Evil Genius

It's also the only one my spell checker ever seems to suggest; so I apologize in advance if I use the wrong spelling.

Astro wrote: That aside, we are not the ones writing a constitution in Iraq. The Iraqi's are. We aren't making their democracy, we're giving them a chance to make their own distinct representative government.

Actually, you're not completely right on that count. There's an entire field of post-graduate work in political science that focuses on constitution building. The Iraq Constitution is being written largely by constitutional scholars. In a way this is a good thing...these are specialists in establishing constitutional systems. There have been instances, however, where such constitutional scholars have used new "democracies" as laboratories to test out new theories in political science and organization.

Even as a political scientist I have an ethical issue with this...I'm pretty sure that we don't have the right to use already fragile societies as our guinea pigs. But we do.

The point is, don't assume that the Iraqi constitution is a product of the Iraqi people. And western political scientists may not be well equipped to create a democratic system that will work for the Iraqi people.

Astro wrote: Do you honestly think we should leave alone a corrupt and evil system that will one day cause a dirty nuke to detonate on American soil? If you think that is a ridiculous notion, this is the same system that brought down the WTC and killed 3,000 people.

I'm with Killfile on this---I want a more than the assertion that these "evil" systems "will one day cause a dirty nuke to detonate on American soil." And I'd ask you, what information endows you with the CERTAINTY that some future event WILL happen?

The desire for data beyond vague assurances is not the system that brought down the World Trade Center. Communication failures coupled with outright arrogance and ignorance on the part of the Bush administration, as well as a number of extremely determined terrorists, precipitated the September 11th attacks. I would categorize as ridiculous, not a healthy skepticism of the administration's rhetoric and propaganda, but rather a willingness to act out of context in ways that are going to send American soldiers home in body bags.

This is especially important since the President himself has come out and said that, not only did Iraq not have the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction; but it had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. In fact, Iraq has not, in its entire history, attacked the United States. If there's anyone that we SHOULD be leaving alone shouldn't it be a state that hasn't attacked us? Should we not be focusing our resources on national defense (to prevent future terrorist attacks) and for attacks against actual threats?

Astro wrote: You can't punish a suicide bomber, but you can punish Saddam Hussein. He is a lesson to other governments, just as an Iraqi built democracy is a lesson to other muslims.

We do not have the right to invade a sovereign state, kill its people, and depose its leader simply as a "lesson" to others. We do not have the right to attack Iraq simply because we couldn't "punish a suicide bomber." Forget the global police force...you want the United States to be the global schoolmaster.

My husband and I were just watching a documentary on the dangers of the military-industrial complex. One of its points was that the American government has dedicated huge resources to distracting Americans from a key question: why do they hate us?

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the answer is American foreign policy. It's the undermining of democratically elected leaders. It's the initiation of wars grounded in lies. It's the toppling of governments to provide "lessons."

These are not the actions of a society dedicated to freedom. These are the actions of a society dedicated to power.

Libaax wrote:Ellen: There are millions and million of pics of jesus cause there is nothing wrong with drawing a pic of him in the christians eyes. In the muslim world and Muhammed is the other way around. Atleast i have been taught you shouldn't draw any pictures of the prophet. Thats whats wrong with what they did and the fact that they make him out to be a terrorist is even worse.

To be completely right about this, I'd like to say I belong to a certain chrisitian denomination that believes that idolization of images and statues is also against the faith.
The difference in our particular case is that an image is acceptable if it's not meant for worship, but for teaching.

It is kind of interesting that you simply aren't allowed to have images, and to be honest that's probably a good way of curbing idolatry, since that's the path that Constantine sent Catholicism down (knowing full well that the bible states not to make graven images) but I digress.

My point is that Jesus is used in facetious ways in many images, cartoons and television shows. Sometimes it's respectful, sometimes it's demeaning and although the christian public will make statements against such things and boycott them, they won't go stampeding the studio for airing "Book of Daniel". Well, at least, I haven't heard of a group doing that. o_O

I agree that generalizing all Muslims into a category of rioters and terrorists would be akin to generalizing all Caucasians as KKK members. Both of which are ridiculous.

Sortep,

-I think you are spot on about the reluctance of moderate muslims to reject their dangerous radicals. It is much easier to forgive the sins of the people on your side, especially if you've been convinced that the other side is trying to destroy everything you believe in. I do not think most muslims in America believe this, but I'm sure that most do in places like Iran. The propaganda in Iran was described to me as "virulent" by a Persian coworker who lived in there long enough to start ranting "Death to Israel" at 11 years old. That was when his parents decided to get his ass out of there, and they hired an ex-heroin-smuggler to smuggle them out of the country. The whole trip was certainly the coolest backstory I've ever heard.

One of the things I find interesting about Iraq is that, initially, they looked at American soldiers as exactly as you described. However, as it became clearer that the terrorists were killing more muslims than they were killing Americans--and targeting women and children at that--the Iraqi's started ratting out these "freedom fighters" to the Evil American Imperial Occupiers. Also, if the Left is accused of sounding like Osama Bin Laden, then I must add that I've read some quotes from Iraqi Kurds that sound like bible thumping soccer moms. I find it is nice to read about the ones that don't hate us, and I suspect it may be more instructive than listening to the excuses of murderers (as some others have suggested).

