Where the West is wrong

[Quahom1]

[quote=Devadatta]Hi Q. Thanks for the blessing.

- I hadn’t intended to send another reply, but I’m inherently weak-willed.

No, weak wills give up when things get dicey and tough.

- In my preceding post, I was trying to put a really complicated situation in a rounded perspective and that’s hard to do on the fly in this kind of format, without having to go back and forth forever clarifying points.

My father has "commented" on my attempts to simplify the complex as well...

- My effort at giving perspective was not to provide excuses for any murderous ideology or suggest we should cut Osama some slack because he’s misunderstood. I was only trying to sum up the most basic background to all of this and suggest how this background conditions thinking on the respective sides.

- When I use the word “colonialism” it’s not as leftwing jargon, but simply a collective term for summing up a concrete situation. Since the break up of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 or thereabouts, the Middle East has been dominated by Western powers, by the French and English in the first half of the 20th century and by the U.S. ever since. And when I say “dominated”, I mean that Western powers, to protect their interests in the region, have repeatedly justified political and military intervention, which local governments are in general powerless to prevent. A country that is unable to secure its own borders, except through the acquiescence of a foreign power is at the very least not fully independent. So having colonies in a legal sense is not the point; foreign domination equivalent to colonialism is.

Good point.

- Sure, the situation has been in constant evolution. The British operated in one way, the French in another, and the U.S. has its own style. (I appreciate what you said about the changing trade deals; for all the controversy, I give the U.S. credit whenever it makes progress in this direction.) Each dominant nation will claim its own virtues and tend to be blind to its own faults. But in the end many of these interventions have ended in disaster, making life worse not better for people in the Middle East.

However I think you will find that history shows that the US is its own worst critic. That is to say we beat ourselves over the head harder than anyone else can, and we do it publicly...

- Take Iran, for example. British Petroleum had big interests there; a new government came in intent on nationalizing the oil industry, which the British were naturally not in favour of. Many complications later, the British were replaced by Americans; the CIA helped thwart the nationalist government, brought in the Shah and supported his U.S. business-friendly government until he was overthrown by a popular revolution in 1979. And ever since, we’ve had the rule of those charming Mullahs. (The optimistic point here is that if Iran had a popular revolution once they can have one again, hopefully soon, to put the Mullahs on a leash.)

People naturally want balance. The Shah's form of government for the people of that region was out of balance, and the current heiarchy is also out of balance. I think you are correct that the Iranian goverment as it stands is not long for this world, and the people will see to it.

- This is not pointing fingers. This is not blame America. This is not conspiracy theory. These are matters of public record. And it’s just one example out of many in the history of Western interventions in the Middle East over the past century.

- So yes, the fundamental problem for these countries is their own weakness & disarray, which invite interventions in the first place, but these interventions can have devastating consequences.

Even the best of intentions can really muck of the works...

- A foreign intervention is a kind of jujitsu; a small pressure applied at a critical point can have a huge effect. And in the minds of the colonized it’s a kind of psychological jujitsu, creating a kind of demon out of the foreign power who can become the scapegoat for every failure.

- Speaking of failure, it may be that I’ve failed again in getting these points across, but let me try to be as frank as I can be.

- It’s not a matter of excuses for either side. It’s a matter of dropping the b.s.

- For any Muslim to claim that this whole phenomenon is simply a matter of U.S. foreign policy, as has been claimed, unfortunately, on this very forum, is frankly unacceptable, if not altogether incredible. And I think it’s an insult to every Muslim to imply that they are so bereft of the ability to manage their own affairs that they can only scapegoat foreign powers.

What you are describing seems to be a people that can not accept responsibility for their own plight...but I digress.

- On the other hand, for any Westerner, American or otherwise, to claim simple incomprehension and a status of complete innocence while refusing to even glance at the historical roots is at best a head-in-the-sand, and at worst a straight out hypocrite. (Note to Q: this is not directed at you, but at the extreme case.) Innocent people from all nations were murdered in New York on 9/11. These were indeed innocents. But governments, however well managed, are never innocent. How could they be, in this fallen world? And no Western government that has been involved up to its ears in the Middle East for decades can claim innocence in the face of terrorism arising from that region.

