was, she looked absolutely normal.
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
As I say continually, I do not believe the aim of the United States was ever to impose democracy on Iraq.
The aim of the United States is, as a first choice, to install a pro-American dictator on Iraq similar to the models of Mubarak in Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan.
The aim of the United States is, as a second choice, to impose a destabilizing civil war that will leave Iraq unable to pursue any foreign policy at all for a long period and leave Iraq impoverished, exhausted and maybe more willing later to accept a pro-American dictator.
The story I've read about the elections is that they were forced upon the US by Sistani, who used the implicit threat of widening the insurgency to cause the Americans to accept an electoral process it did not want.
That implicit threat wielded by Sistani is the key to avoiding the US vision for Iraq. Hopefully Sistani still understands that.
So the electoral process imposed on the Americans by Sistani seems designed to cause a continuation of the Iraqi governing council.
The Parliament requires 66% of representatives to form a government and the final constitution can be rejected by a small number of provinces.
These are not usual rules for democracies and they seem aimed at producing an electoral process - that the US accepted against its wishes - that is designed to fail.
My guess is that the short term strategy of the US is for this process to be unable to create either a government or a constitution, which as a default, would leave Iraq's current US imposed dictatorship in power.
It is absolutely clear to me at this point that the US has no intention of leaving regardless of the will of the Iraqi people and the US has very strong preferences as to the leadership of Iraq that it intends to impose on that country, again regardless of the will of the Iraqi people.
Sistani still can foil the American plan. But he waited until January elections it is reasonable to expect him to wait until the results are published.
Sistani has developed into a central power broker of the Southern region. The Central region, which includes Baghdad, hopefully will develop a person able to speak as a spokesperson independent from the Americans.
One way to do that would be to elect one for Central Iraq, independently of the US. Ballotting can be done over several weeks at mosques or door to door. The Iraqi people are more than able to develop their own process and that process will grant the winner more legitimacy than the US-accepted process does nationwide.
Another way would be for various Iraqis to begin making public statements and so that everyone would generally develop a rough sense of whose ideas resonate best.
That person could then have the power Sistani has in the South in relation to the Americans. That person would be able to credibly threaten to increase or promise to decrease the intensity of the insurgency. That person could also interact with the Southern Iraqi leadership.
About your anger at the US: If you're angry with America now, wait until after the civil war, when president-for-life Allawi has more Iraqis imprisoned for their political beliefs than Saddam at his worst!
Here's hoping we can avoid that.
Mr. Democracy
_____________________________________________________________________
Why is this Iraqi angry with America?
Why were this brazilians so angry with America?
Because The USA oppressors have left us with no choice but to fight them.That is all.
Alvaro Frota
_____________________________________________________________________
Father of the scientist daughter. You may find humor in the soccer mom taking lessons. I find no humor in it. You may think it will never happen again. It may happen again.
_____________________________________________________________________
Anonymous above: What may happen again? You are unclear. The point about the soccer mom was her conviction that Saddam was behind 9/11. Since the whole of the civilised world knows damn well that he wasn’t, the implication is that (a) she can’t read, or (b) that she is seriously misinformed, or (c) that she is uncivilised.
Charles. You never seem to get the point the first time, so I guess I have to spell it out for you.
I was not commenting on the standards of science in the US, I was commenting on the disproportionate influence in the US of ignorant, uneducated people, such as the soccer mom above and the fools who espouse simple-minded nonsense such as Creationism and then vote on the strength of their misguided beliefs, rather than on the really important matters.
Hence my quoting of Abu’s concern at "some of the issues deemed important by the (US) electorate…"
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles
"There are a lot of people who believe in God. I think the vast majority of people the world over are religious one way or another."
Again you miss the point. It is perfectly possible to be religious but also rational. Setting up a false dichotomy based on wilful ignorance - either one believes in God or one believes in evolution - is OK if those doing so are just a fringe group of nutters, But when this sort of perversion of reason afflicts a significant proportion of a population, and influences their choice of leaders, then something is going wrong. You want leaders who are chosen because of their wisdom and experience, not simply because they are "born again." And maybe NH is a little island of rationality, but the reports I get seem to indicate that these sorts of simplistic convictions play perhaps too important a part in the US political process.
Anyway, maybe Abu will tell us that Islamic countries are no better in this respect.
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
OK, Abu, bit of uninformed amateur philosophising here to clog up your Blog.
Regarding democracy, I feel that the current US administration, and you perhaps, are going a bit overboard on it. It’s nice, but it’s not everything.
Insofar as we all want much the same thing for our countries - a good society where people can lead lives free from excesses of want or injustice - I like the analogy of the three-legged stool.
One leg is democracy, sure, the worst political system apart from all others, but to my mind the other two legs are equally important if the stool is to stand.
The second leg is law and order, freedom of the individual on the one hand balanced against the duties of the individual towards an effectively functioning society on the other. The US constitution addresses some aspects of this but it’s not alone - UN declarations of human rights are more recent and more comprehensive. And it’s a two-way street - the government has a reciprocal duty towards the governed in this respect.
The third leg is economic viability, the country needs to be a going concern. You can have an excellent police force and justice system, and elections every second day if you like, but if the people are starving the stool is going to fall over.
(In the Iraqi context, perhaps one could say that a major error following the Occupation was that the Coalition casually sawed off the second leg. And have been trying frantically ever since to glue or nail it back on.)
I would suggest that, seen from this angle, the US stool isn’t in too bad shape. Sure it’s a bit more wonky than many other countries, and there are areas of real concern - the present administration seems rather too fond of detention without trial, with a pinch of light torture thrown in, the election process for President has become a bit farcical (but not the process for the legislature as a whole - checks and balances), and apparently the economy is virtually at the mercy now of the goodwill of the world’s Central Banks - but it should be able to survive all this.
Provided, I guess, it doesn’t continue with its present ambitions for foreign Imperial adventures as the world’s self-appointed policeman. That could result in all three legs coming off.
That should provoke a fair amount of abuse.
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Democracy for Dummies - in 5 easy stepsYou express regret that my country has not put forth any great statesmen and that your country has not called forth any founding fathers. Not to worry, a well written constitution can help mitigate less than stellar leadership.
I don't pretend to know the details or fully understand the dynamics. Am I correct in understanding that if 3 provinces vote against the proposed consitution, as a block they can derail its implementation? I'm curious to know if provinces will be putting forth their own consitution. I am assuming the Kurds are drafting or have a drafted a constitution for their parliament. I am assuming the proposed national constitution will confer some rights to the Kurdish regional governance. Have you given any thought to drafting a consitution for your own province? Will provinces have their own set of family and civil courts and some taxation to provide for services, education and security?
Beautiful Mosaic It can be pieced together.
_____________________________________________________________________
More and more, your posts lack believability. You attempt to speak with a neutral voice of wisdom, but an agenda bleeds through your words. You attack what you don't know from real experience, while somehow patronizing the western reader at the same time. We call this disingenuous.
You would make a good career politician - you are clearly worried about how you are viewed as you champion a personal agenda unaffected by the burden of objectivity. We see no leadership or statesmanship in your words.
Someday, you will also become practiced at seeing the same in others - democracy hones the skill.
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear blog Author
Wow. That was incredibly inspiring. Thank you. With moving outbursts of humanity such as this, perhaps all hope is not lost.
Now all that remains is for me to stop wish~washing around and let forth a bit of bravery myself, again.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
Maybe it is because I'm a Southern Californian, maybe it's because I'm an ex-fundamentalist--I am friends with a number (small) of Creationists. I attended church with quite a few. I'm not sure whether the Biology professor attending was a Creationist. I have been told that he still is attending that church, so if he's not a Creationist, he probably keeps his viwepoints quiet around those who would disapprove.
Pepperdine University, my alma mater, had one or more Creationist professors in the Biology department. I don't know whether that is still the case, as I don't know whether the university is still interested in attracting students from fundamentalist families.
I am not sure I know any 'Young Earth Creationists', though I think I knew several when I was in High School. (Note for Circular et al--Young Earth Creationists hold to a rather recent creation, within the past few thousand years. Old Earth Creationists may agree that the earth is millions of years old, and the universe billions of years old, while insisting that life is the result of divine creation.)
I don't know whether many of the right-wing talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh for instance) are Creationists. A significant portion of their audience holds to creationist beliefs. Jerry Falwell and the members of the Christian Coalition are creationist, though I don't know where Billy Graham stands on the issue.
I gave up Young Earth Creationism while studying Ancient Near Eastern history and languages in college. If I recall correctly, some of the early Mesopotamian archeological remains precede 4004 BCE (typical Young Earth Creation date, derived from R. Usher's dating) [7000 BCE for Jemdet Nasr?]. Early Sumerian tablets definitely precede Usher's date for the Noachic flood, wreaking havoc with interpretations of The Tower of Babel. (Note--the Arabic word for scribe--'tifsar'--probably is derived from the old Sumerian word--'dub-sar'.)
Old Earth Creationism, which is sometimes conjoined with 'Intelligent Design', while more 'scientifically palatable', is more of a rear-guard action than a scientific theory. I have held to an OEC position for some years, but I can't defend teaching it as a theory. In fact, I'm not sure I believe it myself any more.
Another characteristic of many Creationists is a belief in the utility of physical punishment. 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' is a well-known Bible quote. This is probably background to Gonzalez's position and to Limbaugh's lack of response to the tortures at Abu Ghraib. 'Tough Love' is a popular concept with much of this crowd. (Note--this attitude is also found in the Sayings of Akhiqar, an ancient Aramaic wisdom text, and in the Wisdom of Solomon, written during the 2nd Temple period)
Be Well,
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
I wanted to believe voting would be a good thing, but I was totally wrong. My hope was that seculars could find a way to be heard, but that never happened. Sistani said he would answer to God for his sheep and so they voted. This uncritical wishful thinking is typical of Americans but not Iraqis. Sistani is openly pushing sharia law as his very first demand. Some Iraqis say there is no contradiction between democracy and sharia..really?!
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
I wanted to believe voting would be a good thing, but I was totally wrong. My hope was that seculars could find a way to be heard, but that never happened. Sistani said he would answer to God for his sheep and so they voted. This uncritical wishful thinking is typical of Americans but not Iraqis. Sistani is openly pushing sharia law as his very first demand. Some Iraqis say there is no contradiction between democracy and sharia..really?!
_____________________________________________________________________
The worst thing on this earth is that you do not do nothing and terrorism WON!
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel,
When I read YOUR words, brother, I am so much moved beyond words. Beyond any possible words I am ashamed. But I wanted to say, this American loves you so much.
I wanted to say that like Jesus said to his Father, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do", and so I ask that you try to forgive my Government someday. I am learning to get involved to elect new leaders. I love you so much brother.
Don't forget, Mohammad and Jesus are ancestral brothers. And so are Iraq and America. I hope I say this right-Salaam aleikum and may God's hand be upon your heart as you have touched mine.
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel,
I just posted but I need to tell you to read about the Marquis De Lafayette and his relationship to George Washington and America. The Marquis named his son after George and George thought of the Marquis as an adopted son. He is not always mentioned but he was a humble but major helper in winning our democracy. He was loved so much that the original states made him travel to each one in exhaustive succession for fanfare and parades before he could go back to France. There are literally thousands of streets and towns named after the Marquis. When he left America for the last time he took some dirt with him to be buried with. The French honored that and at his grave there is an American flag flying.