-The reason I carried on with the whole Iraq metaphor wasn't to argue "should" or "should not", but to try and prove that a politically blind proactive problem solving approach could logically bring us to the invasion of Iraq. Even if I manage to convince everyone in the world of this, it doesn't prove "should" or "should not". For example, even if Iraq was the moral thing to do, it puts our military in a strained position while Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. If Iraq makes us unable to stop a nuclear holocaust, then you can say "We shouldn't have done it", but I can still argue that (in hindsight) it was a moral course of action.

That said, I can certainly respect your take on the Iraq war. For me, hugging Bush is infinitely less important than earnestly working to rebuild Iraq. I do not understand the people who would doom millions of Iraqi's to civil war just to advance their petty politics. Especially when there is a chance to greatly improve the US's image, the Iraqi way of life, and perhaps the politics of the entire middle east region. Why would we ever throw away such an opportunity?

The tshirt sounds hilarious btw

vtwahoo,

I'm not sure we share any middle ground to actually hold a real discussion. I long for the the freedom of all men and women from tyranny and oppression, whereas you seem eager for the failure of such aspirations. You've violated Godwin's law by implying that I supported some sort of sick "Final Solution" to our problems in the middle east. And finally, you have not answered my private message which reads "It is not ethnocentric to say muslims can't be allowed to kill their women at whim. Why are you choosing to to argue against that? "

In short, I do not believe you have the capacity for honorable discourse with people whose only sin is to have a different opinion than you.


Killfile,
I am very tired and would like some more time to research the failed democracies you mentioned. I'll try to have something tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to learning more about these.

vtwahoo wrote: I don't know about the rest of you but I'm NOT Muslim and -=I'm=- pretty pissed off about these caricatures. I think they demonstrate two fundamental things: an ignorance about Islam and a lack of cultural sensitivity...both of which are appalling.

Good for you.. But do you actually know the background though? you think if this was supposed to be a direct insult to muslims that there wouldn't have been repercussions?

Here's a small insight from wikipedia:

Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Artists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.

So I fully support the danes, norwegian and the other 30 countries which posted the pictures, if they actually commented on the original debate, which the cartoons and the article with them was about.

The original intent of jyllands posten can be read in the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_cartoons

Or in short:
1) a childrens' book author is writing a book about muhammed for children.
2) artists are scared witless to draw it for fear of repercussions
3) jyllands posten has articles on what this self-censorship means, and how it's a problem if you can't even find artists to do a simple childrens book about muhammed.
4)They ask over 300 people whether they would be interested in drawing a cartoon for this debate, only 12 reply (meaning peopler REALLY are scared witless).
5) the most offensive cartoon (the one with the bomb) isn't about muhammed as a terrorist, it's about how this cartoon about muhammed is an actual bomb waiting to go off.

but it's very interesting that most muslims think that it's about how all muslims are terrorists (because they haven't even tried seeing what the debate was about) and very funny that what was prophecised in the cartoon came true after all.

K.

So you think that having Mohammad wearing a bomb as a turban wasn't meant to stir anything up or insulting? You're kidding me, right?

I think someone should draw a picture of the pope having gay sex with Jesus while molesting young boys. I wonder how Mel Gibson will feel.

Ellen wrote:

Libaax wrote:Ellen: There are millions and million of pics of jesus cause there is nothing wrong with drawing a pic of him in the christians eyes. In the muslim world and Muhammed is the other way around. Atleast i have been taught you shouldn't draw any pictures of the prophet. Thats whats wrong with what they did and the fact that they make him out to be a terrorist is even worse.

To be completely right about this, I'd like to say I belong to a certain chrisitian denomination that believes that idolization of images and statues is also against the faith.
The difference in our particular case is that an image is acceptable if it's not meant for worship, but for teaching.

It is kind of interesting that you simply aren't allowed to have images, and to be honest that's probably a good way of curbing idolatry, since that's the path that Constantine sent Catholicism down (knowing full well that the bible states not to make graven images) but I digress.

My point is that Jesus is used in facetious ways in many images, cartoons and television shows. Sometimes it's respectful, sometimes it's demeaning and although the christian public will make statements against such things and boycott them, they won't go stampeding the studio for airing "Book of Daniel". Well, at least, I haven't heard of a group doing that. o_O

I agree that generalizing all Muslims into a category of rioters and terrorists would be akin to generalizing all Caucasians as KKK members. Both of which are ridiculous.

About Muhammed and pics the idea is that so people dont worship him just like christains do to those so called saints and other holy people.

The fact that the vatican makes normal people saints and people pray to them always made me very uneasy.

One good thing came out of this thing. It showed who was anti-muslim and who wasnt not. You see some people on the news that wasnt so brave before but are saying anti-muslim remarks now. It looks like its open for them now.

A iranian friend of mine joked about how iranians hates judes and what do i read hours after.? That an iranian paper along with the danish one will do the same thing to Judes and the holocaust.

Just to see how far the west is gonna protect free press when it affects them.