- It’s my view that unless we understand the underlying conditions & mindsets we may be doomed, as I’ve said, to a downward spiral.

The west is guilty of many things, granted. But the west did not keep the people in impoverished conditions, nor keep them ignorant about the world around them. While the rest of the world begins to move into the 21st century, the Middle East is stuck in the 16th. And their governments like it that way...

- So yes, let’s hunt terrorists, violent ideologues, psychotics, Islamo-fascists to the ends of the Earth, but lets use our heads as well as our guns.

- Lynden Johnson famously said that Gerald Ford couldn’t chew gum and walk at the same time. But this is precisely what we have to do.

Gerald Ford may not have been able to chew and walk at the same time, but he is famous for his ability to focus on a specific issue and not waiver, despite outside influence attempts to distract him. Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, couldn't keep his finger off the "bomb" release button, for even a moment. Had Kruschev been in power when Johnson was...we probably wouldn't be having this conversation...

- Chasing bad guys with no understanding on the part of the public of where in blazes they’re coming from will only result in a hideous version of the Keystone Kops, ending in holocaust.

Believe it or not, the American public does not blame Islam for this behavior of terrorism. Not Islam in general. Nor does the majority consider Islam a bad religion (latest polls). The public on the other hand is not the police, or the military. And the terrorists have violated their own rules, by taking the lives of their own. Jihad expressly forbids the claiming of innocent lives. Yet the terrorists are doing just that. There is no rational for such behavior, save forcing compliance to a particular expectation.

- We must act. But we must understand.

I think the American and western public do understand (but the Americans in particular). There is an entity that wants us to conform to its way of thinking. That, my friend will not happen. History is rift with examples of the same. If this "war" becomes personal to the American public (and it hasn't yet), I fear the sleeping giant will once again awaken. Once that happens, there will be no reasoning down...and there will be a final conclusion to this war.

I've stated in past posts, that we alone are guilty of going to extremes to end a war, unspeakable extremes. What makes the world think we wouldn't go to extremes again?

I assure you this isn't rhetorical talk. It is historical fact...

All the best. And a non-theistic blessing to you, if that carries any weight.

I will take any blessing I can get, and cherish it.

P.S. - I've stayed away from the Palestinian/Israeli issue; it's a can of worms of course and we may be operating from different planets on this. I thought I'd have a better chance of communicating my point of view on the broader issues.

Americans always root for the underdog...you should know that by now...

v/r

Q

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

[quote=Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Americans always root for the underdog...you should know that by now...

But who is the underdog?

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

However I think you will find that history shows that the US is its own worst critic. That is to say we beat ourselves over the head harder than anyone else can, and we do it publicly...

Hi Q.

One of the great qualities of Americans in my opinion is that they are capable of standing up and saying enough is enough to their own government. This may be your best export, and what a lot of other countries could use.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The west is guilty of many things, granted. But the west did not keep the people in impoverished conditions, nor keep them ignorant about the world around them. While the rest of the world begins to move into the 21st century, the Middle East is stuck in the 16th. And their governments like it that way....

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Gerald Ford may not have been able to chew and walk at the same time, but he is famous for his ability to focus on a specific issue and not waiver, despite outside influence attempts to distract him. Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, couldn't keep his finger off the "bomb" release button, for even a moment. Had Kruschev been in power when Johnson was...we probably wouldn't be having this conversation...

You could be right there. Frightening to think how much can turn on a single personality.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Believe it or not, the American public does not blame Islam for this behavior of terrorism. Not Islam in general. Nor does the majority consider Islam a bad religion (latest polls). The public on the other hand is not the police, or the military. And the terrorists have violated their own rules, by taking the lives of their own. Jihad expressly forbids the claiming of innocent lives. Yet the terrorists are doing just that. There is no rational for such behavior, save forcing compliance to a particular expectation....