I hope you know we are not perfect, but our country is so amazed by your peoples courage. I, as I'm sure many would have liked to be your country's Marquis De Lafayette.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Hadi,
A true believer will never accept the judgement of a civil court and while an established islamic family court option sounds innocuous, I doubt that is what is being proposed as the sole authority. 'Islam and the state are one' is their anthem. Only seculars with nerves of steel could (which was why I was praying for 324) challenge the shia mullahs and there aren't any about. It is impossible to expect 'restraint' from them when their power is still rising. Funny..lots of secular Iraqi bloggers are whispering..it's not that bad...they don't really mean it...it's nothing new.
I expect such wishful thinking from deranged Bush but not from Iraqis.
Me, I am confounded to see Iraq, the putative leader, the center of civilization transformed into a squalid backwater of the like of Sudan. Now why should I be quiet about that!
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel,
I hope I don't bore you, but here is some more about the Marquis DeLafayette of France.
I thought his story would be inspiring to you because you do appreciate some of Americas original thinkers and activists. The Marquis' life was inspiring to me as an American and I just learned of him in my adulthood.
He came to America as a teenager just because he simply believed in freedom for mankind. Even though he was wealthy! He asked to be in the regular army without rank or pay even though he had experience and rank in Europe. The Americans realized his abilities and gave him good rank.
As i have said, George Washington who had no biological son bonded strongly with the Marquis. There is so much to tell of this freedom fighter.
When he went back to France as all good people seem to, he was jailed eventually there under Napoleon. George Washington gave safe haven to the Marquis's son George. American diplomats helped to free the Marquis through their writings to the French authorities.
Anyway, my point is if a teenager who so believed in the struggle of a country across an ocean with a different language could do so much for it plus go on to write and influence against slavery and tyranny in his old age, each Iraqi can contribute so much in many ways big and small to your beautiful Iraq.
For my part, if I did not have three children and a husband I would find a way to be more closely helping Iraq. But what I can do now is dialogue with you. What I can do is give you hope and please don't stop hoping or believing in grand ideals. There were all kinds of cynics during the forming of my country and yours. But they are not the ones who can say they did something beneficial.
I am better involved in politics latley so that maybe, just maybe our two countries can heal. Someday even together.
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel,
I hope I don't bore you, but here is some more about the Marquis DeLafayette of France.
I thought his story would be inspiring to you because you do appreciate some of Americas original thinkers and activists. The Marquis' life was inspiring to me as an American and I just learned of him in my adulthood.
He came to America as a teenager just because he simply believed in freedom for mankind. Even though he was wealthy! He asked to be in the regular army without rank or pay even though he had experience and rank in Europe. The Americans realized his abilities and gave him good rank.
As i have said, George Washington who had no biological son bonded strongly with the Marquis. There is so much to tell of this freedom fighter.
When he went back to France as all good people seem to, he was jailed eventually there under Napoleon. George Washington gave safe haven to the Marquis's son George. American diplomats helped to free the Marquis through their writings to the French authorities.
Anyway, my point is if a teenager who so believed in the struggle of a country across an ocean with a different language could do so much for it plus go on to write and influence against slavery and tyranny in his old age, each Iraqi can contribute so much in many ways big and small to your beautiful Iraq.
For my part, if I did not have three children and a husband I would find a way to be more closely helping Iraq. But what I can do now is dialogue with you. What I can do is give you hope and please don't stop hoping or believing in grand ideals. There were all kinds of cynics during the forming of my country and yours. But they are not the ones who can say they did something beneficial.
I am better involved in politics latley so that maybe, just maybe our two countries can heal. Someday even together.
_____________________________________________________________________
And one more thing, you are an excellent writer Abu Khaleel. It is an honor to give you my opinion and I don't even think I deserve to have you read it.
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel:
I think you know "Iraq Patriotic Aliance" as well as Shaik Jawad al-Khalesi, a renowned [Shiite] Muslim scholar and the leader of a multi-party coalition boycotting the elections in Iraq.
Al-Khalesi and Sammi Alaa, a militant of "IPA" were in Porto Alegre, Brazil, participating in the World Social Forum. I met your contryman, Alaa. Whith the support of some Brazilian, Argentinian and American organizations, we organized a sucessful march. As both a demonstrator and a witness, I took some photos.
In Iraq-war, we published two news about it, with the photos:
World Social Forum: Anti-war support for Iraqi resistance strong.
Iraqi Resistance demo challenges WSF in Porto Alegre.
I invite you to read both.
Now, we (I and many of my contrymen) are trying to organize in all capitals of Brazil, at 19-20 March, the most ample manifestations with all Brazilian people who are anti-war and for the peace in the world. Inside this movement, we are trying to organize all the people who are for the unconditional support of Iraqi Resistance and for the defection of USA Empire enterprise in Iraq.
Thank you in advance,
Alvaro Frota
------------
Charles: I bag you to refrain from trolling this particular comment in Abu's blog. Thank you in advance too.
_____________________________________________________________________
Questions for Abu Khaleel and Abu Hadi:
It is starting to seem as if the next target of the Americans will be Iran.
We've gotten a statement from Rice that there are she does not have any plans at this time to use military force against Iran.
This parallel's Bush's claim that there were no plans to invade Iraq "on his desk" in late 2002.
Bush has told members of the press that there are no good options for use against Iran which led those members of the press to understand that Bush is considering one of the bad options - a military strike against Iran.
For the US to be considering strikes against Iran, presumably staged from Iraq and certainly over supposedly sovereign Iraqi airspace at the very least makes it clear that regardless of their "victory" in the elections, the Southern Iraqis, who are the most pro-Iranian segment of Iraq, will not be in power in any real sense.
We can call this another lesson for Sistani and the world about US-style democracy in the Middle East. File it with Afghanistan, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and the others.
But if I understand correctly, the least pro-Iranian segment in Iraq is the population that lives in Central Iraq.
What would your thoughts be on the US imposing sanctions on Iran and enforcing those sanctions from Iraq?
How would you feel about Iraq playing the role in Iran's regime change that Kuwait played in Iraq's regime change?
How many Iraqis would you estimate would support Iraqi assistance in aggression against Iran?
_____________________________________________________________________
The previous question about Iraqi cooperation with measures against Iran was asked by Mr. Democracy.
_____________________________________________________________________
The Quietest"Sayyid Sistani knows about the French Revolution, the American Revolution. He had read about the election in East Timor," Shahristani, the nuclear scientist, said. "I remember when I went to see him, I joked and said how impressed I was at how much he had read.""
"A cleric friend said Sistani had readied himself to wrestle with constitutional principles. "He is knowledgeable about the American, French and German constitutions and the British unwritten constitution," said Sheik Jalaludin Saghir, the chief cleric at the Bratha mosque in Baghdad, one of the city's largest Shiite mosques."
Los Angeles Times Feb. 5, 2005
---------
Could you come to accept Sistani as a Founding Father?
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Hadi,
Are you saying you would not feel threatened if nuclear weapons were in the hands of the Iranian theocracy?
Are you saying Israel is more of a threat to Iraq than Iran?
Are you saying that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons that Iraq would not feel compelled to arm herself to the same degree?
Are you saying that Iraq would feel secure under the umbrella of Iran's nuclear defensive shield?
Are you saying that if Iran acquire nuclear weapons that there would not be an arms race* within the region - whether it be it Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey? Would the pursuit and acquistion of nuclear weapons not bankrupt the region or be a tremendous misapplication of resources?
(*An arms race to greater degree than what currently prevails in the region - I notice Russia and France have been dropping by the region - shoring up buddies, exploring new markets. And, no doubt, our own arms merchants are itching to cash in.)
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Hadi and Abu Khaleel:
From what you've seen and experienced, is there any constituency in Iraq that would be happy to see Iraq help the US put Iran through what Iraq is going through?
I'm assuming many Shia have ties to Iran and would be strongly opposed. (Some democracy :) )
But to what degree do other Iraqis perceive tension and/or rivalry with Iran?
Would staging attacks from Iraq have any support at all?
_____________________________________________________________________
The previous clarification of the question regarding whether or not there are any groups of Iraqis that would be happy to see Iraq used in an attack on Iran was posted by Mr. Democracy.
_____________________________________________________________________
"Maybe I'm just an ignorant fellow from New Hampshire..."
Charles, Charles, it’s entirely possible.
Apologies to Abu for wandering far from the topic of his post but the tone of your comment really upsets me, Charles. Consider:
(a) There is supposedly some unrest or agitation for greater secularity in Iran, but by the sound of it not of great significance. As the 1980’s Gulf War showed, the Iranians are not afraid of sacrifice in defence of their country. It’s basically a unified state, not divided like Iraq. It’s four times bigger than Iraq, with three times the population. It possesses considerable conventional armament. It could not be defeated militarily by a quick "shock and awe" campaign like Iraq was - a long campaign of occupation would be needed, and would probably be bitterly opposed. So despite the occasional bit of aggressive bravado from the White House, I would say that there is absolutely no prospect of a US invasion of Iran from Iraq. What Army would you use? The present one is stretched to the limit in Iraq already, and the best hope there is for a slow reduction of the insurgency. You’d be most unlikely to get any coalition partners at all. And China might get a bit upset at interruption of its gas supply, and unload its dollar holdings, which would send your economy rapidly downhill.
(b) Therefore any pre-emptive action would have to be in the form of air strikes against supposed nuclear plants. I gather there’s quite a few of them, most genuine power-production facilities with the naughty ones, if there are any, not signposted "bomb here." If US "intelligence" on Iran is anything like it was on Iraq’s WMD’s, the chances of hitting anything significant are pretty low. All that would be achieved would be to stir things up, so that the border with Iraq would become a volatile area, on the unproven assumption that Iran might be heading towards testing one bomb, which if it worked might lead them to make more, which they then might use against Israel, if they had a way to deliver them, but which they would never get as far as the US. Meanwhile the EU is working steadily and sensibly to promote Iranian openness about its capabilities and intentions, and would certainly not object if the US were to join them in this.
But just for the sake of a lot of "mights" and "possiblys" (not even probablys) you would apparently quite happily plunge the Middle East into more chaos.
"Or am I just being paranoid - eh? Tell me they are really decent folks who never meant what they said..."
When was the last time the Iranian Government threatened to attack someone? Never mind extremist fundamentalist clerics (you’ve got those in the US too, you know, of the Christian variety) there is actually a civil government there.
I like to read the Lonely Planet Travel Guidebooks. The latest one on Iran makes it sound like a perfectly safe destination for tourists, with very friendly and helpful people.
Why destroy that for the sake of a remote possibility of a threat?
Circular
Oh yeah, and why do you always invariably have to find an attack in anything anyone says. I never actually wrote anything about my daughter working in "genetic modification," she doesn’t, nor did I write anything comparing US and EU attitudes towards GM. Why always this aggressiveness?
_____________________________________________________________________
I was in a foul mood when I wrote this post. I was angry and disappointed (mainly at the disfigured newborn and at the US administration’s political architects) and I guess it showed.
Over the past few days, my mind kept going back to an Egyptian national hero who lived early in the last century. His name was Saad Zaghlool - a nationalistic patriot who fought the British domination of Egypt politically and left his mark on Egyptian politics. He was much respected by most of the people as well as the political forces at the time.
I had a dear old friend, now dead, who lived for some time in Egypt. He used to say that Saad, in his last moments, a sad old man, was a home in Alexandria. He turned his back to Egypt, faced the Mediterranean and said to his old sister: “Saneyyah, give me the blanket. It’s no use!” He sat on a chair, wrapped in that blanket, his back to Egypt, and quietly died.
Today, you still find high regard for the memory of Saad Zaghlool in Egypt. The spirit of that honorable old man lives on, long after his death. (Thomas Payne?)
