A Proposal

[davidm]

Not from me, but that paragon of virtue and common sense Mr. Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Apparently the man is making a political comeback in Russia. He is calling on the west and Israel (apparently his anti-semitism is a thing of the past) to unite against the common threat posed by radical Islam.

He offers some very simplistic and bombastic solutions to very complex issues (does that remind you of anyone closer to home) which can be summed up as we are in a life and death struggle with the muslims and either we win or we die.

I can't imagine any members of this forum will be rushing to join Mr. Zhirinovsky's crusade, but do you agree with the central context: the west is at war with the muslim world?

Please bear in mind that "war" takes many forms as demonstrated by the Cold War.

[Georgie-Porgie]

Since no one else has answered yet, I'll take a stab at it.

I don't think that, up till now, the U.S. has been at war with Islam. Terrorists and rogue elements of the Arab world have been at war with us.

However, these elements are doing their best to widen the war, to draw other Arabs into it.

That is one reason that they have begun to look for popular issues to broaden their appeal. Al Quida, only recently started to champion the Palestinian cause.

The truth is that most Arabs absolutely despise the Palestinians, but they hate Jews even more. It gives them an issue that they all agree on to rally around, and, going after Jews/Israel has another benefit, many Europeans are inclined to support them.

It worked for Hitler.

[davidm]

Fair enough, George. Do you think the west should go to war against the muslim world, or do you believe it's possible to negotiate a settlement which brings lasting peace?

[Georgie-Porgie]

It is obvious that a very large segment of Muslim society doesn't want war with us, or with anyone else. The trick is how to get the majority of Muslims to control the maniacs who want to either take over, or destroy, the whole world, with no other options in between.

If Muslims can't, or won't control their rogues, then the West will have no option but to try to do it ourselves. Our path is not yet set in stone, Islam can still take over and monitor themselves, but we have already started down the road to self-defence.

[meadish_sweetball]

No, the West is not at war with Islam. They should not go to war with Islam, and the actual question is far too simplified. There are about a billion muslims in this world, all individuals despite the fact that Islam is a more collectivistic force than present Western non-ideology.

The fact is that in many cases, muslims on two sides of the world have as much in common as the Coptic Ethiopian Christian and the secularized Scandinavian Christian.

I see no problem with attacking known terrorists in self defense (not as a preventory action or on loose suspicions though), but I do see a huge problem with totally ignoring so called "collateral" damage and disregarding international treaties in the process, because that, if anything, is what will win people over to the terrorists, and create unnecessary international deadlocks.

The truth is that most Arabs absolutely despise the Palestinians...

Please provide a valid source for this statement, Georgie.

It gives them an issue that they all agree on to rally around, and, going after Jews/Israel has another benefit, many Europeans are inclined to support them.

It worked for Hitler.

I am dead tired of people trying to insinuate that Europeans who are opposed to occupation of land by Israel are therefore antisemites. These are not related issues.

There is a legacy of antisemitism in Europe, true, and this legacy must be fought against and dealt with. Still, it is very important to be able to see what is what.

Categorically blaming Jews for the world's problems is NOT the same thing as opposing Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the Gaza strip - occupied land - settlements more or less supported by a country which wants to call itself a free democracy.

[Axel]

It is obvious that a very large segment of Muslim society doesn't want war with us, ...

I nearly agree with this first sentence, personally I feel the majority does not want a war.

There is a threat from radicals like Al Quaida and these are the people to go after. It does not help, however, to go after a whole country. Whoever suffers from war actions is a potential recruit for the radicals. We are not in a life and death struggle with Islam. If one attacks a whole nation you soon forget who threw the first stone. The attacker will be hated for.

Islam can still take over? Just imagine free elections in Iraq and they vote for an Iran-similar Mullah government. What to do?

Go after the guilty individuals and if you catch them alive, off to a criminal court of justice. Considering Valentine's day which, I believe many of you observe, let me add a small story in the spirit(?) which I believe fits in here:

Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they

learned about the history of Valentine's Day.

Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint," she asks, "will God get

mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"

Melissa's father thinks for a bit, then says, "No, I don't think God will

get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"

"Osama bin Laden," she says.

