"Just War" and Neutrality

[data_link]

What's funny is that everyone seems to think that a noninterference policy means just sitting idly by in a clear case of one country steamrollering over a number of others for its own aggrandizement. This is aan excluded middle fallacy. It is possible to have a default policy of noninterference while still having exceptions in the case of an obvious wrong being comitted by a specific country. What bothers me is that American policy insists on whenever a war is taking place to immediately figure out who the "bad guy" is (which, amazingly, has a very strong correlation with the guy we'd get the most economic benefit out of destroying), and wage unilateral war against him while simultaneously deamonizing anyone who "sits idly by." Not only is it obvious what our real motives are (hint: it's a three-letter word beginning with "o"), but it also ignores the fact that most wars are NOT black and white, that it is entirely possible to have a war where BOTH sides are morally correct in what they're doing, and that to interfere in a partisan manner is inherently immoral. Given the complexities of war, our default position should be to not interfere unless it becomes absolutely nessecary from a moral perspective, and even then unless it is a clear case of one side steamrollering over the other, we should attack BOTH sides and prevent either of them from using our support to impose on the 'losers' an aprthied ppolicy that deprives them of all civil rights. By allowing our economic interests to take precedence our moral judgment, by interfering in situations where niether side wants our help, by allowing ourselves to be manipulated so as to serve as a weapoon for the interests of dictators, by ALWAYS chossing sides whenever we do interfere (whatever happened to "both of you, break it up?"), and by willingly using our ability to interfere to impose our political and social systems on people whenever we do interfere, we have forfited our moral right to interfere in world politics until such time as we get someone honest and reasonably intelligent in the white house.

[Knife]

Forfited our rights to intervene in world politics? If its world politics then by default we have a right to participate. All wars have an economic dimension to it. They either have something we want or they are threatening something we already have. If you do not participate in a war, generaly it is because it is either politicaly dangerous, militarily dangerous, and/or economicly dangerous to do so. Historicly people weigh their options, and if they participate in a war it is because the will benifit in one way or another.

And your mockery of an non interference policy is what the author of the article was suggesting. Atleast thats what I got out of the article.

[Coyote]

While Islam in its original conception was not laid out as an "anti-West" religion, it has in th elast feew hundred years become the spear popint of anti-westernist thought in the world. A lot of it is as a result of certain modern personalities influencing the course of Islamic political discourse.

Look into Hasan al-Bana's "Signposts" and bear in mind that his polemic on how the West has corrupted the moral integrity of the world in general and the Arab soul in particular has been adopted whole by many mainstream Islamists sects and the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe he is also taught in the al-Azhar College of Islamic Thought in Cairo, which is the closest thing to a Sultanate (religious council, a sort of Papacy for Islam) that the Muslims have today.

The official label of Islam is not anti-western, but if you cannot see that the contemporary Islamicist thought is predominantly anti-Western then you are simply ignorant.

And if oil is the only reason we are intervening in Iraq, so fucking what? Do any of you truly think that Saddam is going to use that oil money to build schools, libraries, and orphanages? Like hell! If we intervene solely to square off the oil market the result will still have the effect of ending his WMD program, a worthy goal regardless of our "true" objectives.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

While Islam in its original conception was not laid out as an "anti-West" religion, it has in th elast feew hundred years become the spear popint of anti-westernist thought in the world. A lot of it is as a result of certain modern personalities influencing the course of Islamic political discourse.

Look into Hasan al-Bana's "Signposts" and bear in mind that his polemic on how the West has corrupted the moral integrity of the world in general and the Arab soul in particular has been adopted whole by many mainstream Islamists sects and the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe he is also taught in the al-Azhar College of Islamic Thought in Cairo, which is the closest thing to a Sultanate (religious council, a sort of Papacy for Islam) that the Muslims have today.

The official label of Islam is not anti-western, but if you cannot see that the contemporary Islamicist thought is predominantly anti-Western then you are simply ignorant.

Blah blah blah. You completely ignored my points.

1. Muslims are a huge and diverse group, and you can't generalize them based on the views of Hasan al-Bana anymore than you can make sweeping generalizations about Christians based on the views of the Pope.