Cant say its totaly wrong and we all know how holy the judes are in the west.....

I'm going to end up posting a long winded explanation of Catholic doctrine eventually explaining what the hell saints are and how they fit into the greater scope of Christian theology. Later though --

I was under the impression that prayer to Mohammed wasn't altogether uncommon in Islam - though I'm sensing that this may be a fallacious assumption.

Suffice it to say that, while many Catholics pray to Saints for intercession, that this practice is more or less confined to just the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. Protestant faiths, as a whole, do not venerate Saints to the same degree.

Your point stands though - if you've ever been to some of the more elaborate European Cathedrals, the bejeweled remains of Saints are often featured in various chapels in ornate reliquaries.

There are always people who does things you shoulndt do,so i woulndt be suprised if there some people who prayed to Muhammed.

I was thinking about the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox.



Yeah i know i live in sweden a protestant country atleast when most of them were christians and i have seen so many saints in church's.

I fully support the right to post the image where you want to but I don't support that cartoon at all. I find it completely tasteless that someone would even do something like that and then wonder why everyone is upset. Equally, I'm disappointed that people responded like that to it instead of doing what adults should do: Ignore the blatant attempt to grasp their attention and continue with what they should doing.

Of course, I don't want to see anyone hurt but ignorance on this scale gets people killed. The West and Islam start to get even more out of touch with each other. This was already more than obvious but this only serves to show people exactly how wide the gap is becoming.

Libaax, no matter how many (or few) grains of truth might be contained in your statements about Jews, I urge you to reconsider your own generalizations about Jews. Do you really want to become the same kind of person that makes wild and broad judgements of muslims? Down that road you will only become just as offensive as the Islam "experts" who spread misinformation are to you.

This issue goes way beyond mere religious differences. At it the core of the current controversy is ignorance from both sides, unreasonable fears from both sideas about each other (which only become reasonable the more people fear unreasonably), and ethnocentricity (also to some extent from both sides: notably many westerners for automatically assuming that their way is better, and the extremists for forcing an argument against free speech outside the boundaries of their conventional reach).

Kasgarinn, you are only seeing part of one side of the issue. Were you aware that the same editor of the Jyllands-Posten allegedly refused to publish a Jesus cartoon (and one that was deemed as mildy humorous by some local Christian authorities, at that?). Have you personally seen the cartoons? Did it occur to you that maybe all the other hundreds of artists simply didn't want to make an offensive cartoon, not out of fear of repercussions but simply because it would be offensive and bad taste? These are only some of the questions one might and should ask when not in possession of the whole picture.

Astro, you make some pretty wild conclusions yourself concerning vtwahoo. You accuse her of being eager for the failure of your aspirations, when to me it is clear that is not the case. She is actually applying some critical thinking about this issue and the different viewpoints as a means to get closer to the truth as well as to avoid jumping to potentially dangerous conclusions. There is a world of difference. And to answer/correct the PM question, YES, it IS ethnocentric to say muslims can't be allowed to kill their women at whim if you are yourself not a muslim! Look up the definition, and then think very carefully about the assumptions you are making in making that statement and you may see what I mean. Note for those who jump to conclusions or misunderstand easily, I am NOT saying I think it is right for "muslims to kill their women" or even that they are doing such a thing (which on a large scale they are not).

I dont have anything jews just saying that iranian paper will do the same thing to them. Its a given the west will react alot different to what is done to them then they have on Muhammed.

Its easy to say free press when it doesn't affect you.



I just want this thing to be in the past.


I cant believe people around the world are letting a loser in who is in charge of a mag no body cares about manipulate them.

Just to be fair (and I'm pretty sure vtwahoo has alluded to this elsewhere) the tradition of "honor killings" as we understand them in the west is bullshit.

Most Americans think of these "honor killings" as something a male does to protect his family honor. When a sister or daughter has sex out of wedlock (consensual or otherwise) a male authority figure will kill her to restore family honor.

Not only is this a murder and a morally perverse manner of viewing the world - but it is also against both Muslim theology (as I understand it, please feel free to correct me) and Muslim and Arab tradition.

"Honor Killings" in the traditional sense of the phrase are a reaction to a cultural system that requires a certain resource distribution pattern through generations to ensure the overall survival of a tribe or group. Women who may have become impregnated by sex outside of the bounds of this kinship order would, in some cases, commit suicide rather than bring the child to term and disrupt that fragile order.

Today, for the most part, these measures are unnecessary, though they persist as a relic of an ancient tradition and order - much as male circumcision does in the Christian the Jewish traditions.

It would seem both unfair and unrealistic to tar Islam is with the crimes of patriarchal figures who turn to poor interpretations of the Koran to justify their domination of women, both physically and reproductively.

Wandering_Mystic,

Thanks for prompting me to clarify this a bit. A better way of wording my concern would have been "When I say it is wrong for muslims to kill their women on a whim, how can you ethically dismiss that notion because it sounds too ethnocentric to you?" Pointing out that you think such an argument is ethnocentric is fine, but to say that because it is ethnocentric I'm wrong? What the hell?

But even without that correction, my google of ethnocentric returned this definition:

The feeling that one's group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those of other groups. It is coupled with a generalized contempt for members of other groups.