Basic agreement here. But this doesn't speak to my point. I've been talking about the political & economic back story, not religion. The implications of what I'm saying is that it's important for everyone to understand this back story to provide the basis for effective actions - political & military - to be taken in the long run. I think we've had too much fear of providing excuses for the enemy by exploring these roots when it's precisely these roots we must understand in order to fight the enemy. How is it that they are able to operate so freely in the first place? How is it that there has been so much tacit if not outright support for this kind of terror in the Muslim world? Why have so many Muslims - in my view - been so passive in the face of a movement that threatens the very survival of Islam? The political/economic back story we've been talking about provides some of the answers.

The only effective way to fight an insurgency, they say, is draining the swamp; that is, undercutting their sources of support in the community. In this case, the swamp has spread through Muslim communities across the world. Many hands, Muslim & non-Muslim, have gone to provide the conditions that led to this swamp, many hands, Muslim & non-Muslim will be required to drain it.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I fear the sleeping giant will once again awaken. Once that happens, there will be no reasoning down...and there will be a final conclusion to this war.
I've stated in past posts, that we alone are guilty of going to extremes to end a war, unspeakable extremes. What makes the world think we wouldn't go to extremes again?.

Well, here's the true definition of: the terrorist will have won. They are the only ones intent on bringing on the apocalypse. Let's be smarter than that. But I take your words as a wake-up call to those in the Muslim world who don't realize the true scale of the risk the terrorists have placed them in.

Here's to the return of less interesting times.

All the best.

[Kaspar]

The way you guys are going on is portraying the enemy that Bush wants.

Bush wants a invincable enemy that is going to destroy america and the west. that he can justify doing horrible things for. Eg Guantanomo bay. No human rights laws. The WRONG people locked up nothing done.

I think this is an over reaction. When the IRA were bombing england the birmingham 6 were locked up for ages and they were innocent. It is the prophetic talk and pressure in the mainstream that makes people go round locking up any muslim or arab.

The way i see it is that different people have differnent reactions when they are put in tricky situations. Some respond with violence, some with talk, some with love, some with hate. It all depends on how ur brought up. I know i respond with all of them at different times. I think when you are taking other peoples lives into your hands you have to care for them. When someone puts you in charge of reacting for a whole state say after a terrorist attack it is important to exercise understanding and not rush into a big war like thats going to make anything any better. How may i ask did bombing afganistan make anything any better? Except swapping the Taliban for a new northern Alliance that are more america friendly.

This is the logic i don't understand. We are going to fight a terrorist organisation who is underground and experienced in their terrain so you decide to bomb any buildings you see as you fly over. Around 23 people were killed at a wedding when a bomb fell through the roof. What terrorist are going to be stupid enough to go to a wedding when they know they are being hunted down. All bombing afganistan did was increase Al-Quaidas message and kill lots of Iraqi civilians. (oh and secure a pipeline)

I don't mean to rant about the US, Britian are equally foolish except a little bit less influencial these days. I Think terrorism and the wrongness of the west are in the eyes of the beholder.

Peace

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Kaspar

The way you guys are going on is portraying the enemy that Bush wants.

Bush wants a invincable enemy that is going to destroy america and the west. that he can justify doing horrible things for. Eg Guantanomo bay. No human rights laws. The WRONG people locked up nothing done.

I think this is an over reaction. When the IRA were bombing england the birmingham 6 were locked up for ages and they were innocent. It is the prophetic talk and pressure in the mainstream that makes people go round locking up any muslim or arab.

The way i see it is that different people have differnent reactions when they are put in tricky situations. Some respond with violence, some with talk, some with love, some with hate. It all depends on how ur brought up. I know i respond with all of them at different times. I think when you are taking other peoples lives into your hands you have to care for them. When someone puts you in charge of reacting for a whole state say after a terrorist attack it is important to exercise understanding and not rush into a big war like thats going to make anything any better. How may i ask did bombing afganistan make anything any better? Except swapping the Taliban for a new northern Alliance that are more america friendly.