2. You don't ram planes into buildings based on some abstract dislike of someone's culture. For example, here in the U.S., we abhor the way the Chinese government conducts itself, and they often oppose us on important world issues, but we never considered taking military action against them, because we simply don't give a shit. It doesn't affect our daily lives that people are executed without trial there or that China likes to proliferate nuclear arms, and while we may not like them, that's simply not enough incentive to make us give a shit. What makes you think the attitudes of Middle Eastern Muslims would be any different had we not been actively involved in oppressing them and ruining their lives since 1947?

And if oil is the only reason we are intervening in Iraq, so fucking what? Do any of you truly think that Saddam is going to use that oil money to build schools, libraries, and orphanages? Like hell! If we intervene solely to square off the oil market the result will still have the effect of ending his WMD program, a worthy goal regardless of our "true" objectives.

I love how you assume that the country will be better off with whoever replaces Saddam, when it could just as likely be a whole lot worse. Besides, the purpose of gaining control of Iraq's oil fields is to enable us to attack Saudi Arabia next, which we couldn't do today because of how much of our oil we get from them. If it were simple greed for oil, that would be bad enough, but this is frightful.

[data_link]

Forfited our rights to intervene in world politics?

I was saying that we have no right to interfere for so-called "moral" reasons as long as we hold these policies.

If its world politics then by default we have a right to participate. All wars have an economic dimension to it. They either have something we want or they are threatening something we already have. If you do not participate in a war, generaly it is because it is either politicaly dangerous, militarily dangerous, and/or economicly dangerous to do so. Historicly people weigh their options, and if they participate in a war it is because the will benifit in one way or another.

Which is why the whole idea of moral interventionism is crap. Because countries are ALWAYS acting in their own best interests and there has not been a single war that has been fought where we were not ultimately persuing our own goals. Frankly, I don't believe that we have the right to start killing people simply because we want their resources, and given that that's always why the U.S. interferes, you can see why I am strongly against giving the U.S. the right to run the world. Unfortunately the U.S.'s nearest military competitor has no economy, and their nearest economic competitor has no military, so there's not much the rest of the world can do about it right now.

Or perhaps you are arguing that this nation has a right to persue it's own interests? Perhaps you would like to explain how our nation has the "right" to bomb thousands of people into obilvion, for the sole objective of raising our president's approval ratings? Perhaps you would like to tell us what gives us the right to push our way economically into countries that don't want us by appealing to their corrupt governments, and then when the people start to complain, accuse the government of supporting terrorists and then steamroller over the country while simultaneously getting rid of their governments so we can install a more loyal dictator, all while supposedly supporting democracy? No one may be able to stop us from doing these things, but that doesn't give us the "right" to do them.

And your mockery of an non interference policy is what the author of the article was suggesting. Atleast thats what I got out of the article.

I was mocking interventionist policy, not noninterference policy. I was supporting noninterference, except in cases of obvious moral wrong, which frankly almost never happens, although for some reason people like to tote such instances as a reason why noninterference as a default policy is a bad idea. And I was supporting the article as a whole, even if the reasoning was imperfect (seriously flawed, in fact, with respect to his position on the civil war).

[Stuart Mackey]

Not exactly living in the real wold is he? reinvent the past? what BS.

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes, I think it's a good thing that we intervened in Nazi Germany, and that we were morally consistent and we intervened in the Soviet Union too and stopped Stalin...wait a minute, we didn't do that? We actually allied ourselves with a guy just as bad as Hitler to kill Hitler? Nevermind...

USA? intervening in Nazi Germany? lol, not until 1941, when the war started in 1939! Still such was US politics at the time.

[Coyote]

Blah blah blah. You completely ignored my points.

Like hell.

1. Muslims are a huge and diverse group, and you can't generalize them based on the views of Hasan al-Bana anymore than you can make sweeping generalizations about Christians based on the views of the Pope.

You are reading stuff into this that was not there. Did I say that all Muslims follow one guy like a robot? No, so stop implying that in my message. My point is that there is a tendency towards anti-Westernism in Islam. Are you trying to say there isn't?

Thereis a social tendency in Islam and the Arabic nations to blame the West for their fall. They had wise men in Damascus figuring out atomic theory when the Europeans still hadn't figured out washing hands. They felt gut-punched by the Crusades and feel to this day that their grand Empire would have dominated the world and brought enlightenment had they not been assraped by the Christians.