That doesn't match what I'm saying 100%. My contempt is not generalized, it is very specific on issues of human rights. I also make no value judgements regarding all the other culture traits of muslims. It would be ethnocentric to say all muslims should watch American Idol and eat hotdogs at baseball games, but simply saying they shouldn't permit the murder of women is a very questionable example of full blown ethnocentrism.

My impression about vtwahoo could certainly be wrong, but I do not concede that my concerns regarding the discourse she engages in are "wild". If we can't even agree that a muslim woman doesn't deserve to be killed because she was raped, then we simply can't have any sort of real discussion. How can we argue about the best way to solve a problem, when thus far she hasn't even acknowledged it is as problem? Heck, I'd even accept "We should stop it, but the cost to do so is too high right now" as a valid counter-argument. That at least pretends to care.

(Additional Notes: My take is that the problem with honor killings is not with muslim culture, but rather the regimes that accept it as a valid excuse. If American law was as lenient, then we'd see the same result here regardless of what Jesus said Christianity was about. I used honor killings and the executions of gays as an example of why these regimes are evil, not why muslims are. Let me point out that vtwahoo still uses the word evil in quotes when referring to these same governments)

Were you aware that the same editor of the Jyllands-Posten allegedly refused to publish a Jesus cartoon (and one that was deemed as mildy humorous by some local Christian authorities, at that?).

Why, yes. I am aware of it.

Have you personally seen the cartoons?

Why, yes. I have.

Did it occur to you that maybe all the other hundreds of artists simply didn't want to make an offensive cartoon, not out of fear of repercussions but simply because it would be offensive and bad taste?

Not one of those cartoons have been deemed offensive by the legislative authority in Denmark, so why should you? None of the artist were asked to make offensive cartoons, and those 12 did not draw those cartoons to shock, most of those cartoons are a jovial look on the debate denmark had on the childrens book situation and the insanity of muslims against debating something they might oppose.

These are only some of the questions one might and should ask when not in possession of the whole picture.

Yes.. and have you? If not, you should.

I'm seeing way too much digression from the original point of all this.. most just opinionated wish-wash about what people feel about the cartoons, when they have no clue about the reasons behind them.

The fact that iranians have turned this against jews, people in pakistan turned it against bush, and prejudiced people have turned it against the prejudism against muslims for being terrorists, just tells you that 'folks are fools' and will continue to put their own meaning and dogma on things irrelevant of the meaning behind it.

in short: muhammed really did hide a bomb in his turban, and it was aimed at whomever you're sympathetic towards.

K.

kasgarinn,
the forum is all about people's opinions.
=)

it is in my opinion that the editors, cartoonists and publishers were insensitive.

Killfile wrote:I think the metaphor fails because it doesn't ALLOW the kind of scaling we're talking about. When we go after Radical Islamic Terrorists (not all Radicals are terrorists - just as Jerry Fallwell isn't in the KKK) hiding amongst innocents, both Radical and Moderate, we -=kill=- innocents. The taking of a human life (or tens of thousands of human lives) is significant, and doesn't line up with your metaphor, as we can't have Moderate Islam 6 feet under while still playing Halo. (Or we can, but then he gets totally owned in the game because rigor mortis just makes you strafe left)

To scale it correctly, my suggestion is to equate unintended civilian casualties as unintended hurt feelings that happen during our intervention. Now, I do not mean to diminish the significance of a human life, but to put it in context of the society it is a part of. So far I think this is pretty sturdy ground, because if we kill too many innocent muslims (offend Moderate Islam too much during our intervention) we will turn them completely against us (Moderate Muslim chooses his crazy girlfriend over us). It also suggests that the loss of life, while tragic, is inevitable in pursuing the greater good. The goal to me is therefore to limit the offense we cause, while still accepting that offense will occur. Moderate Muslim will even forgive us and someday play Halo with us again if we convince him that we are sincere in trying to help him.

I agree that supplanting every regime is a task too arduous to consider. I am hoping Iraq will be the only one we need. Since the start of democracy in Iraq, we've already seen expanded voting rights in other middle eastern countries. Some say that Democracy is on the March. Even the Daily Show acknowledges it in a segment called "Democracy on the Crawl". Iraq provides other muslims the chance to ask, "Why don't we get to do that voting thing?" I can't tell you if Iraq is the biggest reason Syria pulled out of Lebanon, or municipal voting started in Saudi Arabia, or any of the rest. But I can't believe it has had no effect on the region, as if it somehow existed in a separate universe all together. The sheer existence of Iraq pressures other governments to be more democratic, and it gives me hope that it may eventually sooth the clashes between our cultures.

Whether we can prevent a dirty nuke depends on what tools you are willing to use. I agree that isolationism is a poor choice, but would you completely rule out an invasion, or merely the invasion of Iraq? If we won't cross that line then I fail to see how we can stop Iran from getting nukes and handing some of them to terrorists. Once that happens, I certainly do not have enough faith in homeland security to think we can stop them from making a simple delivery.

I agree that democracies don't always play nice, but I think (however depressing it may be) that they are still the best idea we've got. If the muslims are nicer people than their rulers, then a democracy will tend to be a better choice than a dictatorship.

