War On Iran and Islam

[Guest Malcolm]

Friends:

There are no moderate Muslims in their countries, for the most part. They all fled for the west. Moderates have no power and very little voice inside the their societies. THe few that try are often kill (remember Butto) since they are seen as weak and friendly to the "western devils" (that is a literal translation from teh Qur'an). Islam is a religion that very much believe in triumphalism, just like Christianity. They will be victorious over the infidel at the end. The difference is that they believe that the ends certainly justify the means. So killing Christians or whom ever to further their Theo-political agende is OK. They are determined to kill and destroy the enemy and are willing to die themselves to achieve that goal. Again, it all started in teh 7th century. Nothing new here.

As far as respect they feel non for us, regardless of what we do as long as we do not convert.

[CrimsonKairos]

I think if the various groups saw the U.S. as neutral and cordial to all, we would have a much greater chance at influencing the region for good.

Until and unless the U.S. renounces support of Israel, the U.S. will never be seen as neutral and cordial by those in the Middle East. And I think that the U.S. should continue to support Israel against the sundry enemies that continually yip at her heels and threaten destruction.

I think that the world events are best viewed not through a political lens or economic lens, but through the eternal lens of the scriptures and God's forewarnings. The you-know-what is going to keep hitting the fan until the Day Star Himself appears to end it.

Returning to a gold standard won't help one whit.

Pulling out of the middle east won't help one whit.

All we can do is pray for God to guide our leaders, pray for cleansing through Christ, and hold on to our covenants with a white-knuckled grip until the end of days.

[a-train]

As far as respect they feel non for us, regardless of what we do as long as we do not convert.

So what are we to do about it? Without any debate on the validity of this argument, I'll imagine that a major faction of Islam exists in the middle-east which has no respect for non-believers and that wishes them dead regardless of anything. What are we to do about it? More importantly, how will our military effort in the middle-east help such a situation? The only way to win militarily would be to work the death of these people to extinction.

There will be no end to the nuts out there both foreign and domestic. We have lived with them for centuries and they will be here to the end. More Americans killed Americans in 2001 than any other nationality. I am at a higher risk of being robbed and killed by a person living in my own city than of dying at the hands of an Islam-or-die-suicide-bomber from another hemisphere whether we have troops over there or not.

The difference is that terrorist acts get big press and lots of hype from our government creating fear and mass political movement. The decision for new military action in Iraq was made in 1998 while Clinton was still in office. 9/11 offered public support which made things easier politically to go in. However, we probably would have gone with or without 9/11.

I personally do not wish to see terrorism and percieve it a tragedy. But, terrorism is not near as tragic as the loss of our freedom or the quagmire of our current military occupation.

-a-train

[a-train]

Until and unless the U.S. renounces support of Israel, the U.S. will never be seen as neutral and cordial by those in the Middle East.

Exactly, what do they need us for? They are the most powerful nation over there. They have a tremendous air force and full nuclear capability and most of their enemies are cave dwellers with AK-47s. Plus, we know that the LORD will preserve them if they are righteous. Right now, we are limiting Israel more than we are supporting them. I'm not the least bit worried about them.

I think that the world events are best viewed not through a political lens or economic lens, but through the eternal lens of the scriptures and God's forewarnings. The you-know-what is going to keep hitting the fan until the Day Star Himself appears to end it.

Returning to a gold standard won't help one whit.

Pulling out of the middle east won't help one whit.

All we can do is pray for God to guide our leaders, pray for cleansing through Christ, and hold on to our covenants with a white-knuckled grip until the end of days.

Obedience is going to help a lot. Honesty is going to help a lot. Love is going to help a lot. We live in a country ruled by the people. We aren't just praying for our dictator. We must prayerfully consider our nation's course and vote accordingly.

Further, we have been warned by the LORD, by our prophets, and by the Framers of the tyranny of domestic enemies. Should the Framers have limited their actions to prayers that the King of England would do them right? If we aren't watching our government and keeping it on the right course, we will suffer the consequences and our children with us.

Moroni warned us of the secret combinations that seek to overthrow the freedom of all lands. We have Prophets, Senators, Congressmen, and faithful people everywhere warning us of these dangers, that this is among us and our government is in trouble. If we do nothing, these things will work to our overthrow and destruction, just as Moroni warned.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Much of the Arabic nations' practice of Islam is hypocritical and/or convenient.

One has but to remember the 1979 "hijacking" of Mecca by Muslim extremists...Saudi Arabia called in the French GIGN, but the problem was that only Muslims are supposed to walk near that sacred black rock.