"Why Osama bin Laden?" her father asks in shock.

"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American girl could have

enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe

we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if

other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone

a lot.And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much

he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."

Her father's heart swells and he looks at his daughter with newfound

pride.

"Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard."

"I know," Melissa says, "and once that gets him out in the open, our

marines could blow the sh*t out of him."

Happy Valentine's

[davidm]

The truth is that most Arabs absolutely despise the Palestinians...

I thought this was common knowledge. Examples:

Palestinians being evicted from their homes in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Ordinary Iraqis told them to get out with practically no notice or justification. Jordanians can't stand them because of the Palestinian insurrection there in the 70s. Lebanese are fed up after hosting them for decades. Kuwaitis fear them because there are so many Palestinians working there, often doing the menial jobs, but also controlling some commerce. Egyptians don't like them, either.

going after Jews/Israel has another benefit, many Europeans are inclined to support them

I think this is right. Just because you have balanced, justified reasons for opposing Jewish settlements doesn't mean anti-semitism is not a big - and growing - problem in Europe. An EU investigation into anti-semitism decided not to publish its own findings because they were so scary.

There are two reasons for the problem in Europe. First, we have the old style anti-semitism as espoused by Le Pen in France, for example. Second, there are millions of muslim immigrants in Europe and plenty of virulent Jew haters among them.

[cdnvic]

The way I see it, it's the terrorists who are at war with Islam, and moderate muslims either haven't realized it, or with a few exceptions, haven't had the courage to speak out what is the greatest threat to their religion.

Arabs I've known (mostly Kuwaitis and a couple Lebanese) have never said they hate the Palastinians, but that doesn't mean they had much good to say about them either. The seem to see the Palastinians as sort of a rabble, rather like a pesantry. Okay for labourers, but not intellectuals in any sense of the word.

I think those who think democracy will be the answer for the middle east have to keep in mind that democracy hasn't only given us Churchills and Lincolns, but also Hitlers, and Musolinis (sp?).

The first part of the solution involves muslims who abhor violence to stand up for their religion, and then maybe it will be seen more as a battle for the preservation of true islam, with the west and others like Thailand as helpful allies, than a battle pitting islam against the rest of the world.

cv

[Georgie-Porgie]

The truth is that most Arabs absolutely despise the Palestinians...

I thought this was common knowledge. Examples:

Palestinians being evicted from their homes in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Ordinary Iraqis told them to get out with practically no notice or justification. Jordanians can't stand them because of the Palestinian insurrection there in the 70s. Lebanese are fed up after hosting them for decades. Kuwaitis fear them because there are so many Palestinians working there, often doing the menial jobs, but also controlling some commerce. Egyptians don't like them, either.

going after Jews/Israel has another benefit, many Europeans are inclined to support them

I think this is right. Just because you have balanced, justified reasons for opposing Jewish settlements doesn't mean anti-semitism is not a big - and growing - problem in Europe. An EU investigation into anti-semitism decided not to publish its own findings because they were so scary.

There are two reasons for the problem in Europe. First, we have the old style anti-semitism as espoused by Le Pen in France, for example. Second, there are millions of muslim immigrants in Europe and plenty of virulent Jew haters among them.

Wow. What a coincidence. That was going to be my exact answer, but davidm just beat me to it (see, I am learning something from the gentleman)!

[mrvietnam2001]

I think those who think democracy will be the answer for the middle east have to keep in mind that democracy hasn't only given us Churchills and Lincolns, but also Hitlers, and Musolinis (sp?).

And wilson, roosevelt and every other power-money hungry bastard politician who has stolen freedom from the people while at the same time "mouthing" the word.

Democracy is mob rule.

Freedom was only attained by one country, one time in 6,000 years of civilization. And wow what the 1st 100 years of that freedom created.

But that's history.

Mr Vietnam

[PlanetMan]

I think those who think democracy will be the answer for the middle east have to keep in mind that democracy hasn't only given us Churchills and Lincolns, but also Hitlers, and Musolinis (sp?). cv

At least when a democracy gives us a Hitler or a Mussolini, we know where to send the carpet bombers. Anyone know OBL's forwarding address?

