Geez, Harleyquinn, the enemy’s boot? strength=respect? Good that they see we are ticked off? At what? At whom? I like the misspellings, especially the “heal” of our boot. Your last paragraph is the best. As if it’s shocking that our president will address the rest of the world. To ppl like you, any smile or handshake is “apologizing”. You sound like your message would be more like “You all are lucky we will talk to you instead of bombing you. Ponder that while we tell you how better to live.”
I think reaching out to muslims is a good idea. As long as you mean it. However, I also don’t think that the muslim world is particularly interested in being reached out to. Not the moderates who aren’t interested in western values and certainly not islamic hardliners who view anything non-muslim as a target they are obligated by Allah to destroy. But I suppose you have to try and start somewhere.
Well, the thing about Obama showing the US eagle and pointing to the foot with the olive branch is that the foot with the arrows is also very much on view as a backup option. Excellent cartoon that captures the complexity of diplomacy. Toles is far and away my favorite cartoonist on this site (even though I lean to the right).
Muslims about equal the number of “Christians”. My ancestor Cherokee felt the heel of that “Christian” boot, as have many other cultures. Pointing fingers might just want to be pointing at a mirror. We were told our Vietnamese “enemies” were all atheist Communists, guess we forgot to check on the Buddhists and other religions subscribed to by the majority of those folks.
We do need to talk to folks, and we even owe a few apologies. Many of those apologies are due to “religious zeal”.
The vast majority of Muslims, while they DO believe in the superiority of their own particular brand of “Truth”, are NOT in favor of Global Jihad.
The vast majority of Christians, while they DO believe in the superiority of their own particular brand of “Truth”, are NOT in favor of spreading Christianity by the sword.
I know the Koran has some passages that explicitly call for forced conversion, but Christians historically have not shied away from such tactics either, and just because they aren’t NOW launching another Crusade doesn’t mean that they will never ever try it again (I’m not trying to predict any future events, either short-term or long-term). ANd when it comes to conflicting religions, people have LONG memories (the blood libel of Jews as “Christ-Killers” has been far too long in dying out, despite the fact that it was the Romans, i.e. Gentiles, who actually carried out the crucifixion).
After centuries of Catholic/Protestant bloodshed in Europe, it was mutual outreach that (in most but not all cases) brought an end to hostilities. Ecumenicism has eased tensions among Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Judaism, and there are Buddhists (I’m thinking of the Dalai Lama, in particular) and Hindus (Gandhi) who have reached the same conclusions from other directions. Have there been Islamic proponents of peace? Yes, there have. If we lump them together with Jihadists as some monolithic Muslim “enemy”, are we doing anything other than HARMING our credibility when we say they they have nothing to fear from US?
I don’t really know whether there can be TRUE peace among the Peoples of the Book, unless and until we rediscover the (secular and humanist) principles of the Enlightenment. The Muslim world didn’t go through that period, and the Christian world seems to be forgetting it.
If you’ve been paying attention to my previous posts you already know I’m an atheist, and part of what KEEPS me an atheist is the inability of people who DO believe in Allah/JHVH/God the Father to play nicely and SHARE him…
Anthony, there’s that too, of course. It’s interesting to remember that William of Ockham was a MONK. He formed his razor as an argument that monotheism was simpler, and therefore more likely, than polytheism, but I wonder how he would have felt had he reflected that “subtraction of unnecessary deities” might lead to ZERO as well as to One (or Three Who Are One). ( I don’t mean to imply that he would have been upset by it, but I don’t mean to imply the contrary either.)
(Personal peeve: In the movie “Contact” they have an astrophysicist explain Occam’s Razor to a JESUIT HISTORIAN who seems never to have heard of it! I know they’re REALLY explaining it to the audience, but at that moment the movie lost what little credibility was left at that point. By the end, the movie’s credibility was in negative numbers…)
“Ezed you have to speak their language of diplomacy threw a position of strength and the higher ground.”
Well, the U.S. has always been about the higher ground, even if it means pulling out of treaties, or just ignoring international law, etc. Woops, see your next statement:
“If not, they can and as history shows, they will make false promises In their eyes, we can never be under Islam law”.
Ahem. “If not, the US gov’t can and as history shows, they will make false promises. In their eyes, native people can never adequately govern themselves.” There. I removed the beam from your eye for you. I also worked on the punctuation and run-on sentence, but I don’t expect thanks.