Saudi Arabia's solution? Have the GIGN say the shahada and "convert" to Islam so they could go in and mop up the extremists.

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm not the least bit worried about [israel].

Neither am I. I'm proud of the powerful nation they have become with our aid.

Should the Framers have limited their actions to prayers that the King of England would do them right?

I don't recall saying we shouldn't vote for virtuous men to fill our public offices. I was pointing out that the one or two "big-ticket" issues that keep coming up (gold standard, foreign policy) do not constitute "aspirins" which if we take two of, we'll feel better as a nation in the morning.

The world and the situation is far more complex...nauseatingly so, in fact. That's why I tire of these debates or discussions or whatever they are.

The solutions you advance are not solutions. They are the misguided attempts to force theory and ideals to fit through the hole of pragmatism and "rubber-meets-the-road" reality.

Yes, let's just pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Then, when our enemies (not just Al Qaeda) have been allowed to breed and prosper and thrive, and when they acquire truly formidable weapons to use against us and our allies (i.e. Israel), then let's send over way more troops then we have deployed right now.

Yes, that sounds like a strategically sound way to mathematically decrease the loss of American blood that is currently watering the inhospitable deserts over there.

Something that I keep in mind is that Ishmael's seed will forever be engaged in warfare and feuds and conflicts with their neighbors:

11 And the angel of the LORD said unto [Hagar], Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. (Gen. 16:11-12)

Now I know not all Arabs are descended from Ishmael, but a large portion of the Palestinians and other Arabs are, and I think a truer prophecy was never given as was the one in Gen. 16.

[a-train]

I don't recall saying we shouldn't vote for virtuous men to fill our public offices. I was pointing out that the one or two "big-ticket" issues that keep coming up (gold standard, foreign policy) do not constitute "aspirins" which if we take two of, we'll feel better as a nation in the morning.

The world and the situation is far more complex...nauseatingly so, in fact. That's why I tire of these debates or discussions or whatever they are.

OK, so if foreign policy and the economy are the wrong issues, what are the right issues? And, whether it is a priority or not, what is your take on the war and what should be done?

The solutions you advance are not solutions. They are the misguided attempts to force theory and ideals to fit through the hole of pragmatism and "rubber-meets-the-road" reality.

OK, so hit me with the real solutions.

Yes, let's just pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Then, when our enemies (not just Al Qaeda) have been allowed to breed and prosper and thrive, and when they acquire truly formidable weapons to use against us and our allies (i.e. Israel), then let's send over way more troops then we have deployed right now.

So what crystal ball are we looking at to predict this? If it the same one that told of WMDs, an overnight victory, etc., then we need a new one.

-a-train

[NeuroTypical]

Do you believe the Bush Administration's claims about why we went into Iraq?

You mean back into Iraq the 2nd time? President Bush's claims were:

* Saadam is failing to comply with the agreement he made that ended the first gulf war. Namely, not allowing weapons inspectors to go where they needed to go, not opening his WMD destruction process to UN supervision, and not meeting other various terms.

* Iraq remains a threat to peace, due to Saadam's regime remaining a state sponsor of terror, a funder of suicide bombers in Israel, and a country that continues to threaten it's neighbors with violence.

* Iraq has WMD.

Of course, the third claim turned out to be largely untrue. 200 old leaky sarin shells here, a part of a uranium centerfuge buried in a flower garden there, does not equal what the world believed in 2003. I do not believe Bush lied about WMD. The main intelligence services of the planet earth all believed Saadam had much more than he ended up having. (I suppose there's a tiny fraction of a chance that we'll stumble on his massive stockpiles of WMD at some point in the future, but nobody's counting on it.) And there was plenty of concrete evidence that he was seeking to stay in the game and improve his poker hand.

The first two points are quite valid. Valid enough for the UN to re-authorize the use of force. Numerous bomb-vest factories and terrorist training camps are no longer in operation.

I am not trying to say there can be no difference of opinion, I am asking you what your opinion is.

I'm looking forward to hearing your response to my opinion then.

I am also actually asking you whether you believe that the U.S. has made mistakes with regard to foreign policy in the middle east throughout the 20th Century.

Of course. Every nation, group, and individual makes mistakes.

Do you think Operation Ajax was a good idea or a mistake?

I don't know enough about it to have a relevant opinion. Certainly, English speaking peoples (especially England) have had a large hand in creating the mess in the middle east over the centuries. Certainly it is a mess. Certainly oil is a major, major factor in why and how we involve ourselves in that area of the world, using justifications that are not advanced in other less oil-rich areas of the world.