This is the logic i don't understand. We are going to fight a terrorist organisation who is underground and experienced in their terrain so you decide to bomb any buildings you see as you fly over. Around 23 people were killed at a wedding when a bomb fell through the roof. What terrorist are going to be stupid enough to go to a wedding when they know they are being hunted down. All bombing afganistan did was increase Al-Quaidas message and kill lots of Iraqi civilians. (oh and secure a pipeline)

I don't mean to rant about the US, Britian are equally foolish except a little bit less influencial these days. I Think terrorism and the wrongness of the west are in the eyes of the beholder.

Peace

Good Evening Kaspar,

I have served a tour of duty or two at GITMO (Guantonamo Bay). I can tell you that the "prison" the prisoners are staying in, is a far cry better than the "Brig" sailors in trouble stayed in, there. As for abusing the "prisoners", well, we haven't cut off anyone's head and burned their corpse and hung them from a bridge, or the yard arm...yet. And of the several hundred or so released (for doing nothing wrong), half have been picked up again for doing something wrong, eh, trying to kill people.

President Bush, would like nothing more than for this whole mess to stop...but that ain't going to happen anytime soon. And I'd like to know what "horrible things" you suspect Mr. Bush of condoning?

It is the actions of a human being against society that makes people go "round" and locking others up. If you think the United States is pulling another Japanese internment camp thing again, then query the status of the 25,000 Arab Americans living in Michigan (for example). Yep, they are still in their homes, still being bakers, doctors, policemen (yes I said policemen), firefighters, steel workers, automakers, etc...and their children are still in public and private schools, and their homes are secure under the fourth ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and their right to free speech (under the first Ammendment), are all still intact.

Let me ask you something. When did the war in Iraq begin? And what brought the United States and the coalition into the fray? And what started the whole thing?

If you say 1990, with the invasion of Kuwait, you would be mistaken. It started in 1988, with the bombing of the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf, by two Iraqi fighter jets, launching two exocet missiles at a frigate that was not at battle stations (had no reason to be). 24 sailors died, because Iraq wanted to test the waters, with the US. Saddam Hussein decided that because we did not retaliate, that we (the US) were weak willed. That was his mistake. We turned the other cheek (when by all rights we should have leveled his capital, RIGHT THEN).

The "War" came to fruition, at the plea of the Kuwaiti government, while it was being besieged by Iraq in 1990. Since Kuwait was an "ally" of the United States, we had no choice but to assist. There is no difference between Kuwait and Taiwan...now do you get my point?

In any event, your concern about "innocent civilians" being targeted is a good point. However, when citizens do not give up the perpetrators, then they become accomplices to the fact. That my friend is universal law, in any land you go to.

The US and Britian are foolish? Yes. We should have cleaned clock a decade ago. But we haven't been made angry enough...yet. However, once we are, there will be hell to pay...

I understand your frustration. But you haven't stood at the base of the twin towers, wondering where your loved one lies. That is frustration my friend. That is rage in the making...

v/r

Q

[Postmaster]

The US and Britian are foolish? Yes. We should have cleaned clock a decade ago. But we haven't been made angry enough...

Do you believe the war on Iraq was out of anger?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Do you believe the war on Iraq was out of anger?

Postmaster...you don't?

[Postmaster]

I don't think any politics should be done out of anger because that's how vicous circles are created. One that has already started and too late to stop might I add.

[capthowdy]

I have to agree with postmaster......



wars can be fought in anger and won, but if you aren't careful anger can turn to rage and rage will blind you. when you are blinded by your own rage you act out of hate and end up doing more harm than good.



and Q I had a family member that was there when the towers went down, but I didn't go around throwing moltov cocktails and commiting hate crimes on muslims when it happened, and a lot of people did that in california. don't get me wrong though I'm not saying you did anything like that, I'm just using the incedents as an example of how rage can blind you.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

One that has already started and too late to stop might I add.

Oh it can stop, in a new york second. Let those that started it stop...'cause we aren't going to, until we see change. And if we don't see change...we won't stop, Postmaster.