“If that is the case then they will need another reason to work with us. For the better of man kind to them=Islam law so that will not work. So when I say we need to show them if you do cross us we will be right back to where you where.”
Almost incomprehensible, but I think I got it. Let me ask you, HQ, if “they” are extremists, they won’t work with us. That’s what makes them extreme. You must mean the gov’ts of the middle east, no? Did you see the debate between Iran’s presidential candidates? There’s no “they” there!
“So hopefully the moderates among you who are tired of the extremists causing trouble do something about them! Or we will be back because you have shown that is what we have to do to keep them from doing more stupid things.
I have said it many times here. We can not end this WAR! Only they can!”
Oh HQ, if you must resort to so many exclamation points, you’re one step away from ALL CAPS!!!! Seriously, the formerly sovereign citizens of Iraq, the widows and the mutilated children will, I’m sure, do their best to remember that only they (!) can stop the extremism that didn’t exist in any war-fomenting form until we occupied their country. You’d love to think we have to keep bombing until “they” are…um, defeated utterly. We have to. Are you on active duty or a veteran, HQ? Just askin’.
I always thought it kind of ironic that on 9/11 we were attacked by religious fundamentalists, and the first thing the Republicans did was invoke religious fundamentalism as a response.
Next question though, do you think Dick should show some respect and STFU? It was amusing for a while, but now his blathering is utterly disrespectful. Righties think Clinton sullied the office…. Cheney is so unbecoming.
As far as Muslim-on-Muslim casualties go, we DO have to accept at least partial responsibility for those. Saddam was a bad man, I’ve never denied that, but under his regime Iraq was stable. It was like Soviet hegemony in Balkans. However bad it was, if that power structure is removed then all the suppressed ethnic/sectarian tensions explode leading to civil war and (in some cases) genocidal impulses.
The collapse of the Soviet system was unplanned, however inevitable it might appear in hindsight. When we took out Saddam, we should have KNOWN what was going to happen afterwards. Hell, there were people who DID know that this was going to happen, and were shouting it out BEFORE the invasion, but they were ignored at best or charged as “unpatriotic” or “traitors” at worst.
People who claim the moral high-ground by saying we saved the lives of innocent victims by removing Saddam ignore that his body-count for the last 7-odd years would likely have been dwarfed by the mountain of equally-innocent corpses that have resulted from his removal.
Yes, the “Surge” may have slowed the death-steamroller of Iraqi civillians that was set in motion by our initial invasion, but can we say that we’re now “winning” as a result? What happens when we pull out again? Is an increase of American forces simply more bricks on the lid of a boiling pot? To shift metaphors, if we SET the house on fire, and have now managed to wrestle the inferno into a “controlled” burn, can we honestly expect thanks for “saving” the house? Is that what “winning” means?
A modest proposal: We withdraw immediately, at least as far as trying to prop up a democratic government that Iraq didn’t ask for and, by all appearances, is unable or unwilling to support. We bypass both the Shi’ites AND the Sunnis, and declare that the Sufis are going to get the chance of running the country. The Sufis seem to me like the most laid-back of the Muslims, and they deserve a shot.
It would be like ending Protestant/Catholic strife in Ireland by putting the Unitarians in charge…
“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition , turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day hero—- assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability. ”
Very convincing, Tricky. I’m sure millions will be swayed by the force of your arguments. Incisiveness like that hasn’t been seen since the Lincoln-Douglass debates.
If you don’t know where to begin, why don’t you start with the falsities? Since those would be questions of fact, they should be easier to effectively discredit.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
I agree with uncle dick … it is far, far better to bomb and invent wars with other peoples than to actually talk to them
riley05 almost 15 years ago
If god wanted us to talk to the Islam nations, he wouldn’t have given us unmanned missile-carrying drones.
ezdeb almost 15 years ago
Geez, Harleyquinn, the enemy’s boot? strength=respect? Good that they see we are ticked off? At what? At whom? I like the misspellings, especially the “heal” of our boot. Your last paragraph is the best. As if it’s shocking that our president will address the rest of the world. To ppl like you, any smile or handshake is “apologizing”. You sound like your message would be more like “You all are lucky we will talk to you instead of bombing you. Ponder that while we tell you how better to live.”