But when it comes to geopolitics, decisions made in the '50's may have shaped the current reality, but they should not dictate current decisions.

So, you're claiming you want to talk about wars, and interested in my opinion. Could I ask you to reply to my post here? I know lots of people are interacting with you, but I'd like to evaluate my response to your attempt to 'LDSify' your positions on war in general.

LM

[Elphaba]

There are no moderate Muslims in their countries, for the most part. They all fled for the west.

This is true. And the reason they did is because when they approached the US to give their help and expertise, the were dismissed and treated with disdain. Then their lives were in danger because of their offers of help to the Americans, so the left the country.

If only Bush's people had listened to them, Iraq may be a very different country today. I say that because there were Americas who did try to take the offer of help from these Iraqis. But that is fodder for another thread.

When I speak of “moderate Muslims,” I am talking about those who live on all corners of the globe, and there are hundreds of millions of them. Here are a few issues they face every day:

• Those who left Iraq still believe they can reclaim their country and make it secular and successful. But they want the West out, because they understand that as long as we are there, there will never be any way to counter the fanaticism.
• They are heartbroken over what is happening to their fellow Muslims.
• They are appalled and sickened by the terrorism, the horror and the viciousness perpetrated by their fellow Muslims.
• They see the West as bullies to Muslims, invading Iraq for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
• They hear the reports that indicated the inspections in Iraq for WMDs were working, but inspection team was suddenly, and irrationally, pulled out of Iraq. Hans Blix has written a detailed report about this.
• They see how Bush ramrodded his way into attacking their fellow Muslims no matter what his analysts said.
• They see how their fellow Muslims are tortured, such as Abu Grahib, Guantanamo; yet they realize at least some of these Muslims are terrorists.
• They see American soldiers walk with guns in their hands through the holy city of Karbala, not understanding that the very ground they walk on his sacred to Islam. The soldiers are not at fault; in fact, they believe they are being very respectful as they take every precaution not to damage the Mosque. But this is an excellent example of how the West does not understand Islam, and why they unleashed such a tsunami of hatred for the West. I acknowledge it was huge before the invasion of Iraq. But now it is so gargantuan, it may be too late.

Moderates have no power and very little voice inside the their societies. <snip>Again, it all started in teh 7th century. Nothing new here.

This is all true for fanatic Muslims, and I absolutely agree with you there are so many, in every major city on the planet. They are plotting as we speak.

But there are secular, moderate Muslims who have a power the West does not have, and will never have. They have the power to raise moderate Muslim children. They have the power to speak to fanatic relatives, planting seeds of doubt about the violence and killings, explaining that the West will never be annihilated. It could cause a domino effect, especially to those who have violence fatigue. There are a myriad of possibilities and I agree the majority of them won’t work. But I can guarantee you, just being a Muslim will get their foot in the door in a way that NO western ever will.

A military operation will never solve this horrific state of affairs. The only chance we have is to take the moral high ground. Stop the torture. STOP the killings. Stop the invasions. Stop thinking we know anything about Islam (although there are experts available; Bush wouldn't listen to them). Stop invading Iraqis’ houses as if they have the right to do so, infuriating the moderate Muslims who see their fellow Muslims violated.

Finally, there is one last, but vitally important issue, and CK has already brought it up, and he is spot on!

The hatred between the Muslims and the west will never be resolved unless there is a resolution of the of the Palestinian/Israel conflict.

And the only way the West can resolve it is to remove itself, completely.

Stop supporting Israel, and let Israel handle its own affairs. It is capable of doing so, and it does not need the US anymore.

I have talked to a number of Israelis who feel the same way. They are confident their country can take care of itself and they want the US out as well. They don't hate the US, and in fact are grateful for our previous help. But at this point, they are ready for us to be gone, and unless we do leave, there will be an escalation of resentment.

Additionally, as long as the West is seen as supporting Israel, this “hatred” of Muslims towards the West will only seethe and grow and kill.

We need to get out of Israel in an orderly, honest and well publicized manner.

To conclude: Retaliation for 9/11 was accomplished in Afghanistan. And look at it today. The Taliban is back, almost in full force. Is this because troops were moved to Iraq? I’ve heard that said, but I don’t know if is true or not. But for some reason, we have not focused on the area that is responsible for 9/11, such as Afghanistan, and including Saudi Arabia. Rather, Bush holds the Saudi’s hands.