Truly there are no silver bullet easy answers to the problems in the Middle East, which goes back >2 thousand years. But when one wants to change the political situation in which one finds oneself, ballots beat bullets bigtime.

For far too many middle eastern citizens (and elsewhere) there simply are no means other than violence to effect any change in their welfare. Democracy (with its institutions, checks and balances) of itself is not the solution, but it does give people the ability to mutually agree a least bad alternative to the status quo. Democracy also tends to allow commerce and industry to continue uninterrupted whilst changes are made.

Just ask the Palestinians. Give 'em a Parliament where the can hurl epithets at each other instead of rocks at Israeli soldiers and I'll bet you 20 quid they'll be much happier.

But that's me.

Cheers

[mrvietnam2001]

For far too many middle eastern citizens (and elsewhere) there simply are no means other than violence to effect any change in their welfare. Democracy (with its institutions, checks and balances) of itself is not the solution, but it does give people the ability to mutually agree a least bad alternative to the status quo. Democracy also tends to allow commerce and industry to continue uninterrupted whilst changes are made.

Just ask the Palestinians. Give 'em a Parliament where the can hurl epithets at each other instead of rocks at Israeli soldiers and I'll bet you 20 quid they'll be much happier.

But that's me.

Cheers

Yup, england has really proven that.

Hahahahaha

Mr Vietnam

[cdnvic]

For far too many middle eastern citizens (and elsewhere) there simply are no means other than violence to effect any change in their welfare. Democracy (with its institutions, checks and balances) of itself is not the solution, but it does give people the ability to mutually agree a least bad alternative to the status quo. Democracy also tends to allow commerce and industry to continue uninterrupted whilst changes are made.

Just ask the Palestinians. Give 'em a Parliament where the can hurl epithets at each other instead of rocks at Israeli soldiers and I'll bet you 20 quid they'll be much happier.

But that's me.

Cheers

Yup, england has really proven that.

Hahahahaha

Mr Vietnam

A couple years ago a school made the news in Canada when teachers taking the class to see the parliment buildings wouldn't allow the kids to see parliment in session because they thought the behaviour of the members set a bad example for the kids.

cv

[PlanetMan]

I can think of several countries where democracy as practiced is a contact sport. Taiwan and South Korea immediately spring to mind

Unfortunately for aspiring democrats, many autocracies and dictatorships also are contact sports, with hugely lopsided rules. Zimbabwe, Ukraine, DPRK, PRC, Iran. This list goes depressingly on.

Cheers

[mrvietnam2001]

Right! But of course the mindless intellectuals will tell you otherwise. So let's keep it simple for simple people.

A "democracy" is majority rules correct?

That said, if 51% determine policy, can the other 49% consider themselves free?

You would think that fact alone should silence the pro-democracy crowd. Ahh but those are the ones hoping to be the 51% so I don't think so.

Mr Vietnam

[lamphun]

If 49% determine policy, can the other 51% consider themselves free ?

###### those floating chads. People who live in glass houses.

[cdnvic]

If 49% determine policy, can the other 51% consider themselves free ?

This would be making the simplistic assumption that the 51% agree with each other 100% of the time. Democracy works, though occasionally a bit wobbly at times, because most people can count themselves among the 51% at least some of the time. If everyone always got what they wanted every time the world would be full of boring atomatons who all thought the same way.

Not everyone can be an accountant.

cv

[meadish_sweetball]

Agree with cdnvics last post.

Freedom needs to be defined - there is no freedom without responsibility. My freedom ends where your freedom begins. Otherwise we would have nothing worthy of the name society.

There's lots of talk about rights and freedoms all the time. That's all good, but occasionally, we should consider our obligations as well.

Amen.

[cdnvic]

There's lots of talk about rights and freedoms all the time. That's all good, but occasionally, we should consider our obligations as well.

I think that's exactly whats missing in alot of places these days. Everyone's asking for something, but not enough people standing up and saying, "what can I do?".

cv