OK, I think I'll break my post here for now, and focus on the failed democracies issue next. May take me a bit though, I think I'm fighting off a cold or something.

Astro wrote: vtwahoo,

I'm not sure we share any middle ground to actually hold a real discussion. I long for the freedom of all men and women from tyranny and oppression, whereas you seem eager for the failure of such aspirations. You've violated Godwin's law by implying that I supported some sort of sick "Final Solution" to our problems in the middle east. And finally, you have not answered my private message which reads "It is not ethnocentric to say muslims can't be allowed to kill their women at whim. Why are you choosing to argue against that? "

In short, I do not believe you have the capacity for honorable discourse with people whose only sin is to have a different opinion than you.

First, most valuable discourse exists between people who share no middle ground. It is your unwillingness to engage in such discourse that is detrimental to the progression of ideas.

Just because I happen to hold different opinions than yours.

My only problem with "freedom from tyranny and oppression" is that it's empty rhetoric. If you're really interested in freeing the world from tyranny and oppression you have to include freedom from the tyrannical and oppressive actions of the United States government and military.

Why aren't you standing up and shouting at the top of your lungs for intervention in Sudanese genocide? Where were you when almost a million Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutus in Rwanda throughout 1994? My problem with your approach is that you appear to care only about what the US government has told you to.

I in no way compared you to Hitler or Nazi Germany. I merely asked you to rule out genocide as part of your vaguely stated “solution.” As such, Godwin’s law doesn’t even enter into this.

And I didn't even know that you had sent me a private message. Good grief.

I found to be ethnocentric your arguments about fundamental divides between "us" and "them" and about issues on which "they have to join us."

I agree that it is intolerable for women to be murdered by their governments or families for such crimes as talking a man who is not an immediate family member, having sex out of wedlock, etc. (Wow...I think we just found "middle ground"---guess I could qualify as a decent human being after all). What I find to be ethnocentric is your assertion that these actions are unacceptable, not because they are in and of themselves crimes against humanity, but because they are, in your own words, "incompatible with our society." If you would extend your research beyond google and into the theoretical discourse you would find that ethnocentrism goes beyond generalized contempt and grandeurs of superiority.

Does that clarify the issue?

That being said, I would again implore you to study historical context. Honor killings date to fragile kinship communities that are focused upon sustainability and survivability. Killfile did a good job of representing this history. Honor killings are thus inconsistent with Islam and the regimes that support it are deplorable.

But the term "evil" is not constructive. It's use is designed to produce an emotional rather than a rational response. Which goes back to my concerns with your style of discourse. You are playing into rhetoric and I would merely ask that you acknowledge valid critiques.

Now, having clarified those issues, I would like to reiterate several of my own questions, posted in open forum, that you have chosen to ignore.

Do you acknowledge that there are problems with the fact that Western political scientists are writing the Iraqi constitution?

In light of the Bush administration's admissions that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks and given that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, what gives you the certainty that "corrupt and evil systems" will detonate a nuclear device in an American city?

What gives the United States the right to invade a country, kill its people, and depose its leader (which we have done MULTIPLE times both in Iraq and throughout the world---see Latin America during the Cold War to send a message to would-be, democratically elected "communists") simply as a lesson to others?

I know that there exist in the world crimes against humanity---and specifically against women---that cannot be tolerated. But the United States, and the West as a whole, cannot afford to condemn only those atrocities that conveniently take place above proven oil reserves.

vtwahoo,

A "discussion" with no middle ground is what is called a Flame War. I'm sorry I don't think those are as valuable as you do. They progress nothing but the polarization of ideas, instead of being a search for truth.

vtwahoo wrote: (Wow...I think we just found "middle ground"---guess I could qualify as a decent human being after all)

Let me address this strawman: I never questioned your decency as a human being, but merely your capacity for honorable discourse. One of the reasons I have arrived at this idea is your very habit of throwing up so many strawman arguments as to exhaust any good faith that you are being serious at all. This summary of strawman arguments certainly captures my feelings:

This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics, since the person using the Straw Man has so little confidence in their own position that they cannot even address the real position of their opponent! At the heart of the Straw Man Argument is deception.

Your questions don't bother me, reading what you write in between them does. But I don't have a problem with straightforward questions:

1) Since Iraq does not have a history of democratic governance, it would be a folly to not provide them with experts in democracy. But the Iraqi government is part of the process, and they are making compromises with each other and shaping the outcome. The only moral issue is how these experts respond if they must choose between Iraqi and American interests when making the constitution. Since American interests involve a stable Iraq, I believe there is significant overlap of goals which helps prevent conflicts of interest. I would appreciate a link to an article describing the process in detail.

2) The Bush administration has skirted the line, but they have intentionally never said that Saddam was related to 9/11. They certainly let people know that there were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda back from the Clinton administration, and probably counted on people to erroneously connect the two events. But if the Bush administration is admitting what they said all along, I don't quite see what is newsworthy. Also, the recent buzz about WMDs is that they may have been moved to Syria while Bush went to the UN. Honestly, even I'm surprised at the number of Bush's arguments that are turning out to be true.