When I am in such a black mood, I always remind myself that after Zaghlool, Eygpt, an old and a resilient country, refused to die quietly. Even today, faced with an enormous onslaught of forces of decay, Egypt refuses to die!
Anyway, back to the present! As usual, regular comment posters have successfully ‘derailed’ the forum from what I wanted to discuss to what occupies their minds more. Perhaps this is the way it should be anyway :)
Thank you for such a wide spread of views in so many different comments based on widely different perspectives. So much food for thought... as well as some touching sentiments. Your comments actually portray my own reluctance to post over the past few days: So many new concerns, so many new contradictory signals and, as Abu Hadi puts it, so much ‘horse trading’.
Sunni life under Shiite rule; Islam and democracy; Islam and science; Iraqis and religion and nationalism; Iraq and Iran; the Iraqi Shiites and Iran; the enigma called Sistani; and of course the question of religion and terrorism (which I once promised to come back to!) etc etc.
At the moment, I am contemplating all these issues trying to determine how best to go about discussing some of them… and frankly I haven’t a clue… not for want of things to say, on the contrary! I will try to look into this comment section later on tonight or tomorrow, and I would be most grateful for any input. One thing is certain: I will try not to discuss the ‘horse trading’; I have a healthy detestation of the whole subject.
_____________________________________________________________________
I was in a foul mood when I wrote this post. I was angry and disappointed (mainly at the disfigured newborn and at the US administration’s political architects) and I guess it showed.
Over the past few days, my mind kept going back to an Egyptian national hero who lived early in the last century. His name was Saad Zaghlool - a nationalistic patriot who fought the British domination of Egypt politically and left his mark on Egyptian politics. He was much respected by most of the people as well as the political forces at the time.
I had a dear old friend, now dead, who lived for some time in Egypt. He used to say that Saad, in his last moments, a sad old man, was a home in Alexandria. He turned his back to Egypt, faced the Mediterranean and said to his old sister: “Saneyyah, give me the blanket. It’s no use!” He sat on a chair, wrapped in that blanket, his back to Egypt, and quietly died.
Today, you still find high regard for the memory of Saad Zaghlool in Egypt. The spirit of that honorable old man lives on, long after his death. (Thomas Payne?)
When I am in such a black mood, I always remind myself that after Zaghlool, Eygpt, an old and a resilient country, refused to die quietly. Even today, faced with an enormous onslaught of forces of decay, Egypt refuses to die!
Anyway, back to the present! As usual, regular comment posters have successfully ‘derailed’ the forum from what I wanted to discuss to what occupies their minds more. Perhaps this is the way it should be anyway :)
Thank you for such a wide spread of views in so many different comments based on widely different perspectives. So much food for thought... as well as some touching sentiments. Your comments actually portray my own reluctance to post over the past few days: So many new concerns, so many new contradictory signals and, as Abu Hadi puts it, so much ‘horse trading’.
Sunni life under Shiite rule; Islam and democracy; Islam and science; Iraqis and religion and nationalism; Iraq and Iran; the Iraqi Shiites and Iran; the enigma called Sistani; and of course the question of religion and terrorism (which I once promised to come back to!) etc etc.
At the moment, I am contemplating all these issues trying to determine how best to go about discussing some of them… and frankly I haven’t a clue… not for want of things to say, on the contrary! I will try to look into this comment section later on tonight or tomorrow, and I would be most grateful for any input. One thing is certain: I will try not to discuss the ‘horse trading’; I have a healthy detestation of the whole subject.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Bruno,
This hysterical propaganda campaign against the Islamic Republic( notice how all of Bush's propaganda is hysterical--coming straight out of the US Jewish lobby)is really getting nauseous. It's perfectly reasonable for Iran, with declining oil reserves to want nuclear technology. A few weeks ago the Iranians were talking very nicely not only to the UN and Europe but even to the US and putting out peace feelers. Then comes in Condo Rice squashing all that optimism with her unintelligible 'double-talk'. OTH, the 'exporter' of nuclear weapons technology-North Korea, who supplied Pakistan and Libya with their equipment is being ignored as the Russian and Chinese 'parallel'negotiations with totalitarian North Korea are going nowhere.
It's time everyone just ignored the warmongering Bush and got on with business. Hopefully he'll just go away.
_____________________________________________________________________
Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel,
They are right--do not write on both sides of the paper at once, you might get pricked.
Now it is my turn to be in a dark mood. With more Iraqi police killed in a shootout today so bad that their compatriots can't get to them and 20 truck drivers killed and dumped by the roadside I am furious my Government lied to us Americans and is adding to the huge death toll of Iraqis as well as my countrymen. This never had to happen. I feel so helpless.
_____________________________________________________________________
Slightly off-topic enquiry, but while we're waiting for Abu's next post someone knowledgable might like to respond.
I know that things are meant to happen within a certain time-frame, e.g. two weeks for the Assembly to choose the Presidential Council, etc, but is this controlled or mandatory, is it enforceable?
I'm thinking of the first MMP (proportional) election here back in the 1990's, when neither major party could form a majority by itself, and the balance of power was held by a third party. Its leader was an egotistical populist who kept the whole country waiting for 6 weeks while he dithered and negotiated before finally coming to an arrangement (not quite a coalition) with one of the main parties.
Could something similar happen in Iraq?
_____________________________________________________________________
That was me - Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
You are preposterously MAD(also insane). By your logic the US should give Iran nuclear bombs(something they very likely don't want)so that you can threaten them with nuclear annihilation. Try to make some intelligent suggestions or simply be quiet (for you a novelty). Stop grunting, freedom of speech is not freedom of noise!
_____________________________________________________________________
cold shivers and nightmaresLt. Col. Stanislav Petrov disobeyed his orders, defied military protocol and averted nuclear holocaust on September 26, 1983.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of politically unstable regimes such as Pakistan and North Korean terrify me. I can't help but believe that the Iranians are pursuing weapons out of ego rather than necessity. Fools.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles, he said STOP grunting!
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Charles (Chuckles?),
Maybe you're talking about the period between 1945 and 1949 when the US had a monoploy on the bomb. Yeah, the time when the Commies took over half of Europe and all of China. Yeah, they were seriously detered. After Stalin got the bomb, the mutually assured destruction doctrine took off-no need during monopoly phase. Are talking about a nuclear monopoly against Islamic countries-also in the past( filled with radicals)? Pakistan is very interesting as the ISI security police also ran the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Then you said this:
"The policy must be terrible and unpredictable enough to scare these governments straight and to crack down on radicals"
To make it work you need a balance of terror, as in MAD.
If the Iranians have the bomb, they would tell us to stay the hell out of their territory and we would do the same. But this is not what you want either.
Actually, this is more Israel's fear than the US. Israel would love to have good relations with Iran, but the mullahs won't accept Israel(haram). So Israel will settle for fear and bad relations and simpleton Bush is using 'US capital' to push Israel's agenda.
So far Rice's murky diplomacy has lead to a North Korean claim of a bomb for self-defence, so Iran will probably be next. MAD is a rational doctrine.
_____________________________________________________________________
To the above,
It is not Condoleeza Rice's "murky" diplomacy that has led to N. Korea's claim of having nuclear weapons. She has just begun her position and b). they have been meaning to do this all along for leverage.
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Khaleel, Abu Khaleel,
Help uuuuuuuusssss!
_____________________________________________________________________
Anon and Charles,
"So far Rice's murky diplomacy has lead to a North Korean claim of a bomb for self-defence,".......
When asked about a possible US attack, Rice said,"The question is SIMPLY not on the agenda at this point".
Rather terrifying when you consider...
" In his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, President Bush called Iran "the world's primary state sponsor of terror."
"I gather from your coments that you have NO IDEA what I am talking about."
Just trying to make some sense out of your nonsense, Charles.
"My point was simply that joining the nuclear club is not all fun and games."
No game, nuclear bomb programs happen when countries are under threat of invasion.
"Uh-guh. She's been in office for what - 3 weeks (you twit)?"
Both Bush and Rice start off the new term with threats and the North Koreans got mad, nothing new, but it was a chance for a new
diplomatic opening. But you want to have a war(preferably nuclear), right?
"The nice thing about NK is that now we can wash our hands of the matter."
This is why I call you Chuckles.
But didn't you say they don't want weapons? :-)
I don't think they did but the logic of MAD will force them to defend themselves with nuclear weapons. Especially after just bluffing a la Saddam doesn't work with Bush.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
In the mind of NK, they have been under attack for decades, at least that is what they tell their people. Why did they wait until now to come out with the provocative statement that they have weapons? Because of Bush's and Rice's murky, threatening rhetoric--my point. You're basically an empiricist so making connections is doubly hard with you. Or do you think that on-going sanctions are finally kicking in!
"OK - what's your proposal? Do you think it is a reasonable precedent to pay off countries who violated every rule in the book to acquire nuclear weapons? I certainly do not want to give NK anything. I think they made a big mistake."
Yes, you want to punish them, big surprise(you're Chuckles the Bad Clown persona)! But you're inconsistant what about proliferator Pakistan?
My proposal is to step back from the rhetorical pie throwing and let Iran enter the nuclear age under the IAEA. But you're too afraid of 'radicals' getting hold of a-bombs which becomes a self-fullfilling prophesy. If you want people to take responsibility you must give them respect.
"Um. I think you misunderstood again. If you are not part of the nuclear club the rules don't apply to you. If Iran did not have a nuke capability, they would not be able to use them (they don't have them), meaning they would be under NO threat of nuclear retaliation a la 'assured destruction.'"
LOL-Tell that to Saddam Hussein. True, to be a real member you have blow off an atom bomb. I'm not sure the North Koreans didn't do that as there was a very big explosion a few months ago which was quickly labeled as non-nuclear. Where as a smaller underground explosion by Pakistan was hailed as the Islamic bomb.
The problem with your theory comes when propaganda and poor intelligence makes arms verification a joke as in Iraq. The same elements are present in Iran now.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
I am taking time to explain this to you because I hope you will reflect on the reckless course our country seems to be repeating in the spirit of honesty and true patriotism.
What would you do with NK now?
I would listen to their needs, as Clinton did and BUY their cooperation as Clinton did. I would not threaten them, but encourage them to allow full IAEA inspections and eventually request their nuclear disarmaments.
Why is this impossible? Open your mind!!!
"How so? You don't think Pakistan would be attacked if they decided to lob nuclear bombs at other countries?"
The only country that has used nuclear weapons is the USA. The Russians first put bombs on ballistic missiles, but testing a ballistic missle does not equal nuclear attack. Such a thing as you are suggesting has NEVER HAPPENED!
'I think if we look at things realistically, we must accept that continued proliferation is just a fact of life. Its that whole 'genie/bottle' thing.'
You are absolutely wrong about this. Under Clinton there was a massive reduction in US and Russian nukes and South Africa actually disarmed. Bush's tough talk has reversed things.
Where do you draw the line and using what criteria? Should Ivory Coast or Sudan get the bomb too? Please clarify for me. I REALLY want to see your list! For you it seems to be a rhetorical issue. In about 10 years I will have to hand over the keys to the car to may daughter. It will make me nervous. But if she had promised to run over the first person she sees, would it be responsible of me to give her the keys?
You're really shaking, Charles. I can see the fear. You are not being rational. Remember 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself'? Up to 911, things were very much improved. Also, I would like to see any evidence of Al Qaeda's WMDs. There are irrational fears as well as rational ones.