2. You don't ram planes into buildings based on some abstract dislike of someone's culture.

It goes so far beyond "disliking someone's culture". Many Muslims feel that the West is engaged in a systematic attempt to dismember their society by pushing images of debauchery, disrespect, and other moral/culture shattering ideals. To the Muslim Brothers, for example-- a VERY popular movement, btw-- Western Capitalism and Russian Communism are the exact same thing: two systems that concern themselves solely with the distribution of wealth. They are empty when it comes to dealing with the soul. Both, therefore, are corrupt.

For example, here in the U.S., we abhor the way the Chinese government conducts itself, and they often oppose us on important world issues, but we never considered taking military action against them, because we simply don't give a shit.

We also don't get promised 72 blonde-haired, green-eyed virgins in Paradise for killing them; we also don't believe that the Chinese backstabbed our dreams for Empire. The two are not comperable.

What makes you think the attitudes of Middle Eastern Muslims would be any different had we not been actively involved in oppressing them and ruining their lives since 1947?

Excuse me, who the fuck is "oppressing" the MidEast Arabs? Last time I checked it was a coterie of craphounds whose last names were things like Fahd, Assad, Hussein, Khadaffi, Khameini... do you seriously believe that these would be liberal-democratic paradises if we ignored them?

I love how you assume that the country will be better off with whoever replaces Saddam, when it could just as likely be a whole lot worse.

Depends-- will we abandon them to their fate after the dust clears, leaving them ripe for a dictator with passionate hetoric? Maybe. Do we help them rebuild after ward and create a responsible government? Maybe not.

I love how you assume that everthing the US touches or does is automatically twisted, evil, hellish, corrupt, and vile. Find new rhetoric.

Besides, the purpose of gaining control of Iraq's oil fields is to enable us to attack Saudi Arabia next, which we couldn't do today because of how much of our oil we get from them. If it were simple greed for oil, that would be bad enough, but this is frightful.

Oh, hell. We're going to use our Black Helicopters to invade and read the bar codes on the backs of their street signs? The US has some serious problems with Saudi Arabia-- do you not see where Saudi Arabia has some serious problems and responsibilities as well? Or is this some of that liberalist pap where everything bad is the Wests fault all the rest of the world is just nothing but blameless kicked puppies?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

You are reading stuff into this that was not there. Did I say that all Muslims follow one guy like a robot? No, so stop implying that in my message. My point is that there is a tendency towards anti-Westernism in Islam. Are you trying to say there isn't?

Thereis a social tendency in Islam and the Arabic nations to blame the West for their fall. They had wise men in Damascus figuring out atomic theory when the Europeans still hadn't figured out washing hands. They felt gut-punched by the Crusades and feel to this day that their grand Empire would have dominated the world and brought enlightenment had they not been assraped by the Christians.

Ancient history. Enough to make someone hot under the collar, but not enough of an incentive to ram planes into buildings.

It goes so far beyond "disliking someone's culture". Many Muslims feel that the West is engaged in a systematic attempt to dismember their society by pushing images of debauchery, disrespect, and other moral/culture shattering ideals. To the Muslim Brothers, for example-- a VERY popular movement, btw-- Western Capitalism and Russian Communism are the exact same thing: two systems that concern themselves solely with the distribution of wealth. They are empty when it comes to dealing with the soul. Both, therefore, are corrupt.

I don't disagree that many Middle-Eastern Muslims probably feel this way, but it doesn't explain flying planes into buildings. Hatred of America is simply not enough. There has to be an element of desperation and a feeling that they are being threatened in some real way to create that kind of militancy.

We also don't get promised 72 blonde-haired, green-eyed virgins in Paradise for killing them; we also don't believe that the Chinese backstabbed our dreams for Empire. The two are not comperable.

If "we" means Christians, then we sure as hell do. Maybe not "72 blonde-haired, green-eyed virgins", but entrance into heaven for killing heathen non-believers. In fact, therein lies the whole point. Islam is no more vile and disgusting than Christianity. If you point to religion as the major reason that Middle-Eastern Muslim countries hate us and are violent, then how do you explain Americans not being just as violent?

Excuse me, who the fuck is "oppressing" the MidEast Arabs?