Our last chance is the moderate Muslims, and even with their help, it will take generations. But would you rather your future grand children see the US as a moral compass in the world, treating human beings with dignity, until they have a way of knowing for sure who is a terrorist and who isn’t?

Would you rather see them listening to those who understand Islam and looking for the places the moderate Muslims can take advantage of, trying to build a coalition of Muslims to fight the fanaticism; or, would you rather they be experiencing, as Malcolm said, more of the same?

Elphaba

[Guest Malcolm]

Elphaba, my friend:

I think we are speaking in a vacuum. I think most people are quite naive about the operating realities and the mindset, history and philosophy of Islam. I am 40+ years old, friends. I spent years on "the other side of the fence" running black ops from the soviet-supported side into Ethiopia, Sudan, Algiers, Iran and other places. I am not "white" not was I a Christian at the time and they hated the communist soviets and me by proxy (who were feeding/arming/training them) as much as they hated the west. That is not going to change. Power in the middle east is attained at gun point. If you let go of your gun to set up a moderate exchange you will be dead by night fall. The west tried to prop the Iranian Shah for 20 years forcing him to institute educational reforms, modernity, technology, a "council of governors (the closest to democracy ever in the ME) and all we have is to pay millions for 50 hostages and a theocracy was installed. The Shah was a "moderate" and he died in exile in Egypt.

If we are going to be pragmatists we must realize that there are no openly secular Muslims in the middle east that have any political power (I sound like a broken record, I know). To be secular and Muslim is an oxymoron. The very core and sense of identity of the Muslim world revolve around Islam. They have no concept of separation between church and state how we have intended to establish our democratic societies in the west. There is no concept of democratic rule, not has it ever been (except for the few months the Turkish sultan allowed parliament in 1877) for a millennium.

Our desires, views and philosophical perspective can not and should no be "projected" outward onto the world. The historical evidence does not support the good will and heartfelt desire for a conciliatory and pacific coexistence with the Islamic world. I know you mean well but I'm afraid we will have to wait for the millennium.

[NeuroTypical]

The hatred between the Muslims and the west will never be resolved unless there is a resolution of the of the Palestinian/Israel conflict.

And the only way the West can resolve it is to remove itself, completely.

I agree with the first part. Let's explore that second part.

Are you saying that only the US should stop involvement, or that all outside parties should? Are you for keeping hands off, once one side gets provoked to where they start with wholesale slaughter of the other side?

Now, I agree, the way to resolve a whole lot of bad blood in that area of the world, is to let them duke it out, and the last person standing wins. But I stop short at advocating this solution, because there would be an awful lot of blood spilled before it's finished.

And when it comes down to it, there's plenty of historical precedent that there may not be any clear victor. It's entirely possible that, like attempts to eliminate Persians or Mesopotamians have shown, there's just a lot of killing, followed by a pause, then more killing, ad infinitum.

Or do I have your suggestion wrong, and you are just in favor of pulling out of Israel, but keeping her hands tied, and letting her enemies push them all into the sea? I guess genocide is a way to solve the problem once and for all as well.

I have talked to a number of Israelis who feel the same way. They are confident their country can take care of itself and they want the US out as well. They don't hate the US, and in fact are grateful for our previous help. But at this point, they are ready for us to be gone, and unless we do leave, there will be an escalation of resentment.

I'm pretty sure this notion is coupled with a "don't stand in our way" notion.

To conclude: Retaliation for 9/11 was accomplished in Afghanistan. And look at it today. The Taliban is back, almost in full force.

The target in Afghanistan was not just those that gave protection to our enemy, but our enemy as well. And no, Al Qaeda is not back. They still exist, but we've destroyed their operational abilities. I'm not talking about the AQ "franchises" that have sprung up in Iraq and other places - I'm talking about Bin Laden and gang.

Would you rather see them listening to those who understand Islam and looking for the places the moderate Muslims can take advantage of, trying to build a coalition of Muslims to fight the fanaticism; or, would you rather they be experiencing, as Malcolm said, more of the same?

If you view it in those terms, then understand this: The towers came down in the latest of a long series of attacks against America. These attacks were not due to any hatred of the west, but an attempt of Al Qaeda to prove to the Muslim world that America is weak and has a short-attention span. AQ wanted their caliphate back - they figured the best way to do it was goad the US into proving itself weak. That would win the moderates onto their side, they'd overthrow the secular rulers of the Islamic nations, and be on their way back to the caliphate. Looking at it that way, Bush's actions have resulted in a whole string of victories with very few setbacks like Spain.