'I'm just saying that the world is going to be a far more dangerous place, existentially speaking, the more this technology proliferates. More dangerous not just for the evil US, and these new club members, but for the world as a whole. Humans make mistakes. Zealots don't always exercise the best judgement, etc., etc.'
You're still frightened Charles and you want the whole world to feel as you do. Europeans,etc. look at you and they are frightened of you( you are acting strangely and spouting gibberish)!
'Your freedom fighters have been quite active this week. Dozens and dozens of civilians killed! Congrats! The bakery job today was impressive - and the reporter with his 3 year old son - I especially like their tactic of blowing people up as they come out of places of worship! Now that's stickin it to 'em!'
You are angry that I am not as 'frightened' as you are. One reason is that I am not living in Iraq. I totally reject such heinous violence. I know that much of the violence has resulted from foreign fighters coming to Iraq to fight the US troops on behalf of the disenfranchaised baathists and the US military has not been able to stop it. We need to try reason and that starts with putting aside your paralyzing fears.
Americans seem to be more fearful by nature than other peoples so you must not ridicule them, but try to be sympathetic. Unfortunately when the leader is fearful as well, the flock is sucked into a mass psychosis.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles on nuclear proliferation (how the hell did we get onto that?):
"I think if we look at things realistically, we must accept that continued proliferation is just a fact of life."
"I'm just saying that the world is going to be a far more dangerous place, existentially speaking, the more this technology proliferates."
Well that’s stating the blindingly obvious. What isn’t clear is what solution Charles advocates.
(a) The self-appointed world policeman should, at its discretion, bomb the bejasus out of any proliferating country that it chooses to.
(b) The self-appointed world policeman should work with other leading nations to defuse tensions
and suspicions that lead to proliferation.
(c) The citizens of the self-appointed world policeman, particularly those living in New Hampshire, should make loud indignant noises about terrorists and pointy-headed liberal leftists and Saddam sympathisers and ... and ... , thereby causing all the bombs to vanish.
(d) ?
(e) ??
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
The only help I can give is to change the subject back to Iraq. I just did!
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
One more time...
"Where do you draw the line and using what criteria? Should Ivory Coast or Sudan get the bomb too? Please clarify for me. I REALLY want to see your list!"
Who should have the bomb?
Nobody, the goal should be disarmament. People who are threatened with atomic bombs will build atomic bombs. The US did so fearing a nazi bomb. The bomb which you like threatening people with is totally unethical, like mass murder, poison gas, germ warfare,etc. Fear of attack causes these bombs to be built, only reducing fear will stop the spiral.
Iran, Pakistan and North Korea( and Bush) need to understand that nukes will not help their fear problem, which they cannot attempt while they are under verbal assault.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
One more time...
"Where do you draw the line and using what criteria? Should Ivory Coast or Sudan get the bomb too? Please clarify for me. I REALLY want to see your list!"
Who should have the bomb?
Nobody, the goal should be disarmament. People who are threatened with atomic bombs will build atomic bombs. The US did so fearing a nazi bomb. The bomb which you like threatening people with is totally unethical, like mass murder, poison gas, germ warfare,etc. Fear of attack causes these bombs to be built, only reducing fear will stop the spiral.
Iran, Pakistan and North Korea( and Bush) need to understand that nukes will not help their fear problem, which they cannot attempt while they are under verbal assault.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
"Now that's the kind of practical solution I like! The fact that the technology exists means that the threat will always be there. The genie won't go back in the bottle."
Wrong, the technology of making atom bombs isn't trivial (unlike poison gas and germ warfare). The expenditure is enormous and great will is required to sustain it (Libya dropped out). Perceived, long term external threats are needed to justify the cost.
"Seriously, you think its reasonable for Iran to have bomb. Who doesn't make your list?" Even America should not have the immoral bomb, can you live in a world where America doesn't have nuclear weapons?
"Maybe total proliferation IS a good thing and will lead to a more 'mature' world. I'm just trying to get my arms around your position.
Not my position, see "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb(1964)"
Are there any countries you can think of whose acquisition of the bomb should be opposed? Opposed with nasty letters? Sanctions? Military force?
None-America included, a-bombs are totally immoral WMDs. Seriously, can you trust a Frenchman with his finger on the button..mon dieu!
"If you are referring to the fact that I think retaliation in the event of an attack is reasonable, then yes, I'm guilty."
Earth to Charles, Earth to Charles..'there are NO such examples in human history!"
"I guess your basic premise is that this will all work out if we just 'do away' with armed conflict and violence."
Before Bush we were closer than you think. Most of the wars generated by the Cold War were dying down, Europe, the Far East, Latin America were largely demilitarized. The international arms trade was in crisis. As it turns out even Saddam disarmed (WMDs). It is cheaper, more rational to disarm than to arm. Nationalism, love of military paraphenalia and fear of attack are the the usual drivers of arms purchases. All the above were declining before Bush.
_____________________________________________________________________
Bruno and Circular:
I know you are debating with Charles and sometimes passions get ahead of logic, but you can't possibly sincerely believe that the only reasons for a nation state to choose to pursue nuclear arms are purely defensive. How about the offensive reasons for doing so, such as, the age old desire to dominate ones neighbors, become a world power, or settle disputes on more favorable terms by nuclear black mail? Surely, given a particular set of circumstances, such ambitions could rationally be outweigh the costs of pursuing them.
Do you really believe that human nature has been permanently altered for the good that no despotic regime will ever arise that seeks regional or global offensive advantages from every means at its disposal? Furthermore, the U.N. Charter assumes that aggressive despots (or megalomaniacs, if you prefer) will continue to arise over time as has been the case from the dawn of human history. The collective security system devised under it is the only rational defenses to such threats. Of course, the prevention, wherever possible, of nuclear proliferation is a wise supplement to that strategy.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
_____________________________________________________________________
Mark
"I know you are debating with Charles ..." Debating is rather a charitable word for it.
1) In my view, the nuclear arms race of the 1950’s to 1980’s is now seen by most rational people as an aberrant result of the "total war" mindset of WW2. The amount of potential destructiveness produced by the participants reached insane levels and genuinely threatened the continuation of life on earth. Hopefully this situation is now more or less under control, the major nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia, France and China) although still possessing ridiculous levels of nuclear arms (what the hell does France need 200 nukes for) have no reason, for the foreseeable future, and no intention of using them on each other.
2) This is a totally different situation of "rogue" smaller powers such as Israel, whose nukes are totally a "last ditch" deterrent against a conventional threat, or India and Pakistan, who are basically just imitating their nuclear "elders and betters," so to speak. All these nukes are indeed defensive or deterrent in intention, and are very unlikely to be used.
3) Which just leaves NK, and perhaps Iran - their intention to possess nukes is by no means proved. Even if NK is a real wild card, neither of them merit 3000 + US nukes aimed at them, or provocative threats - just working with them quietly and calmly is far more likely to succeed in lowering tensions.
4) The only real threat your precious US at present is the smuggled terrorist nuke - and that is most likely to come from stolen Russian stock, not from Iran or NK. Instead of making blustering noises about Iran, the us should be doing what it started to do after 9/11 - hunting down the real terrorist threat.
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
You have no idea what we have as Americans. In our country politicans and the police go to jail. Our presidents can be put on trial or made to resign. Name another country that happens in. About our politicians your right they suck! Thomas jefferson put the 2nd amendment in the constituion just for the purpose of keeping the goverment in line with an armed citizery.
# posted by 
: 5/2/05 1:07 AM
: 5/2/05 1:07 AM It’s been said a cynic is a frustrated idealist.
When you refer to external colors from the dark ages are your referring to what Amir Tahiri names as the 4 political families: Al Uruqah, Islamist, Westernisers & Al Urubah?
# posted by : 5/2/05 1:34 AM
: 5/2/05 1:34 AM Why do you expect from us what no one else in the history of the world has been able to deliver. Yes, they were great sentiments in the Declaration and, no we don't always live up to them. But we try.
Now, we're trying to give you a chance to try to approach those standards as well. You don't have to believe me when I tell you what our intentions were, it doesn't really matter. Hate us, love us, I don't really care.
What I do care about is that the people of Iraq don't lose this chance to set things right for themselves. You have the chance to build a country that is closer to those ideals of the Declaration then the one you have now.
Don't screw it up.
Join the Democratic process in Iraq and if you don't like what's happening - work to make it better. But do so within that democratic process. The people will let you down. You'll get venal politicians who vote for incredibly stupid stuff and who care more about winning the election then they do about the country.
Absolutely true, it WILL happen.
And yet democracy is still better than any other system out there.
A lot of people say that in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. Perhaps that's what has happened here as well. Even without death threats Iraq had a higher election turnout than we did. So, it's up to you, your friends, your neighbors and your countrymen. Get to work to make a government of which you can be proud. And, in the future, you don't like the idiots that get elected, accept it, until the next election and, in the meantime, work even harder.
# posted by : 5/2/05 1:55 AM
: 5/2/05 1:55 AM Hello Abu Khaleel,
"But if there
was yet a thirst in their ambition, that must still be fed with
new trophies and triumphs, the Parthian and German wars would
yield matter enough to satisfy the most covetous of honor.
Scythia, moreover, was yet unconquered, and the Indians too,
where their ambition might be colored over with the specious
pretext of civilizing barbarous nations."
Beware of 'civilizers' bearing gifts of 'democracy'or 'civil government'.Remember the US 'liberation' of the Philipines in 1894 or French 'liberation of Spain in 1807.
Exporting 'democracy' is usually just camoflage for western security ambitions.
'That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun.'
# posted by : 5/2/05 4:45 AM
: 5/2/05 4:45 AM Abu,
You are right to be "moved by the noble humanistic ideals expressed " in the American Declaration of Independence. But those are IDEALS. The framework for our country was born of compromise, and there were bitter arguments over the details. Some might argue that the best features of our constitution were the result of compromise, the dilution of deeply held convictions. That is how democracy functions. Political leaders have been actors since the beginning of time. Humanity and our political and economic systems are inherently flawed--there is no way to guarantee 100% equality of outcome, we can only pick a system that is less flawed than all the others. Government is at once tyranny and a necessary evil. Don't blame us for the imperfection of our government, it has always been imperfect, as all others have been. There is not a political party in America that even comes close to fitting my ideals, and yes there are cronies, special interest groups and pressures to maintain the staus quo. But there is not a government on earth, barring my ascension to post of grand exalted ruler of the world, that would fulfill my ideals. So I vote, I write letters to the editor of my local paper, I attend city council meetings--I participate, without the fear of being murdered for that participation. I can VOTE for change. That, in itself, is a beautiful thing. This is my grudge: you can dismiss our "well-meaning" intentions and tell us that our country is but a pale dilution of the grand ideals of its birth, but many people in Iraq had the opportunity to vote for the first time in an election that did not have but one possible outcome: a tyrannical status quo under a brutal dictator. Not perfect enough for you? It never will be.
Nick, USA (atheist and independent, glad to be out of the dark ages)
# posted by : 5/2/05 12:37 PM
: 5/2/05 12:37 PM Gee, Abu, have you developed some sort of death wish? You can’t criticise the USA like that - you’ll be getting a midnight visit from the Marines before you know it.
"I look at the some of the issues deemed important by the (US) electorate… and I feel sad."
Let me inject a little note of personal venom here, it may infuriate Charles (and Fathom who I see has re-emerged from the deep.)
One of my daughters is a scientist, doing cutting-edge genetic research. Her doctoral work, on prevention of blight, was part of an effort that has major implications for world agriculture. She is now rooting around deep inside the wheat genome - God knows what will come of that. Most of the world presumably welcomes and appreciates her research.