Israel. Who else? In case you haven't noticed, all those fancy weapons they use to carve an empire in the "Holy Land" came from America.

Last time I checked it was a coterie of craphounds whose last names were things like Fahd, Assad, Hussein, Khadaffi, Khameini... do you seriously believe that these would be liberal-democratic paradises if we ignored them?

Of course not. The rich ones would be at each others' throats because they're competitors in the oil market, and the poor ones wouldn't matter.

Depends-- will we abandon them to their fate after the dust clears, leaving them ripe for a dictator with passionate hetoric? Maybe. Do we help them rebuild after ward and create a responsible government? Maybe not.

Maybe not? More like absolutely not. Perhaps I should make a list of all the countries the U.S. has helped rebuild after a war and all the countries it hasn't, and see which ones longer? Here's a hint: Germany + Japan = 2.

I love how you assume that everthing the US touches or does is automatically twisted, evil, hellish, corrupt, and vile. Find new rhetoric.

Look asshole, if you bomb the shit out of a country, and then don't rebuild it, obviously it will end up in worse shape than when you left it. Where do you get off saying that I assume those things? Find a new strawman.

Oh, hell. We're going to use our Black Helicopters to invade and read the bar codes on the backs of their street signs? The US has some serious problems with Saudi Arabia-- do you not see where Saudi Arabia has some serious problems and responsibilities as well? Or is this some of that liberalist pap where everything bad is the Wests fault all the rest of the world is just nothing but blameless kicked puppies?

Nice ad-hominem. Were you going to follow that up with an actual point and just forget? Maybe make a case about how Saudi Arabia deserves to be attacked, or about how it would be a good idea? I'm all ears.

[Coyote]

Ancient history. Enough to make someone hot under the collar, but not enough of an incentive to ram planes into buildings.

Then you do not understand the Middle East mentality. People still talk about it over there. Will this memory cause them to drive planes into buildings? Not by itself, but it is one more in a long list of "crimes against Islam" perpetrated by the West. Stack up enough of these greviences (some legit, some not) and add a holy man that incites them to hate the West for their suffering and you've got suicide bombers.

It happens. Sorry, but it happens.

I don't disagree that many Middle-Eastern Muslims probably feel this way, but it doesn't explain flying planes into buildings. Hatred of America is simply not enough. There has to be an element of desperation and a feeling that they are being threatened in some real way to create that kind of militancy.

Islamist extremism. You don't understand how much people are discouraged from engaging in critical thinking of Islam. To question Islam is to doubt, and you are to submit not challenge. The official threads of Hadith Criticism were closed long ago my religious authorities and no criticism or questioning of Islam is acceptable. Hence we end up with the Wahhabi sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia that wants to return everything to about a 1400's level of scholarly thought.

This is a religion that never went through aReformation; they still believe that the morality that worked in the Middle Ages will work now. The Islamist salafiyya movement wants to lead the Umma back to the time of Mohammed when everything was just and right in the world. To them, we are all khufr, infidel unbelievers who, after being encouraged towards Islam and then rejecting it, are lawful targets for jihad. This is righteous in the eyes of the religious leaders. This is what they teach in their schools-- because to blame Islam for their troubles (clinging to a medieval world view) is apostasy!

So the West takes the brunt of the blame; it doesn't help us that we do indeed have Muslim blood on our hands from the past. But that we are the sole reason for their troubles? Get real.

If "we" means Christians, then we sure as hell do.... Islam is no more vile and disgusting than Christianity.... how do you explain Americans not being just as violent?

America has different traditions. We were founded by peoople fleeing religious persecution, it is in our background and history. It seems you are assuming that everyone who is religious is a Jihadist. The Church dispensed with sanctioned penitential warfare after the Crusades.

Israel. Who else? In case you haven't noticed, all those fancy weapons they use to carve an empire in the "Holy Land" came from America.

Like fucking hell Israel is oppressing the Arabs. Do you have any clue how big the Arabian world is? Is Israel running tanks through Damascus, Cairo, Tripoli, Rabat, Baghdad, Algiers, Beirut, Riyadh, Amman...? You take the Palestinian problem and say that it is the entire Arab world? If you want to focus on the Palestinian situation, focus on it-- don't use it as a strawman for every Arab on the planet. The people of Iraq, Syria, etc have more to fear from their own governments than from Israel any day.