LM

[Elphaba]

I think we are speaking in a vacuum. I think most people are quite naive about the operating realities and the mindset, history and philosophy of Islam. <snip>

Hello Malcolm,

First, let me tell you how much I enjoyed your post. I am always excited to read the experience of people who have “been there.” Obviously I haven’t, and though I don’t think I’m quite as naïve as I appear in this thread, I certainly am a nobody compared to what you have provided. I will better explain my POV; yet, I suspect my clarifications won’t change your view much, as you do have more in-depth experience.

Also, I really appreciate your respectful manner, especially when you don't agree with my position. I haven't always had that reaction when discussing Iraq, and it is appreciated.

Malcolm, if you were to go back about six months and read my slew of posts on the subject, I think you’d find much more agreement between us. I was, as I recall, the only person on the site begging people to understand that Islam in the Middle East meant there was never going to be a democratic, peaceful coexistence between Sunni and Shi’ia in Iraq.

Yet I was told, often with condescension, that Americans would make this happen. I was "advised" that the Sunni and Shi’ia were going to work with the Americans to draft a democratic constitution. I told them that was insane, that it was NEVER going to happen, and even showed pictures of the children who were being massacred for this pointless war that had no resolution. After a while I had to stop as it was affecting my mental health.

So to have you come here and basically say the same things I did, about the Middle East, that it will never be molded by the West, is a breath of fresh air.

However, if I have misrepresented your position, please do say so. I know I have extrapolated it from your last post, not because you have outright said you are against the war. So if I am wrong, please let me know as it is important to me to be correct in these things.

As far as your post, I agree with every word, and those I did not know about, and I mourn for those innocents who are trapped in the insanity. I admit I have no idea what to do for them. I can’t think about it, and yet I have to think about it. It tears at me daily.

On to my naiveté.

The problem of our miscommunication is my lack of clarification. I am under no illusions whatsoever that there are any moderate Muslims (MM) in the Middle East. Not even the ones who say they are.

The MM I am speaking of are those in the rest of the world, and yes, I know even they are disappearing into the world of fanaticism. It’s pointless to talk about why, because the fact is they are.

However, I have talked to and followed movements that are trying, perhaps never succeeding, but trying to bring about change in their own little corners.

As I mentioned, there is a group of Muslims who worship at a mosque who are trying to remove the law of Sharia from their version of Islam, with the support of the Mullah. It sounds too radical I know, especially of Islam. And I don’t know if I have that quite correct--either they want Sharia removed, or perhaps they want it changed. But their goal is to remove the ancient subjective punitive power it gives to virtually any Islamic judge, especially with respect to its treatment of women.

Unfortunately, they are a fledgling group, with poor supervision. But they understand there can be no moderate, modern, survival of Islam without change. The West is not going to go away, and they know this. They also know they will have to assimilate rather than continue to withdraw into the hateful, aspects of Islam. They know that to survive they will have to redefine the Koran. A fool's dream? Today, of course it is. I admit, you are right. But I can't help thinking...what if?

They also speak of their fellow MM who would support their efforts, but for watching yet another atrocity--innocent children blown up, Blackwater killing fellow Muslims in cold blood in the streets of Bagdad, Abu Gahraib, Guantanamo, etc.

These are the things the MM who are left in the world see, and if we can stop these atrocities, MAYBE we have a chance at some sort of a different world in the future. If the MM see the West making honest efforts to sincerely reach out to them, which means stopping the torture, stop hiring killers to annihilate them, stop counting their children as collateral damage while we cherish ours, then perhaps they will let us approach them, in the cities here. If not, then we’ve risked nothing, because it doesn’t really matter.

And what about the atrocities they perpetuate on us? So what? We need to take the high road, and STOP acting like animals. Because all of this blood and killing is NEVER going to end. We are never going to kill every terrorist on the earth. And Islam is NEVER going to be scorched from the earth. So we have to at least search to find other solutions that do not involve killing. To keep doing the above is insane.

I am not as naïve as I sound, but I fully admit I am naive. I just want to grasp something hopeful. I am an atheist, so I do not put any faith in a messiah. In my opinion, that just makes it easy for people to give up. In my mind we cannot do that. If we do, we lose.

There is no other way, and perhaps this is just a stupid, old lady's grasp at hope.

But what if?

Elphaba

[Still_Small_Voice]

If I am properly informed, in the past few decades, the tax burden of our government has lifted from big business and has rested more on the people.