But in one great country, her work means nothing, because it depends on certain essential "evolutionary" assumptions about natural selection and mutation rates. And in that great country, about half the population "believe" fervently in some ridiculous nonsense called Creationism, which denies those basic assumptions. As far as these fanatics are concerned (and they include the President and his core red state support) my daughter has been wasting her time for ten years, deluding herself that she is in a laboratory, being very handsomely paid for doing nothing. She would be unable to teach in many States of that country without denying that she has ever got any results. (Although the natives would doubtless be happy to eat the fruits of her research.)
Apparently no other country subscribes to this madness to anything like the same extent. And the Catholic Church doesn’t. (What’s the Islamic attitude to basic science, Abu? Is there any conflict between science and religion?)
While such "tyranny of ignorance" seems to be "deemed important by the electorate" what hope can there be? There was a TVNZ crew following the US elections last year. One segment consisted of an interview with a mid-western "soccer Mom," who was taking pistol lessons because she was quite convinced that the terrists were just beyond yonder hills, coming to get her, and that Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11. The interviewer kept a straight face, but you could see that he was wondering whether he had somehow strayed into the New Guinea highlands. The terrifying thing was, she looked absolutely normal.
Circular
# posted by : 5/2/05 1:27 PM
: 5/2/05 1:27 PM As I say continually, I do not believe the aim of the United States was ever to impose democracy on Iraq.
The aim of the United States is, as a first choice, to install a pro-American dictator on Iraq similar to the models of Mubarak in Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan.
The aim of the United States is, as a second choice, to impose a destabilizing civil war that will leave Iraq unable to pursue any foreign policy at all for a long period and leave Iraq impoverished, exhausted and maybe more willing later to accept a pro-American dictator.
The story I've read about the elections is that they were forced upon the US by Sistani, who used the implicit threat of widening the insurgency to cause the Americans to accept an electoral process it did not want.
That implicit threat wielded by Sistani is the key to avoiding the US vision for Iraq. Hopefully Sistani still understands that.
So the electoral process imposed on the Americans by Sistani seems designed to cause a continuation of the Iraqi governing council.
The Parliament requires 66% of representatives to form a government and the final constitution can be rejected by a small number of provinces.
These are not usual rules for democracies and they seem aimed at producing an electoral process - that the US accepted against its wishes - that is designed to fail.
My guess is that the short term strategy of the US is for this process to be unable to create either a government or a constitution, which as a default, would leave Iraq's current US imposed dictatorship in power.
It is absolutely clear to me at this point that the US has no intention of leaving regardless of the will of the Iraqi people and the US has very strong preferences as to the leadership of Iraq that it intends to impose on that country, again regardless of the will of the Iraqi people.
Sistani still can foil the American plan. But he waited until January elections it is reasonable to expect him to wait until the results are published.
Sistani has developed into a central power broker of the Southern region. The Central region, which includes Baghdad, hopefully will develop a person able to speak as a spokesperson independent from the Americans.
One way to do that would be to elect one for Central Iraq, independently of the US. Ballotting can be done over several weeks at mosques or door to door. The Iraqi people are more than able to develop their own process and that process will grant the winner more legitimacy than the US-accepted process does nationwide.
Another way would be for various Iraqis to begin making public statements and so that everyone would generally develop a rough sense of whose ideas resonate best.
That person could then have the power Sistani has in the South in relation to the Americans. That person would be able to credibly threaten to increase or promise to decrease the intensity of the insurgency. That person could also interact with the Southern Iraqi leadership.
About your anger at the US: If you're angry with America now, wait until after the civil war, when president-for-life Allawi has more Iraqis imprisoned for their political beliefs than Saddam at his worst!
Here's hoping we can avoid that.
Mr. Democracy
# posted by : 5/2/05 4:17 PM
: 5/2/05 4:17 PM Why is this Iraqi angry with America?
Why were this brazilians so angry with America?
Because The USA oppressors have left us with no choice but to fight them.That is all.
Alvaro Frota
Father of the scientist daughter. You may find humor in the soccer mom taking lessons. I find no humor in it. You may think it will never happen again. It may happen again.
# posted by : 6/2/05 8:22 AM
: 6/2/05 8:22 AM Anonymous above: What may happen again? You are unclear. The point about the soccer mom was her conviction that Saddam was behind 9/11. Since the whole of the civilised world knows damn well that he wasn’t, the implication is that (a) she can’t read, or (b) that she is seriously misinformed, or (c) that she is uncivilised.
Charles. You never seem to get the point the first time, so I guess I have to spell it out for you.
I was not commenting on the standards of science in the US, I was commenting on the disproportionate influence in the US of ignorant, uneducated people, such as the soccer mom above and the fools who espouse simple-minded nonsense such as Creationism and then vote on the strength of their misguided beliefs, rather than on the really important matters.
Hence my quoting of Abu’s concern at "some of the issues deemed important by the (US) electorate…"
Circular
# posted by : 6/2/05 11:59 AM
: 6/2/05 11:59 AM Charles
"There are a lot of people who believe in God. I think the vast majority of people the world over are religious one way or another."
Again you miss the point. It is perfectly possible to be religious but also rational. Setting up a false dichotomy based on wilful ignorance - either one believes in God or one believes in evolution - is OK if those doing so are just a fringe group of nutters, But when this sort of perversion of reason afflicts a significant proportion of a population, and influences their choice of leaders, then something is going wrong. You want leaders who are chosen because of their wisdom and experience, not simply because they are "born again." And maybe NH is a little island of rationality, but the reports I get seem to indicate that these sorts of simplistic convictions play perhaps too important a part in the US political process.
Anyway, maybe Abu will tell us that Islamic countries are no better in this respect.
Circular
# posted by : 6/2/05 11:29 PM
: 6/2/05 11:29 PM OK, Abu, bit of uninformed amateur philosophising here to clog up your Blog.
Regarding democracy, I feel that the current US administration, and you perhaps, are going a bit overboard on it. It’s nice, but it’s not everything.
Insofar as we all want much the same thing for our countries - a good society where people can lead lives free from excesses of want or injustice - I like the analogy of the three-legged stool.
One leg is democracy, sure, the worst political system apart from all others, but to my mind the other two legs are equally important if the stool is to stand.
The second leg is law and order, freedom of the individual on the one hand balanced against the duties of the individual towards an effectively functioning society on the other. The US constitution addresses some aspects of this but it’s not alone - UN declarations of human rights are more recent and more comprehensive. And it’s a two-way street - the government has a reciprocal duty towards the governed in this respect.
The third leg is economic viability, the country needs to be a going concern. You can have an excellent police force and justice system, and elections every second day if you like, but if the people are starving the stool is going to fall over.
(In the Iraqi context, perhaps one could say that a major error following the Occupation was that the Coalition casually sawed off the second leg. And have been trying frantically ever since to glue or nail it back on.)
I would suggest that, seen from this angle, the US stool isn’t in too bad shape. Sure it’s a bit more wonky than many other countries, and there are areas of real concern - the present administration seems rather too fond of detention without trial, with a pinch of light torture thrown in, the election process for President has become a bit farcical (but not the process for the legislature as a whole - checks and balances), and apparently the economy is virtually at the mercy now of the goodwill of the world’s Central Banks - but it should be able to survive all this.
Provided, I guess, it doesn’t continue with its present ambitions for foreign Imperial adventures as the world’s self-appointed policeman. That could result in all three legs coming off.
That should provoke a fair amount of abuse.
Circular
# posted by : 7/2/05 12:16 AM
: 7/2/05 12:16 AM Democracy for Dummies - in 5 easy stepsYou express regret that my country has not put forth any great statesmen and that your country has not called forth any founding fathers. Not to worry, a well written constitution can help mitigate less than stellar leadership.
I don't pretend to know the details or fully understand the dynamics. Am I correct in understanding that if 3 provinces vote against the proposed consitution, as a block they can derail its implementation? I'm curious to know if provinces will be putting forth their own consitution. I am assuming the Kurds are drafting or have a drafted a constitution for their parliament. I am assuming the proposed national constitution will confer some rights to the Kurdish regional governance. Have you given any thought to drafting a consitution for your own province? Will provinces have their own set of family and civil courts and some taxation to provide for services, education and security?
Beautiful Mosaic It can be pieced together.
# posted by : 7/2/05 3:43 AM
: 7/2/05 3:43 AM More and more, your posts lack believability. You attempt to speak with a neutral voice of wisdom, but an agenda bleeds through your words. You attack what you don't know from real experience, while somehow patronizing the western reader at the same time. We call this disingenuous.
You would make a good career politician - you are clearly worried about how you are viewed as you champion a personal agenda unaffected by the burden of objectivity. We see no leadership or statesmanship in your words.
Someday, you will also become practiced at seeing the same in others - democracy hones the skill.
# posted by : 7/2/05 6:29 PM
: 7/2/05 6:29 PM Dear blog Author
Wow. That was incredibly inspiring. Thank you. With moving outbursts of humanity such as this, perhaps all hope is not lost.
Now all that remains is for me to stop wish~washing around and let forth a bit of bravery myself, again.
Charles,
Maybe it is because I'm a Southern Californian, maybe it's because I'm an ex-fundamentalist--I am friends with a number (small) of Creationists. I attended church with quite a few. I'm not sure whether the Biology professor attending was a Creationist. I have been told that he still is attending that church, so if he's not a Creationist, he probably keeps his viwepoints quiet around those who would disapprove.
Pepperdine University, my alma mater, had one or more Creationist professors in the Biology department. I don't know whether that is still the case, as I don't know whether the university is still interested in attracting students from fundamentalist families.
I am not sure I know any 'Young Earth Creationists', though I think I knew several when I was in High School. (Note for Circular et al--Young Earth Creationists hold to a rather recent creation, within the past few thousand years. Old Earth Creationists may agree that the earth is millions of years old, and the universe billions of years old, while insisting that life is the result of divine creation.)
I don't know whether many of the right-wing talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh for instance) are Creationists. A significant portion of their audience holds to creationist beliefs. Jerry Falwell and the members of the Christian Coalition are creationist, though I don't know where Billy Graham stands on the issue.
I gave up Young Earth Creationism while studying Ancient Near Eastern history and languages in college. If I recall correctly, some of the early Mesopotamian archeological remains precede 4004 BCE (typical Young Earth Creation date, derived from R. Usher's dating) [7000 BCE for Jemdet Nasr?]. Early Sumerian tablets definitely precede Usher's date for the Noachic flood, wreaking havoc with interpretations of The Tower of Babel. (Note--the Arabic word for scribe--'tifsar'--probably is derived from the old Sumerian word--'dub-sar'.)
Old Earth Creationism, which is sometimes conjoined with 'Intelligent Design', while more 'scientifically palatable', is more of a rear-guard action than a scientific theory. I have held to an OEC position for some years, but I can't defend teaching it as a theory. In fact, I'm not sure I believe it myself any more.
Another characteristic of many Creationists is a belief in the utility of physical punishment. 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' is a well-known Bible quote. This is probably background to Gonzalez's position and to Limbaugh's lack of response to the tortures at Abu Ghraib. 'Tough Love' is a popular concept with much of this crowd. (Note--this attitude is also found in the Sayings of Akhiqar, an ancient Aramaic wisdom text, and in the Wisdom of Solomon, written during the 2nd Temple period)
Be Well,
Hello Abu Khaleel,
I wanted to believe voting would be a good thing, but I was totally wrong. My hope was that seculars could find a way to be heard, but that never happened. Sistani said he would answer to God for his sheep and so they voted. This uncritical wishful thinking is typical of Americans but not Iraqis. Sistani is openly pushing sharia law as his very first demand. Some Iraqis say there is no contradiction between democracy and sharia..really?!