Cap, rage is what keeps a nation alive, during war. We are at war, and the enemy is unknown. Doing more damage than good is not the issue, because we don't care...(you might).

Morons lash out blindly, and california has it's share. Cold rage is a different matter alltogether. Every move is calculated for maximum effect. There is an end in sight, and that end WILL be reached. And when finished, there will be only one standing.

No, you two have ideals, which are great. I've seen reality, which is not so great.

And before you two point out that I will not suffer personally from this 'war', tell that to my sons pounding the sand over there. They are all I've got, and they understand...that is why they are there.

By the way, I go over there in a short time...and I go gladly, so you two don't have to.

v/r

Q

[Postmaster]

How have these wars benefited us? Since them, we have had Madrid and London bombings also do you think New York is immune? Have we created a greater threat?

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

There may be a greater threat now, but it is not our creation. Recent events have been twisted by unscrupulous individuals into recruitment propoganda.

But no, I do not believe these wars have benefitted us (with the exception of certain major oil companies) but the wars have benefitted the people of Iraq who are rid of Hussain and will soon be a democratic nation with their own fairly elected government and as much peace as can be hoped for in such a troubled world.

They would have it already if not for the terrorist activity in the area.

[Postmaster]

The US and UK have stired up some civil conflicts that will last for a very very long time in that area now regardless of democracy.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Undoubtably true, but is it wrong to start conflict when faced with evil men.

We all know that old, old line about what it takes for evil men to succeed now, don't we?

[Kaspar]

Quahom1
Peace

You have been to guantanomo bay and spoken to the prisioners?
Is it not fact that people were kept there for over 2 years who where innocent?

I see you serve in the military and stand by the US. And that I...

haven't stood at the base of the twin towers, wondering where your loved one lies. That is frustration my friend. That is rage in the making...

And am glad. But I believe an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

No one has reported about Iraq in England for ages that is because no one is allowed to see what is going on there. What kind of justice is this? I bet there having a brilliant democratic time over there.

And i think the west is wrong. I think Capitalism is wrong. People have mentioned before that it only works fairly between equal partners but capitalism works so that it quickly divides people making them unequal it benefits the rich and bumps the poor.

The wealth of the west is directly proportional to the suffering and exploitation of the rest of the world.

Someone said that it is the easts fault that they are poor and corrupt but this isn't true. Our unfair trade rules and free trade between unequal partners is making them poor.

We are hypocrits we advise small countries to open their markets and let us have free trade but the truth is that the wealth of Britian for a fact and the US was made by making the tightest, strictest trade laws not letting any competition happen between us and any partner which may be better.

That is the fault of the west.

I believe when judging a society look at the realistic effects not the ideological principals. So the UK might have lots of debates about something but how does that show itself in reality. We might stand for good but do we make good things happen? The US might have good intentions in Iraq but are they making a good effect? Personally i will have to see a pretty amazing thing happen to justify the bombing of Falluja which is a ruin city.

What is the point of communication if it has no effect? Why does the world bother talking if no-one does what they say they will do?

I believe in more action and less propoganda.

Take a quick look at Cuba. It is a military dictatorship. Yes it has all the hallmarks of a corrupt and evil society. Yet look at it. There is something like a doctor for each 15 people. when a huge tornado sweapt right through the heart of the Island 9 people were injured. This is the amazing organisation and care taken by the government to look after its people.

I think this is proof that alternatives to capitalism can work even if they have their own bad side effects. Still the US uses Cuba "Guantanomo Bay" which is in Cuba to do their dirty work. Outside of the US Guantanomo Bay bears no need to comply with US Law. It is a loophole in the supposable magnificant US system.

You can argue against prisions and against justifications for human rights abuses but you can't argue with holding innocent people and not giving them a fair trial.

I want an end to supporting anything that the government does just because they are our government. Question them to either be consolidated or unimpressed. If we all blindly follow our government with patriotism we will become machines and get exploited.

for freedom to disagreement

Kaspar