This is what I understand concerning tax burdens on business. There is no such thing as taxes on a business. The business takes the tax burden and raises the prices on their products and shifts the burden to the consumer.

[a-train]

The first two points are quite valid. Valid enough for the UN to re-authorize the use of force. Numerous bomb-vest factories and terrorist training camps are no longer in operation.

OK, so DC pressured the UN to authorize a new military effort to go after Saddam because he wasn't keeping UN resolutions and either had WMD's or was at least seeking them. The White House is telling us that they felt this to be an extremely vital security issue for the U.S. Now, my question is this: Was that the real reason the White House wanted to go in to Iraq, or was that just the reason they gave?

It is difficult for me to understand their reasoning. We literally have rogue armies in Mexico and South America who are smuggling huge amounts of illegal substances into the U.S., substances that are killing far more American's than anything Saddam could have got his hands on. We have borders that are wide open. We have virtually no better protection against another 9/11 today than we had in September of 2001. Why is Saddam's disobedience to UN resolutions a far greater concern for our national security?

This is what I am having trouble understanding. Today, as Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed Martin rake in enormous tax-payer backed profits for government projects in Iraq, our borders remain so open that illegals continue to flow in masses and drug wars are spilling into our country from Mexico.

Now, our foreign policy has for decades aligned itself with corporate interests. Today, it seems to be doing the same. While the U.S. taxpayer's money goes to big business, national security seems to be unimproved. It is difficult for me to believe that the White House is aligned with the interests of the people and not the interests of the Counsel on Foreign Relations and the international corporations who hold the power there.

Do you think our foreign policy is being shaped by the interests of the American people? or is it shaped by corporate interests?

But when it comes to geopolitics, decisions made in the '50's may have shaped the current reality, but they should not dictate current decisions.

Exactly. We should not feel compelled to follow policies created in the 1950's, ESPECIALLY those that lead to bad consequences. Operation Ajax only served the interests of big business and those who were paid off for their treasonous crimes against their own people. It ultimately led to a bloody revolution and the taking of U.S. hostages.

So, you're claiming you want to talk about wars, and interested in my opinion. Could I ask you to reply to my post here? I know lots of people are interacting with you, but I'd like to evaluate my response to your attempt to 'LDSify' your positions on war in general.

I followed the link. I cannot find what it is I failed to respond about. Can you give me the post number or something?

-a-train

[a-train]

This is what I understand concerning tax burdens on business. There is no such thing as taxes on a business. The business takes the tax burden and raises the prices on their products and shifts the burden to the consumer.

Exactly. But, the amount collected from business has come down and what is collected directly from individual income has gone up. The idea is that it will help those businesses be competitive against foreign corps. However, it harms the U.S. worker. While businesses continue to see gains the U.S. worker struggles to have any savings after Uncle Sam takes all of his enormous cut. The rich get richer, the poor get nothing.

-a-train

[PentiumInside]

I am under no illusions whatsoever that there are any moderate Muslims (MM) in the Middle East. Not even the ones who say they are

I met muslim families that are far more tolerant and peaceful and industrious than most families I have met here in utah.

Just thought I would put that out there since no one refuted it :)

And good morning btw :)

[NeuroTypical]

Was that the real reason the White House wanted to go in to Iraq, or was that just the reason they gave?

The Bush administration did a lousy job of communicating goals and reasons. I would guess that there was a list of reasons for going into Iraq.

LM's guesses, in no real order:

* Overthrow a state sponsor of terror.

* Power play for the US hegemony:

a. Have a big honkin' army sitting in the right place to be able to pressure Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

b. Try to create a stable govt in Iraq that holds the US as an ally.

c. Try to create a second democracy in the area - again, hopefully as a US ally.

* Continue the fight against Bin Laden's Al Qaeda by demonstrating strength and resolution, while BL was hoping for weakness, insufficiency, and a short attention span.

And yes, just about all of these reasons are considered 'good reasons', because they all involve securing the oil supply.

Sounds like you have a different set of priorities. Well, so be it. I'm not disagreeing with you about our failing to stop drugs flowing in. I'm mad about our borders too.

We have virtually no better protection against another 9/11 today than we had in September of 2001.

I would strongly disagree, especially in the wake of last years' foiled plane hijack attempt.

I followed the link. I cannot find what it is I failed to respond about. Can you give me the post number or something?

Sorry - look here: Post #22 - my response to your attempt to justify isolationism with scriptures and references to Christ.