TrickyPickle almost 15 years ago
I think reaching out to muslims is a good idea. As long as you mean it. However, I also don’t think that the muslim world is particularly interested in being reached out to. Not the moderates who aren’t interested in western values and certainly not islamic hardliners who view anything non-muslim as a target they are obligated by Allah to destroy. But I suppose you have to try and start somewhere.
anat622 almost 15 years ago
Well, the thing about Obama showing the US eagle and pointing to the foot with the olive branch is that the foot with the arrows is also very much on view as a backup option. Excellent cartoon that captures the complexity of diplomacy. Toles is far and away my favorite cartoonist on this site (even though I lean to the right).
Dtroutma almost 15 years ago
Muslims about equal the number of “Christians”. My ancestor Cherokee felt the heel of that “Christian” boot, as have many other cultures. Pointing fingers might just want to be pointing at a mirror. We were told our Vietnamese “enemies” were all atheist Communists, guess we forgot to check on the Buddhists and other religions subscribed to by the majority of those folks.
We do need to talk to folks, and we even owe a few apologies. Many of those apologies are due to “religious zeal”.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
The vast majority of Muslims, while they DO believe in the superiority of their own particular brand of “Truth”, are NOT in favor of Global Jihad.
The vast majority of Christians, while they DO believe in the superiority of their own particular brand of “Truth”, are NOT in favor of spreading Christianity by the sword.
I know the Koran has some passages that explicitly call for forced conversion, but Christians historically have not shied away from such tactics either, and just because they aren’t NOW launching another Crusade doesn’t mean that they will never ever try it again (I’m not trying to predict any future events, either short-term or long-term). ANd when it comes to conflicting religions, people have LONG memories (the blood libel of Jews as “Christ-Killers” has been far too long in dying out, despite the fact that it was the Romans, i.e. Gentiles, who actually carried out the crucifixion).
After centuries of Catholic/Protestant bloodshed in Europe, it was mutual outreach that (in most but not all cases) brought an end to hostilities. Ecumenicism has eased tensions among Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Judaism, and there are Buddhists (I’m thinking of the Dalai Lama, in particular) and Hindus (Gandhi) who have reached the same conclusions from other directions. Have there been Islamic proponents of peace? Yes, there have. If we lump them together with Jihadists as some monolithic Muslim “enemy”, are we doing anything other than HARMING our credibility when we say they they have nothing to fear from US?
I don’t really know whether there can be TRUE peace among the Peoples of the Book, unless and until we rediscover the (secular and humanist) principles of the Enlightenment. The Muslim world didn’t go through that period, and the Christian world seems to be forgetting it.
If you’ve been paying attention to my previous posts you already know I’m an atheist, and part of what KEEPS me an atheist is the inability of people who DO believe in Allah/JHVH/God the Father to play nicely and SHARE him…
riley05 almost 15 years ago
The thing that keeps me an atheist is Occam’s Razor.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
Anthony, there’s that too, of course. It’s interesting to remember that William of Ockham was a MONK. He formed his razor as an argument that monotheism was simpler, and therefore more likely, than polytheism, but I wonder how he would have felt had he reflected that “subtraction of unnecessary deities” might lead to ZERO as well as to One (or Three Who Are One). ( I don’t mean to imply that he would have been upset by it, but I don’t mean to imply the contrary either.)
(Personal peeve: In the movie “Contact” they have an astrophysicist explain Occam’s Razor to a JESUIT HISTORIAN who seems never to have heard of it! I know they’re REALLY explaining it to the audience, but at that moment the movie lost what little credibility was left at that point. By the end, the movie’s credibility was in negative numbers…)
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Maybe if he had lived today, he would have made it to zero.
So many times in history “we don’t understand” was equated to “therefore a god did it”.
We’ve gotten rid of many of the “we don’t understand”, but for most people getting rid of the “therefore a god did it” is just too big a leap.
But not for atheists.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
I like to think maybe he CONSIDERED that it might lead to zero, but kept that idea to himself (presumably, he was no fool).
ezdeb almost 15 years ago
“Ezed you have to speak their language of diplomacy threw a position of strength and the higher ground.”
Well, the U.S. has always been about the higher ground, even if it means pulling out of treaties, or just ignoring international law, etc. Woops, see your next statement:
“If not, they can and as history shows, they will make false promises In their eyes, we can never be under Islam law”.
Ahem. “If not, the US gov’t can and as history shows, they will make false promises. In their eyes, native people can never adequately govern themselves.” There. I removed the beam from your eye for you. I also worked on the punctuation and run-on sentence, but I don’t expect thanks.