# posted by : 8/2/05 2:02 AM
: 8/2/05 2:02 AM Hello Abu Khaleel,
I wanted to believe voting would be a good thing, but I was totally wrong. My hope was that seculars could find a way to be heard, but that never happened. Sistani said he would answer to God for his sheep and so they voted. This uncritical wishful thinking is typical of Americans but not Iraqis. Sistani is openly pushing sharia law as his very first demand. Some Iraqis say there is no contradiction between democracy and sharia..really?!
# posted by : 8/2/05 2:02 AM
: 8/2/05 2:02 AM The worst thing on this earth is that you do not do nothing and terrorism WON!
Dear Abu Khaleel,
When I read YOUR words, brother, I am so much moved beyond words. Beyond any possible words I am ashamed. But I wanted to say, this American loves you so much.
I wanted to say that like Jesus said to his Father, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do", and so I ask that you try to forgive my Government someday. I am learning to get involved to elect new leaders. I love you so much brother.
Don't forget, Mohammad and Jesus are ancestral brothers. And so are Iraq and America. I hope I say this right-Salaam aleikum and may God's hand be upon your heart as you have touched mine.
# posted by : 8/2/05 4:00 AM
: 8/2/05 4:00 AM Dear Abu Khaleel,
I just posted but I need to tell you to read about the Marquis De Lafayette and his relationship to George Washington and America. The Marquis named his son after George and George thought of the Marquis as an adopted son. He is not always mentioned but he was a humble but major helper in winning our democracy. He was loved so much that the original states made him travel to each one in exhaustive succession for fanfare and parades before he could go back to France. There are literally thousands of streets and towns named after the Marquis. When he left America for the last time he took some dirt with him to be buried with. The French honored that and at his grave there is an American flag flying.
I hope you know we are not perfect, but our country is so amazed by your peoples courage. I, as I'm sure many would have liked to be your country's Marquis De Lafayette.
# posted by : 8/2/05 5:32 AM
: 8/2/05 5:32 AM Hello Abu Hadi,
A true believer will never accept the judgement of a civil court and while an established islamic family court option sounds innocuous, I doubt that is what is being proposed as the sole authority. 'Islam and the state are one' is their anthem. Only seculars with nerves of steel could (which was why I was praying for 324) challenge the shia mullahs and there aren't any about. It is impossible to expect 'restraint' from them when their power is still rising. Funny..lots of secular Iraqi bloggers are whispering..it's not that bad...they don't really mean it...it's nothing new.
I expect such wishful thinking from deranged Bush but not from Iraqis.
Me, I am confounded to see Iraq, the putative leader, the center of civilization transformed into a squalid backwater of the like of Sudan. Now why should I be quiet about that!
# posted by : 8/2/05 9:09 AM
: 8/2/05 9:09 AM Dear Abu Khaleel,
I hope I don't bore you, but here is some more about the Marquis DeLafayette of France.
I thought his story would be inspiring to you because you do appreciate some of Americas original thinkers and activists. The Marquis' life was inspiring to me as an American and I just learned of him in my adulthood.
He came to America as a teenager just because he simply believed in freedom for mankind. Even though he was wealthy! He asked to be in the regular army without rank or pay even though he had experience and rank in Europe. The Americans realized his abilities and gave him good rank.
As i have said, George Washington who had no biological son bonded strongly with the Marquis. There is so much to tell of this freedom fighter.
When he went back to France as all good people seem to, he was jailed eventually there under Napoleon. George Washington gave safe haven to the Marquis's son George. American diplomats helped to free the Marquis through their writings to the French authorities.
Anyway, my point is if a teenager who so believed in the struggle of a country across an ocean with a different language could do so much for it plus go on to write and influence against slavery and tyranny in his old age, each Iraqi can contribute so much in many ways big and small to your beautiful Iraq.
For my part, if I did not have three children and a husband I would find a way to be more closely helping Iraq. But what I can do now is dialogue with you. What I can do is give you hope and please don't stop hoping or believing in grand ideals. There were all kinds of cynics during the forming of my country and yours. But they are not the ones who can say they did something beneficial.
I am better involved in politics latley so that maybe, just maybe our two countries can heal. Someday even together.
# posted by : 8/2/05 6:55 PM
: 8/2/05 6:55 PM Dear Abu Khaleel,
I hope I don't bore you, but here is some more about the Marquis DeLafayette of France.
I thought his story would be inspiring to you because you do appreciate some of Americas original thinkers and activists. The Marquis' life was inspiring to me as an American and I just learned of him in my adulthood.
He came to America as a teenager just because he simply believed in freedom for mankind. Even though he was wealthy! He asked to be in the regular army without rank or pay even though he had experience and rank in Europe. The Americans realized his abilities and gave him good rank.
As i have said, George Washington who had no biological son bonded strongly with the Marquis. There is so much to tell of this freedom fighter.
When he went back to France as all good people seem to, he was jailed eventually there under Napoleon. George Washington gave safe haven to the Marquis's son George. American diplomats helped to free the Marquis through their writings to the French authorities.
Anyway, my point is if a teenager who so believed in the struggle of a country across an ocean with a different language could do so much for it plus go on to write and influence against slavery and tyranny in his old age, each Iraqi can contribute so much in many ways big and small to your beautiful Iraq.
For my part, if I did not have three children and a husband I would find a way to be more closely helping Iraq. But what I can do now is dialogue with you. What I can do is give you hope and please don't stop hoping or believing in grand ideals. There were all kinds of cynics during the forming of my country and yours. But they are not the ones who can say they did something beneficial.
I am better involved in politics latley so that maybe, just maybe our two countries can heal. Someday even together.
# posted by : 8/2/05 6:59 PM
: 8/2/05 6:59 PM And one more thing, you are an excellent writer Abu Khaleel. It is an honor to give you my opinion and I don't even think I deserve to have you read it.
# posted by : 8/2/05 7:12 PM
: 8/2/05 7:12 PM Dear Abu Khaleel:
I think you know "Iraq Patriotic Aliance" as well as Shaik Jawad al-Khalesi, a renowned [Shiite] Muslim scholar and the leader of a multi-party coalition boycotting the elections in Iraq.
Al-Khalesi and Sammi Alaa, a militant of "IPA" were in Porto Alegre, Brazil, participating in the World Social Forum. I met your contryman, Alaa. Whith the support of some Brazilian, Argentinian and American organizations, we organized a sucessful march. As both a demonstrator and a witness, I took some photos.
In Iraq-war, we published two news about it, with the photos:
World Social Forum: Anti-war support for Iraqi resistance strong.
Iraqi Resistance demo challenges WSF in Porto Alegre.
I invite you to read both.
Now, we (I and many of my contrymen) are trying to organize in all capitals of Brazil, at 19-20 March, the most ample manifestations with all Brazilian people who are anti-war and for the peace in the world. Inside this movement, we are trying to organize all the people who are for the unconditional support of Iraqi Resistance and for the defection of USA Empire enterprise in Iraq.
Thank you in advance,
Alvaro Frota
------------
Charles: I bag you to refrain from trolling this particular comment in Abu's blog. Thank you in advance too.
Questions for Abu Khaleel and Abu Hadi:
It is starting to seem as if the next target of the Americans will be Iran.
We've gotten a statement from Rice that there are she does not have any plans at this time to use military force against Iran.
This parallel's Bush's claim that there were no plans to invade Iraq "on his desk" in late 2002.
Bush has told members of the press that there are no good options for use against Iran which led those members of the press to understand that Bush is considering one of the bad options - a military strike against Iran.
For the US to be considering strikes against Iran, presumably staged from Iraq and certainly over supposedly sovereign Iraqi airspace at the very least makes it clear that regardless of their "victory" in the elections, the Southern Iraqis, who are the most pro-Iranian segment of Iraq, will not be in power in any real sense.
We can call this another lesson for Sistani and the world about US-style democracy in the Middle East. File it with Afghanistan, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and the others.
But if I understand correctly, the least pro-Iranian segment in Iraq is the population that lives in Central Iraq.
What would your thoughts be on the US imposing sanctions on Iran and enforcing those sanctions from Iraq?
How would you feel about Iraq playing the role in Iran's regime change that Kuwait played in Iraq's regime change?
How many Iraqis would you estimate would support Iraqi assistance in aggression against Iran?
# posted by : 9/2/05 6:34 PM
: 9/2/05 6:34 PM The previous question about Iraqi cooperation with measures against Iran was asked by Mr. Democracy.
# posted by : 9/2/05 6:35 PM
: 9/2/05 6:35 PM The Quietest"Sayyid Sistani knows about the French Revolution, the American Revolution. He had read about the election in East Timor," Shahristani, the nuclear scientist, said. "I remember when I went to see him, I joked and said how impressed I was at how much he had read.""
"A cleric friend said Sistani had readied himself to wrestle with constitutional principles. "He is knowledgeable about the American, French and German constitutions and the British unwritten constitution," said Sheik Jalaludin Saghir, the chief cleric at the Bratha mosque in Baghdad, one of the city's largest Shiite mosques."
Los Angeles Times Feb. 5, 2005
---------
Could you come to accept Sistani as a Founding Father?
# posted by : 10/2/05 5:13 AM
: 10/2/05 5:13 AM Abu Hadi,
Are you saying you would not feel threatened if nuclear weapons were in the hands of the Iranian theocracy?
Are you saying Israel is more of a threat to Iraq than Iran?
Are you saying that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons that Iraq would not feel compelled to arm herself to the same degree?
Are you saying that Iraq would feel secure under the umbrella of Iran's nuclear defensive shield?
Are you saying that if Iran acquire nuclear weapons that there would not be an arms race* within the region - whether it be it Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey? Would the pursuit and acquistion of nuclear weapons not bankrupt the region or be a tremendous misapplication of resources?
(*An arms race to greater degree than what currently prevails in the region - I notice Russia and France have been dropping by the region - shoring up buddies, exploring new markets. And, no doubt, our own arms merchants are itching to cash in.)
# posted by : 10/2/05 7:02 AM
: 10/2/05 7:02 AM Abu Hadi and Abu Khaleel:
From what you've seen and experienced, is there any constituency in Iraq that would be happy to see Iraq help the US put Iran through what Iraq is going through?
I'm assuming many Shia have ties to Iran and would be strongly opposed. (Some democracy :) )
But to what degree do other Iraqis perceive tension and/or rivalry with Iran?
Would staging attacks from Iraq have any support at all?
# posted by : 10/2/05 10:45 AM
: 10/2/05 10:45 AM The previous clarification of the question regarding whether or not there are any groups of Iraqis that would be happy to see Iraq used in an attack on Iran was posted by Mr. Democracy.
# posted by : 10/2/05 10:46 AM
: 10/2/05 10:46 AM "Maybe I'm just an ignorant fellow from New Hampshire..."
Charles, Charles, it’s entirely possible.
Apologies to Abu for wandering far from the topic of his post but the tone of your comment really upsets me, Charles. Consider:
(a) There is supposedly some unrest or agitation for greater secularity in Iran, but by the sound of it not of great significance. As the 1980’s Gulf War showed, the Iranians are not afraid of sacrifice in defence of their country. It’s basically a unified state, not divided like Iraq. It’s four times bigger than Iraq, with three times the population. It possesses considerable conventional armament. It could not be defeated militarily by a quick "shock and awe" campaign like Iraq was - a long campaign of occupation would be needed, and would probably be bitterly opposed. So despite the occasional bit of aggressive bravado from the White House, I would say that there is absolutely no prospect of a US invasion of Iran from Iraq. What Army would you use? The present one is stretched to the limit in Iraq already, and the best hope there is for a slow reduction of the insurgency. You’d be most unlikely to get any coalition partners at all. And China might get a bit upset at interruption of its gas supply, and unload its dollar holdings, which would send your economy rapidly downhill.