LM

[a-train]

Second of all, God seems to sanction this truth in some ways. Consider the bloody cleansing of the opposition when the righteous Pahoran was restored to his judgement seat in Alma 62. Consider the spy network of Captain Moroni in Alma 43 and 44, which allowed his armies to shape the battlefield such that Lehi could rain death and destruction down upon the Lamanites, forcing them to run across a river into a valley, where Moroni rained even more death and destruction. And he didn't stop until the army was completely routed. The whole thing reads like the history of the first gulf war, and our justification for going back in.

Certainly I am not saying that we are not charged with the duty to extricate ourselves from tyrants. In fact, my whole point in this discussion is that we need to do so. The question isn't whether force should be used to get rid of murdering thugs. The question is: who are the thugs? What I am saying is that the Counsel on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the general powers that be in Washington who in greed bow to every command of international business interests are the real tyrants that need replacing. The U.S. needs the regime change and the restoration of the power to the people.

Third of all, capitalist profits can be a result of doing the right thing or the wrong thing. Just identifying that capitalists are making money does nothing to demonstrate the moral wrongness of the action. Nor does it demonstrate that the profit making was the main reason for taking the action.

Certainly the protection of Americans and their businesses and economy is warranted by the LORD, as it is to all nations who do honest business. But we aren't protecting Americans and their business. The international business community is using our government to police the world and enrich themselves. They have no regard for the interests of the people.

According to the people of Ammon, it was Helaman leading their own sons into battle. From where I'm standing, the LDS lens is that God will help you kill the bad guys, as long as they're bad and you are good and righteous. And Alma 52 tells us that we got to do our own hard work - he's not going to keep us safe while we sit there on our rear ends and talk about how cool it is to never have to kill people.

Exactly. That is why this is so dangerous. We are allowing our government to do what it is doing unrighteously.

According to Moses 4 and 5, Genesis 3, and D&C 42, we get our daily bread through our own hard work. God gave us the earth and everything in it to work on - he expects us to act in our own self-interest, not sit there and wait for manna to fall from the heaven.

We get our daily bread from God. It is in the LORD's prayer. If we think that our work is what gives us our bread, we are doomed. Yes, we are to work, no doubt. But, the LORD alone gives all increase and our work has to be honest. If we would simply buy the oil we need from the middle-east and allow them to set the terms we would be honest. But all this deceit and bloodshed to bring better profits to international business is far from honest. It is robbery.

I find the whole notion that we should not actively be acting in our nations self-interest anti-common sense and anti-scriptural. You do not persuade me. I reject your mindset.

My whole point is that the U.S. foreign policy is the exact opposite of our nation's self-interest. We haven't been bombing in the middle-east to protect American's, their freedom, or their economy. It is being done to enrich international business.

Interesting thing about 98:34, is that it's followed by 98:35 and 98:36 - the steps we should follow before crushing them into a bloody pulp. Another interesting thing is that 98 is directed towards the Saints in their relationship to their government. It is not talking about foreign policy, it's talking about how we should react to domestic policies. I find the interactions between the Nephites and Lamanites to be much more illustrative of how we should shape our foreign policy. And God talks quite a bit about defending the weak by killing their oppressors, trying diplomacy first - but resorting to the work of death when it fails, and killing to defend liberty.

OK, and was the Nephite diplomacy an effort to persuade the Lamanites to hand over the bulk of their profits from natural resources in Lamanite lands? After the Lamanites refused, did the Nephites move in to overthrow the Lamanite leaders to get their wishes? It was the very opposite wasn't it? The Lamanites wanted slaves, the Lamanites wanted power. The Lamanites struck the Nephites in an effort to profit. Did the LORD uphold them in their efforts? No, He defended the innocent. Are you comfortable with the idea that the U.S. is an innocent God fearing people? How about the powers over DC? Are they honest men of integrity seeking the will of God?

-a-train

[Guest Malcolm]

I have also met some wonderful Muslim families here in the US. One of my best friends is from Morocco and we have been friends for 15 years. But that illustrates precisely my point: they (the moderates) are ALL in the west. They could not tolerate the Theocracies, the forced indoctrination and the radical teachings of the powerful in their own countries. That is why they left to settle in Michigan and Atlanta and LA.

The point you are trying to make assumes that certain people are interested in peaceful co-existence. That would be ideal. There is more evidence, however pointing to the fact that the radicals are not interested in peace. If you study modern history (no need to go back any further) it will be clear that tyranny is the government of choice in the ME.

Malcolm

[a-train]

The point you are trying to make assumes that certain people are interested in peaceful co-existence.