3) Because the US has done a lot of terrible things in the name of survival. Sometimes the benefit of being dangerous is that your enemies will do what you want without bloodshed. Most governments are bullys. Its not easy to accept, but some bullys are better than others. I prefer the American bully to the Soviet one, and I prefer them to the Iranian bullys. We commit murder, but we do not threaten anyone with honest genocide. I distrust power, but I know we need it to protect us. I would probably agree with you on many case by case events, but certainly not against the US as a whole.

Some extras: I am not writing about Darfur because the discussion we're having is about Iraq. I have been deeply troubled by the events in Darfur ever since I visited the Holocaust museum in 2004. To raise awareness of the Darfur genocide, they had created an exhibit so people wouldn't forget that genocide isn't confined to history books. Maybe you didn't think I cared about it, because the strawman you are arguing with doesn't. If you want to talk to *me*, I'm still here waiting.

There's something amusing about someone using the "that's a strawman argument" as a means of ad hominem attack.

Moreover, I would certainly characterize someone who is "eager for the failure" of "freedom of all men and women from tyranny and oppression" as an indecent human being -- so perhaps Vtwahoo's pithy retort that she is "a decent human being after all" isn't such a great example of a strawman?

Like many opposed to the Iraq war, my primary objection is that it prevents the United States from having the flexibility to intervene in substantially worse instances of genocide and repression. The argument of "where were your angry protestations during Darfur" is again, not as much a strawman as it is a more general "you." In this case, I suspect, it is not "you" astro but "you" those that support intervention in Iraq for democracy and human rights.

In short - with the stunning absence of WMDs and Al Queda operatives in Iraq, there has been a groundswell, on the Right especially, of support for intervention for humanitarian reasons. The Darfur argument cuts to the heart of this, exposing it as opportunistic rather than sincere concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

I doubt it is targeted specifically at you because, as you pointed out, there has been no discussion of the Genocide in Darfur on this forum.

Finally, as to the 9-11 Iraq link, while Bush was careful to skirt the line, the party that he is the leader of made no such effort.

"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes R-NC

Moreover, Bush SPECIFICALLY cited 9-11 in in his letter of March 19, 2003 which informed Congress of his intention to use force against Iraq and used 9-11 in that letter to justify that decision. [source]

Add to that headlines like "Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed" and images like this one and it's hard to argue that the Republicans and the Right didn't try REALLY hard to link these two guys.

Astro wrote:A "discussion" with no middle ground is what is called a Flame War. I'm sorry I don't think those are as valuable as you do. They progress nothing but the polarization of ideas, instead of being a search for truth

Obviously we disagree about the meaning of discourse. The problem is that we also disagree about its purpose.

There is no "truth." There are only ideas grounded in differing perspectives and reciprocated critiques. Historically, leaders and intellectuals who have proclaimed something as "truth" have merely been giving easy answers to incredibly complex questions. That is the very thing that I'm trying to work past. Your assertion that you "long for the freedom of all men and women from tyranny and oppression" is an easy answer to a set of complex questions, grounded in deep historical context.

Discourse does not involve agreeing about the "middle ground" and agreeing to disagree about all the rest. For centuries schools of political theorists have engaged one another from opposite ends of the spectrum...some of the greatest ideas in history have emerged.

That is what I mean by discourse, and what is meant in the scholarly community by the same. And despite our lack of a middle ground this whole discourse thing seems to be working. Is that not a good thing?

Astro wrote:I never questioned your decency as a human being, but merely your capacity for honorable discourse.

I'm sorry...I interpreted your assertion that I want to subject all men and women to tyranny and oppression as such. If my interpretation was incorrect I apologize but ask what -=did=- you mean by that?

Astro wrote:Your questions don't bother me, reading what you write in between them does.

Could you please tell me what precisely I have "written between the lines"? It has not been my intent to imply anything. However if you believe there to be implications with which you disagree I would ask that you would state them overtly so that I might respond in kind.

Astro wrote:1) Since Iraq does not have a history of democratic governance, it would be a folly to not provide them with experts in democracy. But the Iraqi government is part of the process, and they are making compromises with each other and shaping the outcome. The only moral issue is how these experts respond if they must choose between Iraqi and American interests when making the constitution. Since American interests involve a stable Iraq, I believe there is significant overlap of goals which helps prevent conflicts of interest. I would appreciate a link to an article describing the process in detail.

But why do those experts have to be from the West? By your own arguments, there are parts of “their” culture that are incompatible with “ours.” Why are we not encouraging the participation of Middle Eastern and Islamic scholars in this this project of democracy building?

Although American interests may be served by a stable Iraq, they may not be served by a democratic Iraq. The problem with a democratic system is that it may result in the election of an anti-American government. What do we do at that point? What do we do if a democratic Iraq decides to form an alliance with Iran? When Chile elected a leader we didn’t like we put Pinochet in power…thousands of slaughtered Chileans later I ask you, is this the model upon which we will operate in the Middle East?

A democratic Germany in the post-WWI era did not create a stable system of government nor did it serve the interests of Europe. And yet the Weimar Constitution was constructed by the greatest political experts of its time.