(b) Therefore any pre-emptive action would have to be in the form of air strikes against supposed nuclear plants. I gather there’s quite a few of them, most genuine power-production facilities with the naughty ones, if there are any, not signposted "bomb here." If US "intelligence" on Iran is anything like it was on Iraq’s WMD’s, the chances of hitting anything significant are pretty low. All that would be achieved would be to stir things up, so that the border with Iraq would become a volatile area, on the unproven assumption that Iran might be heading towards testing one bomb, which if it worked might lead them to make more, which they then might use against Israel, if they had a way to deliver them, but which they would never get as far as the US. Meanwhile the EU is working steadily and sensibly to promote Iranian openness about its capabilities and intentions, and would certainly not object if the US were to join them in this.
But just for the sake of a lot of "mights" and "possiblys" (not even probablys) you would apparently quite happily plunge the Middle East into more chaos.
"Or am I just being paranoid - eh? Tell me they are really decent folks who never meant what they said..."
When was the last time the Iranian Government threatened to attack someone? Never mind extremist fundamentalist clerics (you’ve got those in the US too, you know, of the Christian variety) there is actually a civil government there.
I like to read the Lonely Planet Travel Guidebooks. The latest one on Iran makes it sound like a perfectly safe destination for tourists, with very friendly and helpful people.
Why destroy that for the sake of a remote possibility of a threat?
Circular
Oh yeah, and why do you always invariably have to find an attack in anything anyone says. I never actually wrote anything about my daughter working in "genetic modification," she doesn’t, nor did I write anything comparing US and EU attitudes towards GM. Why always this aggressiveness?
# posted by : 10/2/05 12:31 PM
: 10/2/05 12:31 PM I was in a foul mood when I wrote this post. I was angry and disappointed (mainly at the disfigured newborn and at the US administration’s political architects) and I guess it showed.
Over the past few days, my mind kept going back to an Egyptian national hero who lived early in the last century. His name was Saad Zaghlool - a nationalistic patriot who fought the British domination of Egypt politically and left his mark on Egyptian politics. He was much respected by most of the people as well as the political forces at the time.
I had a dear old friend, now dead, who lived for some time in Egypt. He used to say that Saad, in his last moments, a sad old man, was a home in Alexandria. He turned his back to Egypt, faced the Mediterranean and said to his old sister: “Saneyyah, give me the blanket. It’s no use!” He sat on a chair, wrapped in that blanket, his back to Egypt, and quietly died.
Today, you still find high regard for the memory of Saad Zaghlool in Egypt. The spirit of that honorable old man lives on, long after his death. (Thomas Payne?)
When I am in such a black mood, I always remind myself that after Zaghlool, Eygpt, an old and a resilient country, refused to die quietly. Even today, faced with an enormous onslaught of forces of decay, Egypt refuses to die!
Anyway, back to the present! As usual, regular comment posters have successfully ‘derailed’ the forum from what I wanted to discuss to what occupies their minds more. Perhaps this is the way it should be anyway :)
Thank you for such a wide spread of views in so many different comments based on widely different perspectives. So much food for thought... as well as some touching sentiments. Your comments actually portray my own reluctance to post over the past few days: So many new concerns, so many new contradictory signals and, as Abu Hadi puts it, so much ‘horse trading’.
Sunni life under Shiite rule; Islam and democracy; Islam and science; Iraqis and religion and nationalism; Iraq and Iran; the Iraqi Shiites and Iran; the enigma called Sistani; and of course the question of religion and terrorism (which I once promised to come back to!) etc etc.
At the moment, I am contemplating all these issues trying to determine how best to go about discussing some of them… and frankly I haven’t a clue… not for want of things to say, on the contrary! I will try to look into this comment section later on tonight or tomorrow, and I would be most grateful for any input. One thing is certain: I will try not to discuss the ‘horse trading’; I have a healthy detestation of the whole subject.
I was in a foul mood when I wrote this post. I was angry and disappointed (mainly at the disfigured newborn and at the US administration’s political architects) and I guess it showed.
Over the past few days, my mind kept going back to an Egyptian national hero who lived early in the last century. His name was Saad Zaghlool - a nationalistic patriot who fought the British domination of Egypt politically and left his mark on Egyptian politics. He was much respected by most of the people as well as the political forces at the time.
I had a dear old friend, now dead, who lived for some time in Egypt. He used to say that Saad, in his last moments, a sad old man, was a home in Alexandria. He turned his back to Egypt, faced the Mediterranean and said to his old sister: “Saneyyah, give me the blanket. It’s no use!” He sat on a chair, wrapped in that blanket, his back to Egypt, and quietly died.
Today, you still find high regard for the memory of Saad Zaghlool in Egypt. The spirit of that honorable old man lives on, long after his death. (Thomas Payne?)
When I am in such a black mood, I always remind myself that after Zaghlool, Eygpt, an old and a resilient country, refused to die quietly. Even today, faced with an enormous onslaught of forces of decay, Egypt refuses to die!
Anyway, back to the present! As usual, regular comment posters have successfully ‘derailed’ the forum from what I wanted to discuss to what occupies their minds more. Perhaps this is the way it should be anyway :)
Thank you for such a wide spread of views in so many different comments based on widely different perspectives. So much food for thought... as well as some touching sentiments. Your comments actually portray my own reluctance to post over the past few days: So many new concerns, so many new contradictory signals and, as Abu Hadi puts it, so much ‘horse trading’.
Sunni life under Shiite rule; Islam and democracy; Islam and science; Iraqis and religion and nationalism; Iraq and Iran; the Iraqi Shiites and Iran; the enigma called Sistani; and of course the question of religion and terrorism (which I once promised to come back to!) etc etc.
At the moment, I am contemplating all these issues trying to determine how best to go about discussing some of them… and frankly I haven’t a clue… not for want of things to say, on the contrary! I will try to look into this comment section later on tonight or tomorrow, and I would be most grateful for any input. One thing is certain: I will try not to discuss the ‘horse trading’; I have a healthy detestation of the whole subject.
Hello Bruno,
This hysterical propaganda campaign against the Islamic Republic( notice how all of Bush's propaganda is hysterical--coming straight out of the US Jewish lobby)is really getting nauseous. It's perfectly reasonable for Iran, with declining oil reserves to want nuclear technology. A few weeks ago the Iranians were talking very nicely not only to the UN and Europe but even to the US and putting out peace feelers. Then comes in Condo Rice squashing all that optimism with her unintelligible 'double-talk'. OTH, the 'exporter' of nuclear weapons technology-North Korea, who supplied Pakistan and Libya with their equipment is being ignored as the Russian and Chinese 'parallel'negotiations with totalitarian North Korea are going nowhere.
It's time everyone just ignored the warmongering Bush and got on with business. Hopefully he'll just go away.
# posted by : 10/2/05 5:51 PM
: 10/2/05 5:51 PM Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.
# posted by : 10/2/05 8:25 PM
: 10/2/05 8:25 PM Dear Abu Khaleel,
They are right--do not write on both sides of the paper at once, you might get pricked.
Now it is my turn to be in a dark mood. With more Iraqi police killed in a shootout today so bad that their compatriots can't get to them and 20 truck drivers killed and dumped by the roadside I am furious my Government lied to us Americans and is adding to the huge death toll of Iraqis as well as my countrymen. This never had to happen. I feel so helpless.
# posted by : 10/2/05 10:16 PM
: 10/2/05 10:16 PM Slightly off-topic enquiry, but while we're waiting for Abu's next post someone knowledgable might like to respond.
I know that things are meant to happen within a certain time-frame, e.g. two weeks for the Assembly to choose the Presidential Council, etc, but is this controlled or mandatory, is it enforceable?
I'm thinking of the first MMP (proportional) election here back in the 1990's, when neither major party could form a majority by itself, and the balance of power was held by a third party. Its leader was an egotistical populist who kept the whole country waiting for 6 weeks while he dithered and negotiated before finally coming to an arrangement (not quite a coalition) with one of the main parties.
Could something similar happen in Iraq?
# posted by : 11/2/05 3:08 AM
: 11/2/05 3:08 AM That was me - Circular
# posted by : 11/2/05 1:03 PM
: 11/2/05 1:03 PM Charles,
You are preposterously MAD(also insane). By your logic the US should give Iran nuclear bombs(something they very likely don't want)so that you can threaten them with nuclear annihilation. Try to make some intelligent suggestions or simply be quiet (for you a novelty). Stop grunting, freedom of speech is not freedom of noise!
# posted by : 11/2/05 8:45 PM
: 11/2/05 8:45 PM cold shivers and nightmaresLt. Col. Stanislav Petrov disobeyed his orders, defied military protocol and averted nuclear holocaust on September 26, 1983.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of politically unstable regimes such as Pakistan and North Korean terrify me. I can't help but believe that the Iranians are pursuing weapons out of ego rather than necessity. Fools.
# posted by : 11/2/05 8:58 PM
: 11/2/05 8:58 PM Charles, he said STOP grunting!
# posted by : 11/2/05 10:01 PM
: 11/2/05 10:01 PM Dear Charles (Chuckles?),
Maybe you're talking about the period between 1945 and 1949 when the US had a monoploy on the bomb. Yeah, the time when the Commies took over half of Europe and all of China. Yeah, they were seriously detered. After Stalin got the bomb, the mutually assured destruction doctrine took off-no need during monopoly phase. Are talking about a nuclear monopoly against Islamic countries-also in the past( filled with radicals)? Pakistan is very interesting as the ISI security police also ran the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Then you said this:
"The policy must be terrible and unpredictable enough to scare these governments straight and to crack down on radicals"
To make it work you need a balance of terror, as in MAD.
If the Iranians have the bomb, they would tell us to stay the hell out of their territory and we would do the same. But this is not what you want either.
Actually, this is more Israel's fear than the US. Israel would love to have good relations with Iran, but the mullahs won't accept Israel(haram). So Israel will settle for fear and bad relations and simpleton Bush is using 'US capital' to push Israel's agenda.
So far Rice's murky diplomacy has lead to a North Korean claim of a bomb for self-defence, so Iran will probably be next. MAD is a rational doctrine.
# posted by : 11/2/05 11:26 PM
: 11/2/05 11:26 PM To the above,
It is not Condoleeza Rice's "murky" diplomacy that has led to N. Korea's claim of having nuclear weapons. She has just begun her position and b). they have been meaning to do this all along for leverage.
# posted by : 11/2/05 11:35 PM
: 11/2/05 11:35 PM Abu Khaleel, Abu Khaleel,
Help uuuuuuuusssss!
# posted by : 12/2/05 12:45 AM
: 12/2/05 12:45 AM Anon and Charles,
"So far Rice's murky diplomacy has lead to a North Korean claim of a bomb for self-defence,".......
When asked about a possible US attack, Rice said,"The question is SIMPLY not on the agenda at this point".
Rather terrifying when you consider...
" In his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, President Bush called Iran "the world's primary state sponsor of terror."
"I gather from your coments that you have NO IDEA what I am talking about."
Just trying to make some sense out of your nonsense, Charles.
"My point was simply that joining the nuclear club is not all fun and games."