I make no assumption that militant Islam is interested in peaceful co-existance with Israel or the U.S. However, I also make no assumption that an open war with them will do anything but perpetuate their false understanding that their woes are the result of western influence alone.

Our role is to be a refuge for those who seek to escape, not an oppressive party to the contentions there. In that role, the west would appear as a saviour, but in an interventionist role, we appear as an oppressor.

Let's talk about what reasons we have to support an interventionist policy. What good reasons do we really have to go over there?

-a-train

[Elphaba]

I have also met some wonderful Muslim families here in the US. One of my best friends is from Morocco and we have been friends for 15 years. But that illustrates precisely my point: they (the moderates) are ALL in the west. They could not tolerate the Theocracies, the forced indoctrination and the radical teachings of the powerful in their own countries. That is why they left to settle in Michigan and Atlanta and LA.

The point you are trying to make assumes that certain people are interested in peaceful co-existence. That would be ideal. There is more evidence, however pointing to the fact that the radicals are not interested in peace. If you study modern history (no need to go back any further) it will be clear that tyranny is the government of choice in the ME.

Hi Malcom,

I don't know if I wrote it clearly, but I agree with you all of the moderates are in the west. So my question is, are you saying people like your friend would never be interested in coming together, just amongst themselves, to at least talk about how to make changes that may even just plant a seed for now?

I have no illusions that I understand one word of the Koran. I do not.

However I do know the power of the Hadith and the law of Sharia and I do know as long as those exist in Islam in current form there will never be peace of any kind. For us, it means nothing.

However, it's probably apparent by now I am a feminist, and the horrors the woman of the Middle East are subjected to terrify me, and yet the West doesn't even make mention of them. And of course, these horrors are not restricted to women.

And so, IMO, only the moderates can make any changes that may take hold. Not in the Middle East, I know that will not happen, at least not in many lifetimes, if they finally, ever, get tired of bloodshed.

And I also know there are moderates trying now to make changes. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, there is no solid leadership. And even these groups become corrupt easily.

So, bottom line, am I just being ridiculous? Is it a pipe dream? Is it just not possible for the moderates of the west to forge any changes, such as remove or revise the Hadith and the law of Sharia, bringing Islam into the 21st century, amongst the western Muslims?

Elphaba

[Guest Malcolm]

Elphaba:

You are not being ridiculous sis. You point to the fact that it is difficult for you to conceive that the situation is so hopeless. I am not a pessimist. On the contrary, I am alive today because of faith and my unwillingness to give up inteh face of desperate cisrcunstances. But my experience and exposure to Islamic societies and communities provides a backdrop to my position and opinion. We have already great relationships in the Islamic world with humanitarian organizations, for example. The LDS Church has, by far, more credibility than the State Deparment when it comes to humanitarian aid and civilian/social development projects in Asia (Singapore, Indonesia, Java, Malaysia). But we have cero influence when it comes to political process in those countries because that is the way they want it. The minute we proselyte or try to "export social or ideological thinking into those countries the minute our offices get bombed and we are asked to leave.

Switch sides for a second. Would you agree to restrict the number of children you can have in exchange for a government financial incentive? How about for the sake of 100% homeland security you would agree to allow the government to monitor ALL your phone calls? That would be contrary to everything we believe in. Well, they feel the same way about their way of life. Next year on March 4th George W. Bush, the president of the most powerful country on earth quietly will surrender his office and likely disapear from the public's view. That has never happen in the ME. Nobody surrenders powers without the threat of tanks and guns pointing to the exit door.

We can engage the moderates out here in the west, and we have. We set up think tanks and research groups and we do. But that doe snot change the operating reality in the ME. Anyone perceived a moderate is seen as pro-western and that is a death sentence (Butto) The Iraqi Prime Minister as well as the Afghan President survive on the graces of the US. The minute we pull out the minute they will be dead.

Sad to say but true.

[Guest AutumnBreez]

I am with A-train on paying $10 a gallon. It would be sad but it may be what pulls people out of their pride and big SUV's and get on a bike and ride. I am not saying absolutely no cars, but we could be far more conservative with fuel use!

At least there would be the freedom. We are depending on the rest of the world far too much.

Masked but real behind the scenes-

Americans have become glutens in many ways- not enough moderation in things or the time we use. We want it now and want it big! Are we willing to pay the price?

Our kids are being trained to live a computered life- from video games,

cell phones and texting, cars, no paper money society,what does it have to do with fuel? tons! Teaching them to do what they want first then think because now they are in trouble. This would be regret not freedom.