Constitutional scholars have been engaging in similar processes throughout the entire world for the last 50 years and they don’t have a great track record. Western experts helped form the Rwandan government, the Sudanese government, the Nigerian government…they have written into constitutions ideas that sounded great on paper and may have even worked in the United States or Western Europe but that did not take into consideration the historical and cultural contexts of the areas in question and which led to disastrous results. I find that interference to be immoral in and of itself.

It takes a while for case studies on these issues to be published in peer reviewed journals...and usually scholars wait to compare the process with the results. As soon as I have access to a published article, I’ll post a link. If you are interested, I believe that I have one on a similar process in Nigeria.

Astro wrote:2) The Bush administration has skirted the line, but they have intentionally never said that Saddam was related to 9/11. Also, the recent buzz about WMDs is that they may have been moved to Syria while Bush went to the UN.

Why can’t you just admit that the Bush administration lied?

But this doesn’t answer my question. I asked, and I quote, “in light of the Bush administration's admissions that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks and given that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, what gives you the certainty that "corrupt and evil systems" will detonate a nuclear device in an American city?”

Astro wrote:3) Because the US has done a lot of terrible things in the name of survival. Sometimes the benefit of being dangerous is that your enemies will do what you want without bloodshed. Most governments are bullys. Its not easy to accept, but some bullys are better than others. I prefer the American bully to the Soviet one, and I prefer them to the Iranian bullys. We commit murder, but we do not threaten anyone with honest genocide. I distrust power, but I know we need it to protect us. I would probably agree with you on many case by case events, but certainly not against the US as a whole.

I’m not sure that I understand you so before I am accused of constructing a “strawman” (and I’m still not sure what the hell that means but apparently it has something to do with Rush Limbaugh) are you saying that the US has the right to invade Iraq, kill its civilians, and depose its leaders, as a lesson to others because “most governments are bullies”?? It’s okay to commit murder if you’re the lesser of two evils?

You’re right. We don’t agree.

That being said, the US invasion of Iraq weakened our ability to deal with other, including potential Iranian, threats. This “lesson” will not deter conflict. It will merely reinforce anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and Islamic communities and encourage enemy states to attack while the United States has neither the military power nor the public support to mobilize in return.

That’s a very expensive lesson.

Astro wrote:Some extras: I am not writing about Darfur because the discussion we're having is about Iraq. I have been deeply troubled by the events in Darfur ever since I visited the Holocaust museum in 2004. They had a special room set aside for information on current genocides that were taking place in the world, and Darfur had just begun that year. Maybe you didn't think I cared about it, because the strawman you are arguing with doesn't. If you want to talk to *me*, I'm still here waiting.

It’s such a comfort to me that the United States has dedicated a room to a genocide but they won’t acknowledge it as such (because then they’d be bound by international law to intervene) and they won’t do anything to try and stop it. (becuase it does not translate well into text, that was sarcasm)

During the Rwandan genocide the UN soldiers shot dogs in the streets of Rwanda’s cities. When asked why, they responded that their superiors had ordered them to do so since it was inhumane to allow the dogs to eat the corpses. But it wasn’t inhumane to allow Hutus to hack a million Tutsis to death.

There’s something seriously wrong with the American government.

I realize that the current discussion concerns Iraq. My concern and point, however, is that Americans have the overwhelming tendency to want to free the world’s men and women from tyranny and oppression and yet cannot find Darfur or Rwanda on a map. I have a problem with this. I’m glad to hear that you have similar concerns. The question, and perhaps the topic of the next thread, is what do we do about it?

Well, I lost most of my previous reply when the server dipped, so I'll take it as an opportunity to move on to new ideas instead of bickering about the old ones. Though I should explain one last thing before:

Tyranny / Decency Tiff
You have so far given the evils of the United States far more condemnation than you've handed other atrocities that are often much more appalling. My conclusion was that you were foolish, and your foolishness had inadvertently left you on the side of injustice and tyrants. I know a thing or two about foolishness, I even voted for John Kerry in 2004, and I can assure you my decency (such as it is ) existed even then.

Truth
I do not deny the elusivity of truth, but I think it is a poor assumption to say it doesn't exist. The last time I heard people pretend to take that seriously was probably in philosophy 1001; most people eventually realize that stating "There is no truth" like it's a fact is a bit of a paradox. Certainly one can believe that there is no truth, and if that is the case here's what I'm wondering:

"Water freezes at zero degrees celsius under 1 atm of pressure".
I'll assume we can agree that this is true in an absolute scientific sense. Let's try to get closer to human truth:
"Terry should've looked before jumping" Wait! How can this be true? How can we judge "should" or "should not" ?? Let's fix this!
"If Terry was attempting to not die, she really should've looked before jumping."

Hey, that is true AND involves a statement on human conceived values. Let's see what else this style of prose can write:
"If our goal is to have the best chance to avoid Iraqi civil war, then the troops should remain until the country is stable."

This is how I think that truth exists. Moral values are not truth, but they can be used to guide us to finding a useful truth. If two people meet with the same moral goal (freedom from tyranny, say) then they can argue who's statement is closest to the truth. But if one of them has a different goal, say to plant trees, then they will have a lot of trouble coming to terms with a course of action. This is why I believe the middle ground is important, because without a common purpose the debate doesn't help us find the truth.