Perhaps I should make a list of all the countries the U.S. has helped rebuild after a war and all the countries it hasn't, and see which ones longer? Here's a hint: Germany + Japan = 2.

We have a piss-poor track record in helping nations after war, and also fomenting rebellions for our team and then abandoning them to their fate. I don't argue this. Will we have learned our lesson in time for post-war Iraq? Probably not. But we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stay to rebuild, we are "occupiers". If we don't stay, we abandoned them. We'll get buttfucked in the PR arena no matter what.

Nice ad-hominem.

Not really; I never said that "you" were a dumbfuck, just that the argument sounded to me like rehashed liberalist pap. I usually don't use personal attacks unless I'm faced off with someone like Penile Implant. You are far higher on the food chain than he.

Were you going to follow that up with an actual point and just forget? Maybe make a case about how Saudi Arabia deserves to be attacked, or about how it would be a good idea? I'm all ears.

That's just it, there is no reason to attack Saudi Arabia. You made the claim that the US is maneuvering for an attack on Saudi, it is up to you to prove it. I said the premise is silly and sounded like a foolish conspiracy theory.

[Nixon]

Ok, well there seems to be so much different topics being discussed I feel like I'm jumping in the middle of a conversation. Which of course I am, but I'd like to add a few things:

After reading the original article that the first post discussed, there are some serious logical inconsistencies and historic misrepresentations. I shall try to name a few

1) The author tries to establish that when a country (A) goes to war with country (B), it is sometimes difficult for country (C) to figure out who is the aggressor, or in another words who is just. However, this seems for the author to mean because in some situations the aggressor is not always apparent, it therefore must follow in all situations it is prudent for country (C) to not side with the just country. But that argument doesn't follow the premise. The premise establishes there are times, if not many, where country (C) can understand who the just country is and who is not, therefore, it does not follow that EVERY conflict should be put into this category of non-interference. Since we established some of the time Country (C) can establish who the aggressor is, then why can't it follow that some of the time Country (C) can lend aid to the just country? Its the same fallacious "all or nothing" argument. The fallacy of the extremes.

2) The author tries to tell us that it is a given all civilians in all conflicts are innocent and therefore should not be targeted. However, the author does not justify this premise. As the Ayn Rand people put it, most civilians in an aggressor state actively support their government and their troops through economic production or moral support. Those who are passive are also not innocent since they made a choice to not act and to allow an aggressor to continue his injustice.

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/innocentsinwar.shtml

The truly innocent civilians of an aggressor state are usually that state's first victims. They stand up to oppose their government and are subsequently punished. You have a moral duty to fight or flee your country if that is the case. The remaining innocents understand it is the moral right of the defending country to defend itself, and that all deaths in a war, even collateral damage, are the responsibility of the aggressor. Since the aggressor FORCED the other nation to defend itself.

3) Much of the author's articles contain non-sequiters and red herrings. For example: He points out the collectivist and socialist nature of Abraham Lincoln's policies. But this does not take away from the moral wrong committed by the South with respect to slavery. Another fallacy, two wrongs do not make a right. The issue of the South using slavery is irrelevant to the other injustices Abraham Lincoln imposed. Such as his economic policies. That is just a red herring.


And now for his historical misrepresentations:

1) Civilians were targeted on a regular basis in almost every war in every time period. Contrary to what the author

2) He tries on several occasions to guess the ulterior motives to Abraham Lincoln's attempt to keep the Union together. Jumping from subsidies to rail companies from his native state of Illinois through Southern taxation, to his sympathy to the New Englander's evangelical politics. Yet the author fails to provide empirical evidence to suggest these, if all were his motives. And again, there is a non-sequiter, he seems to think this therefore makes the moral argument to keep the Union together to free the slaves as not good enough since he has ulterior motives.


And a few other points to other people's discussions. (not the author) International law cannot be truly enforced unless there is a supra-national government that could enforce such laws through force. There isn't any. And countries that choose to follow those laws do so without any coercion and are purely voluntary. Also, it behooves a country to not follow international law if it comes to their detriment.

I shall post more at another time....