“If that is the case then they will need another reason to work with us. For the better of man kind to them=Islam law so that will not work. So when I say we need to show them if you do cross us we will be right back to where you where.”
Almost incomprehensible, but I think I got it. Let me ask you, HQ, if “they” are extremists, they won’t work with us. That’s what makes them extreme. You must mean the gov’ts of the middle east, no? Did you see the debate between Iran’s presidential candidates? There’s no “they” there!
“So hopefully the moderates among you who are tired of the extremists causing trouble do something about them! Or we will be back because you have shown that is what we have to do to keep them from doing more stupid things. I have said it many times here. We can not end this WAR! Only they can!”
Oh HQ, if you must resort to so many exclamation points, you’re one step away from ALL CAPS!!!! Seriously, the formerly sovereign citizens of Iraq, the widows and the mutilated children will, I’m sure, do their best to remember that only they (!) can stop the extremism that didn’t exist in any war-fomenting form until we occupied their country. You’d love to think we have to keep bombing until “they” are…um, defeated utterly. We have to. Are you on active duty or a veteran, HQ? Just askin’.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
HarleyQ, was glad to read your comment that Obama is doing right thing to talk to Muslim countries. good!
riley05 almost 15 years ago
I always thought it kind of ironic that on 9/11 we were attacked by religious fundamentalists, and the first thing the Republicans did was invoke religious fundamentalism as a response.
Sigh.
lalas almost 15 years ago
HQ – glad to hear you’re on board with this one.
Next question though, do you think Dick should show some respect and STFU? It was amusing for a while, but now his blathering is utterly disrespectful. Righties think Clinton sullied the office…. Cheney is so unbecoming.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
As far as Muslim-on-Muslim casualties go, we DO have to accept at least partial responsibility for those. Saddam was a bad man, I’ve never denied that, but under his regime Iraq was stable. It was like Soviet hegemony in Balkans. However bad it was, if that power structure is removed then all the suppressed ethnic/sectarian tensions explode leading to civil war and (in some cases) genocidal impulses.
The collapse of the Soviet system was unplanned, however inevitable it might appear in hindsight. When we took out Saddam, we should have KNOWN what was going to happen afterwards. Hell, there were people who DID know that this was going to happen, and were shouting it out BEFORE the invasion, but they were ignored at best or charged as “unpatriotic” or “traitors” at worst.
People who claim the moral high-ground by saying we saved the lives of innocent victims by removing Saddam ignore that his body-count for the last 7-odd years would likely have been dwarfed by the mountain of equally-innocent corpses that have resulted from his removal.
Yes, the “Surge” may have slowed the death-steamroller of Iraqi civillians that was set in motion by our initial invasion, but can we say that we’re now “winning” as a result? What happens when we pull out again? Is an increase of American forces simply more bricks on the lid of a boiling pot? To shift metaphors, if we SET the house on fire, and have now managed to wrestle the inferno into a “controlled” burn, can we honestly expect thanks for “saving” the house? Is that what “winning” means?
A modest proposal: We withdraw immediately, at least as far as trying to prop up a democratic government that Iraq didn’t ask for and, by all appearances, is unable or unwilling to support. We bypass both the Shi’ites AND the Sunnis, and declare that the Sufis are going to get the chance of running the country. The Sufis seem to me like the most laid-back of the Muslims, and they deserve a shot.
It would be like ending Protestant/Catholic strife in Ireland by putting the Unitarians in charge…
riley05 almost 15 years ago
Fritzoid, regarding your 2nd paragraph:
“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition , turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day hero—- assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability. ”
“A World Transformed” George H W Bush 1998
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
Agreed, Anthony. That makes it all the more ironic that W tried to justify the invasion with “After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”
TrickyPickle almost 15 years ago
This page is filled with so many half-truths, repeated falsities and mile-wide holes that I can’t even begin to address them.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
Very convincing, Tricky. I’m sure millions will be swayed by the force of your arguments. Incisiveness like that hasn’t been seen since the Lincoln-Douglass debates.
If you don’t know where to begin, why don’t you start with the falsities? Since those would be questions of fact, they should be easier to effectively discredit.
cdward almost 15 years ago
Just out of curiosity, are there any Muslims reading here? I’d be very interested in hearing your take on all this.