I suppose I just stumbled on why you don't think a common goal is important: there's no truth so there's no point! It's just a free swim at the pool, and I can do like five backflips underwater. Watch my dive!

Are you watching?
You're not watching!!
Ok here I go !

Eldo wrote:So you think that having Mohammad wearing a bomb as a turban wasn't meant to stir anything up or insulting? You're kidding me, right?

I think someone should draw a picture of the pope having gay sex with Jesus while molesting young boys. I wonder how Mel Gibson will feel.

The caricature is open to interpretation though. One of the ones offered in the wikipedia article was that drawing an image of Muhammad was literally like setting off a bomb.He knew that the repercussions of simply drawing an image of Muhammad would cause controversy. Regardless of what that caricature may be.

Libaax wrote:About Muhammed and pics the idea is that so people dont worship him just like christains do to those so called saints and other holy people.

The fact that the vatican makes normal people saints and people pray to them always made me very uneasy.

Now you're making the same mistake that many are making, you're clumping many groups of people into one generalization. Sainthood and "holy" people aren't revered in every Christian sect. In fact, generally only Orthodox and Catholics worship figures other than Jesus and God. I fully agree with you that praying to saints and holy figures is not the right way to go. Especially when you consider that the text they base their faith on specifically tells them that this is wrong. This is paraphrashing, but the bible states that God requires all your worship and devotion to be directed to him. So canonizing and sainthood is a direct opposition of God's decrees.

Libaax wrote: One good thing came out of this thing. It showed who was anti-muslim and who wasnt not. You see some people on the news that wasnt so brave before but are saying anti-muslim remarks now. It looks like its open for them now.

A iranian friend of mine joked about how iranians hates judes and what do i read hours after.? That an iranian paper along with the danish one will do the same thing to Judes and the holocaust.

Just to see how far the west is gonna protect free press when it affects them.

Cant say its totaly wrong and we all know how holy the judes are in the west.....

I'm really not sure where you're going with this. You're acting like this is the first time that a religous figure has been satirized in any form. I have seen many cartoons that mock Judaism, Christianity, and other smaller religious groups. This is not a new thing. The new thing is that the cartoon has incited violence. The irony here is that some of the cartoons depict the violence they expected to occur due to the publication of the cartoon.

Truth is subjective.

"Science" is a desperate attempt to impose a consensual reality upon a subjective world using artificially constructed standards. That's why we talk about "science" in terms of theories rather than realities.

Some of us enjoyed Philosophy 1001 so much that we decided to dedicate our lives to ideas. It's unkind to disparage our life work just because you disagree with it.

"If our goal is to have the best chance to avoid Iraqi civil war, then the troops should remain until the country is stable."

If our goal was to have the best chance to avoid Iraqi civil war, then we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

That's how I know that truth doesn't exist. Moral values are not truth, They are simply agreed upon norms. It is possible to agree upon something that is not true (see the geocentric solar system). Moral values can guide us to MANY truths, each as subjective as the next and many equally valid.

astro wrote:I suppose I just stumbled on why you don't think a common goal is important: there's no truth so there's no point!

Not quite. I don't think a common starting point is important. I find common goals to be quite useful.

As an example (that does not involve crazy girlfriends): Justices Scalia and Ginsberg don't agree on anything. They have no common starting point and share no middle ground. And yet three things are important:

1. they have spent years engaging in intellectual discourse

2. they have a common goal that they pursue by means of said discourse

3. they're best friends

Perhaps there's hope for us after all...but if it's okay with you I'm going to put off buying our joint summer home for the time being.

And the rest of your post was just silly.

Astro wrote:Tyranny / Decency Tiff
You have so far given the evils of the United States far more condemnation than you've handed other atrocities that are often much more appalling. My conclusion was that you were foolish, and your foolishness had inadvertently left you on the side of injustice and tyrants. I know a thing or two about foolishness, I even voted for John Kerry in 2004, and I can assure you my decency (such as it is ) existed even then.

Lots of people hold the United States to a higher standard. Why shouldn't they? The United States itself constantly tries to claim the moral high ground - fighting for "freedom" "liberty" "justice" and other concepts which are, by their very definition, designed to claim that high ground. If you say you're fighting for security, oil, and to feed the military industrial complex you don't come off as such a good guy.

Moreover, the United States is in possession of the most powerful military in the world. Some responsibility comes with that distinction. When you can wipe other countries off the face of the earth, the assumption is that you will not abuse this ability. Indeed - the concept translates well into the American legal system. Take a few years of martial arts and see how lenient a judge is during an assault hearing.

Finally - while we're using our powerful military to fight for all these great things - or at least saying we are - the United States is also a founding member of the UN. Indeed, it was the US, back under Wilson that first came forward with the idea of an international body to guarantee peace and human rights and all that stuff. So it smacks of hypocrisy when we do things like let genocide in Rwanda or Darfur slide by unopposed.

We're the United States of America. We're supposed to be better than this; and that is why so many people hold us to a higher standard.