[Nixon]

I forgot to expound on one of the historical misrepresentations of the author. The author states:

"Sherman’s infamous March through Georgia was one of the great war crimes, and crimes against humanity, of the past century-and-a-half. Because by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman paved the way for all the genocidal honors of the monstrous 20th century"

This argument does not account for past wars that targeted civilians. The Crusades and Islamic conquests of Eastern Europe and Spain were replete of instances where civilians were the target of aggression. By his argument, could we say the fall of the Byzantine empire and subsequent slavery and mass execution of civilians lead to the genocidal horrors of Hitler? A bit of a stretch. The author fails to establish a link between Sherman's attack on Southern civilians and to that of war crimes committed by totalitarian regimes. I don't think Stalin was thinking of what Sherman did when he starved 10 millions Ukranians to death. Nor do I think Pol Pot was reading up on the American Civil War when we he killed 2 million Cambodians in his effort to carry out his vision of an agrarian collectivist farming society.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Then you do not understand the Middle East mentality. People still talk about it over there. Will this memory cause them to drive planes into buildings? Not by itself, but it is one more in a long list of "crimes against Islam" perpetrated by the West. Stack up enough of these greviences (some legit, some not) and add a holy man that incites them to hate the West for their suffering and you've got suicide bombers.

It happens. Sorry, but it happens.

Precisely. "Some legit, some not". I'm glad we're in agreement.

Islamist extremism. You don't understand how much people are discouraged from engaging in critical thinking of Islam. To question Islam is to doubt, and you are to submit not challenge. The official threads of Hadith Criticism were closed long ago my religious authorities and no criticism or questioning of Islam is acceptable. Hence we end up with the Wahhabi sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia that wants to return everything to about a 1400's level of scholarly thought.

This is a religion that never went through aReformation; they still believe that the morality that worked in the Middle Ages will work now. The Islamist salafiyya movement wants to lead the Umma back to the time of Mohammed when everything was just and right in the world. To them, we are all khufr, infidel unbelievers who, after being encouraged towards Islam and then rejecting it, are lawful targets for jihad. This is righteous in the eyes of the religious leaders. This is what they teach in their schools-- because to blame Islam for their troubles (clinging to a medieval world view) is apostasy!

You're not getting it. There will always be fundies, but the majority of populations wouldn't be susceptible to this kind of fundamentalism if America had been treating them fine.

So the West takes the brunt of the blame; it doesn't help us that we do indeed have Muslim blood on our hands from the past. But that we are the sole reason for their troubles? Get real.

Knock it off with that strawman shit! I never said or implied America was the "sole reason for their troubles", so quit putting words in my mouth.

America has different traditions. We were founded by peoople fleeing religious persecution, it is in our background and history. It seems you are assuming that everyone who is religious is a Jihadist. The Church dispensed with sanctioned penitential warfare after the Crusades.

The Puritans feeling persecution were no better than the Catholics they were running from. Did you know missing Sabbath was punishable by death in some colonies?

And I never said that all religious people were Jihadist, only fundies, and we have plenty of those. In fact, our fundies are just as violent and prone to terrorism as theirs. Look at all the abortion doctors that have been murdered. Look at all the black churches that have been burned down. I'd call that terrorism, wouldn't you?

The problem isn't Middle Easterners are Islamic, it's that they have more fundies whose anger is directed toward the U.S., and for good reason.

Like fucking hell Israel is oppressing the Arabs. Do you have any clue how big the Arabian world is? Is Israel running tanks through Damascus, Cairo, Tripoli, Rabat, Baghdad, Algiers, Beirut, Riyadh, Amman...? You take the Palestinian problem and say that it is the entire Arab world? If you want to focus on the Palestinian situation, focus on it-- don't use it as a strawman for every Arab on the planet. The people of Iraq, Syria, etc have more to fear from their own governments than from Israel any day.

Maybe you forgot about the land grab of 1967 and '73? Maybe you forgot that Israel is a racist state built on the principle of uplifting the Jewish people at the expense of the Arabs? If it weren't for America, the Arab countries would have wiped Israel off the face of the Earth a long time ago, and they resent us for that.

We have a piss-poor track record in helping nations after war, and also fomenting rebellions for our team and then abandoning them to their fate. I don't argue this. Will we have learned our lesson in time for post-war Iraq? Probably not. But we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stay to rebuild, we are "occupiers". If we don't stay, we abandoned them. We'll get buttfucked in the PR arena no matter what.