No game, nuclear bomb programs happen when countries are under threat of invasion.
"Uh-guh. She's been in office for what - 3 weeks (you twit)?"
Both Bush and Rice start off the new term with threats and the North Koreans got mad, nothing new, but it was a chance for a new
diplomatic opening. But you want to have a war(preferably nuclear), right?
"The nice thing about NK is that now we can wash our hands of the matter."
This is why I call you Chuckles.
But didn't you say they don't want weapons? :-)
I don't think they did but the logic of MAD will force them to defend themselves with nuclear weapons. Especially after just bluffing a la Saddam doesn't work with Bush.
# posted by : 12/2/05 12:50 AM
: 12/2/05 12:50 AM Charles,
In the mind of NK, they have been under attack for decades, at least that is what they tell their people. Why did they wait until now to come out with the provocative statement that they have weapons? Because of Bush's and Rice's murky, threatening rhetoric--my point. You're basically an empiricist so making connections is doubly hard with you. Or do you think that on-going sanctions are finally kicking in!
"OK - what's your proposal? Do you think it is a reasonable precedent to pay off countries who violated every rule in the book to acquire nuclear weapons? I certainly do not want to give NK anything. I think they made a big mistake."
Yes, you want to punish them, big surprise(you're Chuckles the Bad Clown persona)! But you're inconsistant what about proliferator Pakistan?
My proposal is to step back from the rhetorical pie throwing and let Iran enter the nuclear age under the IAEA. But you're too afraid of 'radicals' getting hold of a-bombs which becomes a self-fullfilling prophesy. If you want people to take responsibility you must give them respect.
"Um. I think you misunderstood again. If you are not part of the nuclear club the rules don't apply to you. If Iran did not have a nuke capability, they would not be able to use them (they don't have them), meaning they would be under NO threat of nuclear retaliation a la 'assured destruction.'"
LOL-Tell that to Saddam Hussein. True, to be a real member you have blow off an atom bomb. I'm not sure the North Koreans didn't do that as there was a very big explosion a few months ago which was quickly labeled as non-nuclear. Where as a smaller underground explosion by Pakistan was hailed as the Islamic bomb.
The problem with your theory comes when propaganda and poor intelligence makes arms verification a joke as in Iraq. The same elements are present in Iran now.
# posted by : 12/2/05 2:47 AM
: 12/2/05 2:47 AM Charles,
I am taking time to explain this to you because I hope you will reflect on the reckless course our country seems to be repeating in the spirit of honesty and true patriotism.
What would you do with NK now?
I would listen to their needs, as Clinton did and BUY their cooperation as Clinton did. I would not threaten them, but encourage them to allow full IAEA inspections and eventually request their nuclear disarmaments.
Why is this impossible? Open your mind!!!
"How so? You don't think Pakistan would be attacked if they decided to lob nuclear bombs at other countries?"
The only country that has used nuclear weapons is the USA. The Russians first put bombs on ballistic missiles, but testing a ballistic missle does not equal nuclear attack. Such a thing as you are suggesting has NEVER HAPPENED!
'I think if we look at things realistically, we must accept that continued proliferation is just a fact of life. Its that whole 'genie/bottle' thing.'
You are absolutely wrong about this. Under Clinton there was a massive reduction in US and Russian nukes and South Africa actually disarmed. Bush's tough talk has reversed things.
Where do you draw the line and using what criteria? Should Ivory Coast or Sudan get the bomb too? Please clarify for me. I REALLY want to see your list! For you it seems to be a rhetorical issue. In about 10 years I will have to hand over the keys to the car to may daughter. It will make me nervous. But if she had promised to run over the first person she sees, would it be responsible of me to give her the keys?
You're really shaking, Charles. I can see the fear. You are not being rational. Remember 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself'? Up to 911, things were very much improved. Also, I would like to see any evidence of Al Qaeda's WMDs. There are irrational fears as well as rational ones.
'I'm just saying that the world is going to be a far more dangerous place, existentially speaking, the more this technology proliferates. More dangerous not just for the evil US, and these new club members, but for the world as a whole. Humans make mistakes. Zealots don't always exercise the best judgement, etc., etc.'
You're still frightened Charles and you want the whole world to feel as you do. Europeans,etc. look at you and they are frightened of you( you are acting strangely and spouting gibberish)!
'Your freedom fighters have been quite active this week. Dozens and dozens of civilians killed! Congrats! The bakery job today was impressive - and the reporter with his 3 year old son - I especially like their tactic of blowing people up as they come out of places of worship! Now that's stickin it to 'em!'
You are angry that I am not as 'frightened' as you are. One reason is that I am not living in Iraq. I totally reject such heinous violence. I know that much of the violence has resulted from foreign fighters coming to Iraq to fight the US troops on behalf of the disenfranchaised baathists and the US military has not been able to stop it. We need to try reason and that starts with putting aside your paralyzing fears.
Americans seem to be more fearful by nature than other peoples so you must not ridicule them, but try to be sympathetic. Unfortunately when the leader is fearful as well, the flock is sucked into a mass psychosis.
# posted by : 12/2/05 8:54 AM
: 12/2/05 8:54 AM Charles on nuclear proliferation (how the hell did we get onto that?):
"I think if we look at things realistically, we must accept that continued proliferation is just a fact of life."
"I'm just saying that the world is going to be a far more dangerous place, existentially speaking, the more this technology proliferates."
Well that’s stating the blindingly obvious. What isn’t clear is what solution Charles advocates.
(a) The self-appointed world policeman should, at its discretion, bomb the bejasus out of any proliferating country that it chooses to.
(b) The self-appointed world policeman should work with other leading nations to defuse tensions
and suspicions that lead to proliferation.
(c) The citizens of the self-appointed world policeman, particularly those living in New Hampshire, should make loud indignant noises about terrorists and pointy-headed liberal leftists and Saddam sympathisers and ... and ... , thereby causing all the bombs to vanish.
(d) ?
(e) ??
Circular
# posted by : 12/2/05 11:49 AM
: 12/2/05 11:49 AM The only help I can give is to change the subject back to Iraq. I just did!
Charles,
One more time...
"Where do you draw the line and using what criteria? Should Ivory Coast or Sudan get the bomb too? Please clarify for me. I REALLY want to see your list!"
Who should have the bomb?
Nobody, the goal should be disarmament. People who are threatened with atomic bombs will build atomic bombs. The US did so fearing a nazi bomb. The bomb which you like threatening people with is totally unethical, like mass murder, poison gas, germ warfare,etc. Fear of attack causes these bombs to be built, only reducing fear will stop the spiral.
Iran, Pakistan and North Korea( and Bush) need to understand that nukes will not help their fear problem, which they cannot attempt while they are under verbal assault.
# posted by : 12/2/05 9:20 PM
: 12/2/05 9:20 PM Charles,
One more time...
"Where do you draw the line and using what criteria? Should Ivory Coast or Sudan get the bomb too? Please clarify for me. I REALLY want to see your list!"
Who should have the bomb?
Nobody, the goal should be disarmament. People who are threatened with atomic bombs will build atomic bombs. The US did so fearing a nazi bomb. The bomb which you like threatening people with is totally unethical, like mass murder, poison gas, germ warfare,etc. Fear of attack causes these bombs to be built, only reducing fear will stop the spiral.
Iran, Pakistan and North Korea( and Bush) need to understand that nukes will not help their fear problem, which they cannot attempt while they are under verbal assault.
# posted by : 12/2/05 9:20 PM
: 12/2/05 9:20 PM Charles,
"Now that's the kind of practical solution I like! The fact that the technology exists means that the threat will always be there. The genie won't go back in the bottle."
Wrong, the technology of making atom bombs isn't trivial (unlike poison gas and germ warfare). The expenditure is enormous and great will is required to sustain it (Libya dropped out). Perceived, long term external threats are needed to justify the cost.
"Seriously, you think its reasonable for Iran to have bomb. Who doesn't make your list?" Even America should not have the immoral bomb, can you live in a world where America doesn't have nuclear weapons?
"Maybe total proliferation IS a good thing and will lead to a more 'mature' world. I'm just trying to get my arms around your position.
Not my position, see "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb(1964)"
Are there any countries you can think of whose acquisition of the bomb should be opposed? Opposed with nasty letters? Sanctions? Military force?
None-America included, a-bombs are totally immoral WMDs. Seriously, can you trust a Frenchman with his finger on the button..mon dieu!
"If you are referring to the fact that I think retaliation in the event of an attack is reasonable, then yes, I'm guilty."
Earth to Charles, Earth to Charles..'there are NO such examples in human history!"
"I guess your basic premise is that this will all work out if we just 'do away' with armed conflict and violence."
Before Bush we were closer than you think. Most of the wars generated by the Cold War were dying down, Europe, the Far East, Latin America were largely demilitarized. The international arms trade was in crisis. As it turns out even Saddam disarmed (WMDs). It is cheaper, more rational to disarm than to arm. Nationalism, love of military paraphenalia and fear of attack are the the usual drivers of arms purchases. All the above were declining before Bush.
# posted by : 12/2/05 10:44 PM
: 12/2/05 10:44 PM Bruno and Circular:
I know you are debating with Charles and sometimes passions get ahead of logic, but you can't possibly sincerely believe that the only reasons for a nation state to choose to pursue nuclear arms are purely defensive. How about the offensive reasons for doing so, such as, the age old desire to dominate ones neighbors, become a world power, or settle disputes on more favorable terms by nuclear black mail? Surely, given a particular set of circumstances, such ambitions could rationally be outweigh the costs of pursuing them.
Do you really believe that human nature has been permanently altered for the good that no despotic regime will ever arise that seeks regional or global offensive advantages from every means at its disposal? Furthermore, the U.N. Charter assumes that aggressive despots (or megalomaniacs, if you prefer) will continue to arise over time as has been the case from the dawn of human history. The collective security system devised under it is the only rational defenses to such threats. Of course, the prevention, wherever possible, of nuclear proliferation is a wise supplement to that strategy.
Mark-In-Chi-Town
# posted by : 14/2/05 8:03 PM
: 14/2/05 8:03 PM Mark
"I know you are debating with Charles ..." Debating is rather a charitable word for it.
1) In my view, the nuclear arms race of the 1950’s to 1980’s is now seen by most rational people as an aberrant result of the "total war" mindset of WW2. The amount of potential destructiveness produced by the participants reached insane levels and genuinely threatened the continuation of life on earth. Hopefully this situation is now more or less under control, the major nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia, France and China) although still possessing ridiculous levels of nuclear arms (what the hell does France need 200 nukes for) have no reason, for the foreseeable future, and no intention of using them on each other.
2) This is a totally different situation of "rogue" smaller powers such as Israel, whose nukes are totally a "last ditch" deterrent against a conventional threat, or India and Pakistan, who are basically just imitating their nuclear "elders and betters," so to speak. All these nukes are indeed defensive or deterrent in intention, and are very unlikely to be used.
3) Which just leaves NK, and perhaps Iran - their intention to possess nukes is by no means proved. Even if NK is a real wild card, neither of them merit 3000 + US nukes aimed at them, or provocative threats - just working with them quietly and calmly is far more likely to succeed in lowering tensions.
4) The only real threat your precious US at present is the smuggled terrorist nuke - and that is most likely to come from stolen Russian stock, not from Iran or NK. Instead of making blustering noises about Iran, the us should be doing what it started to do after 9/11 - hunting down the real terrorist threat.
Circular
# posted by : 14/2/05 10:46 PM
: 14/2/05 10:46 PM << Home