Yes, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't occupy after invading. What if we don't invade? Then we avoid all that.

Not really; I never said that "you" were a dumbfuck, just that the argument sounded to me like rehashed liberalist pap. I usually don't use personal attacks unless I'm faced off with someone like Penile Implant. You are far higher on the food chain than he.

You don't understand what an ad-hominem is, do you? Calling someone a dumbfuck doesn't qualify if you refute their argument. What you did, color my argument liberal and therefore wrong, does qualify.

That's just it, there is no reason to attack Saudi Arabia. You made the claim that the US is maneuvering for an attack on Saudi, it is up to you to prove it. I said the premise is silly and sounded like a foolish conspiracy theory.

Saudi Arabia is where all this fundamentalism and terrorism is coming from, isn't it? OBL is from Saudi Arabia, as were all 19 hijackers (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, Marina O' Leary mentioned it in my argument with her, and a few days later, I saw a blurb in the paper about some military exec mentioning an attack on Saudi Arabia as a next step.

[Coyote]

Precisely. "Some legit, some not". I'm glad we're in agreement.

The original position you presented seemed, to me, that Arabs were anti-Western for reason that were solely Western fault...

The Puritans feeling persecution were no better than the Catholics they were running from. Did you know missing Sabbath was punishable by death in some colonies?

They were a different kind of Fundie. But as the country grew we got leaders who were more Deists and Calvinists, and the Constitution forbade the establishment of one religion over another. Regardless of the original truths, it has now been translated by contemporary society as a doctrine of tolerance. Despite the Fundies in the US today-- their views, their influence-- we are still a fairly liberal and tolerant nation compared to many.

Look at all the abortion doctors that have been murdered. Look at all the black churches that have been burned down. I'd call that terrorism, wouldn't you?

Quite so, and I don't know why the FBI doesnt treat it more seriously. But it isn't official, government sanctioned violence, and few Christian preachers would condone or encourage it. Yes, some do, but they are not the norm.

The problem isn't Middle Easterners are Islamic, it's that they have more fundies whose anger is directed toward the U.S., and for good reason.

This is where I wonder what you mean, and where we seem to miss each other. I primarily wonder if you realize how much a lot of the MidEast's anger at the West was a self-fulfilling prophecy on their own part.

Maybe you forgot about the land grab of 1967 and '73?

So the next time a nation is threatened with invasion or actually invaded, they should just bend over and let themselves get buttfucked? Are you aware that the Arabs actually invaded Israel, unprovoked, in 1973? That the Israelis counter-attacked while defending their own land? The Arabs started those wars, and lost. Tough for them. Maybe they shouldn't have started a war, then, huh?

Maybe you forgot that Israel is a racist state built on the principle of uplifting the Jewish people at the expense of the Arabs?

Have you read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel? Where David Ben Gurion specifically asks for peace and cooperation and 'extends the hand of friendship to the Arab neighbors'? Were you aware of the UN Resolution which divided the land between the Arabs and Jews-- roughly half for both parties? The Jews accepted it, and the Arabs REJECTED it, REJECTED peaceful relations and declared war instead. So tell me again, who the fuck started that?

And you want to ask about racism, ask why Hezbollah leader Sheikh Yassin refers to the dead Jews from the Jerusalm Sbarro Pizzeria blast as "pigs and monkeys" that should go unmourned?

How about the amount of aid that the world gave to the Palestinian refugees? Did the Arabs help their "poor bretheren?" Or the "fascist" Israelis?:

"Between 1950 and 1974, the total of Israel's annual contributions to the Arab refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, was higher than that of an Arab or Muslim state, with the exceptions of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both of whom gave amounts similar to that of Israel. Algeria made no contribution"

Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia had oil revenues in excess of $75 billion dollars, yet contributed only $5,393,000.00 and Egypt $5,483,000.00. Israel, without any oil reserves, paid $5,015,000.00 dollars to the Palestinian refugees.

The same Palestinians who then go and blow up civilians in terrorist attacks as a matter of policy. They seek out civilian targets. Such darlings!

If it weren't for America, the Arab countries would have wiped Israel off the face of the Earth a long time ago, and they resent us for that.

Oh, yes, we should never come to the aid of a country under attack and threat extermination. That's unjust.

Yes, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't occupy after invading. What if we don't invade? Then we avoid all that.

You're right. Saddam Hussein never signed a UN treaty stating that he would comply with weapons inspectors as a condition to peace in 1991; and after all, why should he? He has only shown time and time and time again in the past that he has no qualms whatosever about gassing people within and without his own borders.

After 9/11, people were asking, "where were our intelligence and security services? Why wasn't something done before it came to this?" So, should we kick back and wait till a gas bomb goes off somewhere and then worry about what we 'should' have done?

You don't understand what an ad-hominem is, do you? Calling someone a dumbfuck doesn't qualify if you refute their argument. What you did, color my argument liberal and therefore wrong, does qualify.

No, what I am seeing is a lot of arguements from the liberalist camp these days that mirror your own observation, which seems to be that if we leave Iraq alone, then all will be well. That is the hide-your-head-in-the-sand argument. We left Afghanistan alone back in the '80's, look what happened.

Saudi Arabia is where all this fundamentalism and terrorism is coming from, isn't it? OBL is from Saudi Arabia, as were all 19 hijackers (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).

15 of the 19.

Anyway, Marina O' Leary mentioned it in my argument with her, and a few days later, I saw a blurb in the paper about some military exec mentioning an attack on Saudi Arabia as a next step.

What they talk about and what they are going to do are usually two different things. Think about it: it is pretty obvious that Saddam is an evil goatfucker, but look at the difficulty we have in getting the world to go along with an attack on Iraq. What do you think the world will do if we start after Saudi Arabia? Attacking the land of Mohommed himself? Where the Qur'An is published? It's posturing. We're trying to browbreat the House of Fahd to crack down, or get the citizens themselves so panicked that they press for reforms themselves.

[Spoonist]

->Coyote & Arthur_Tuxedo
Please take this elsewhere, you are off-topic.
Since your debate is interesting it would be better for you and everyone else to start a new thread!

Now to clear things up;

->Coyote
Each of your posts should be written so that they can be read seperately and so they do not need 3 pages of explanations to make sense.
This was your view in the post that started the debate:

Or is it that Islam is anti-US? Or more appro pos, anti Western. Before 40 years, face it, the US was largely ignorant of the Middle East. It was a late 1940's visit by one Hasan al-Bana who came to the US to study and was shocked at the sexual permissiveness and loose morality of the Americans that prompted him to go back and bring a radical bent to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslims have wanted to destroy the West since they lost al-Andalus (Spain) in the Crusades (the western crusade was part of the overall scheme). The West used to be Europe but now the US has become the focal point for anti-Western hatred.

What is clear from this post is that you claim one single truth: that muslims are anti-western and thus anti-us.
Since you didn't provide any caveats such as "most", "it's common", "some", it is also clear that you regard this to be true for ALL muslims.
So to prove that claim wrong all one have to do is point out muslims that are not anti-western. This is where my finger would point to the over 1Mega muslims living in the US today, you can easily among them find muslims that are pro-us, pro-western and pro-muslim.
Now since I don't think that you are so ignorant as to claim that all muslims are anti-western I recommend that you start using caveats when writing your posts.

It seems that most middle-eastern muslims are anti-us.

This gives a leeway for interpretation. You also show that it is an opinion.

Muslims are anti-us.

This leaves no room for interpretation. You are claiming something to be true. This opens up for attacks on your argument since it can easily be proven false...

[Spoonist]

->Coyote & Arthur_Tuxedo
By the way my personal opinion is that you are both buying too much of the biased propaganda from both sides.
Both sides have committed unethical and unhuman acts against each-other. You are just pointing the finger at the other side.

[Coyote]

But it's so much fun.

True, if Tux wants to go off on another thread we'll start one up, but in truth I think he could just scroll through the "Israel Killing Palestinians" thread where I also admit that it is hard for me to be unbiased in this argument because I have very close, personal ties to Israel and to many people living there.

But yes, Spoonist, I do realize that there are many Muslims who are ambivilent or even happy to live within the West and you are correct to point out that I was making (erroneous) sweeping statements.

I apologize for those silly grand encompassing statements,
which are true only for some Muslims and not all. Especially if I insulted anyone, including but not limited to Arthur_Tuxedo.