Re: "Bring 'em on"..."OK, here we come"

gridlore@mindspring.com (Douglas*Berry) wrote:

>manofhour@webtv.net (Henry Cotter) wrote:

>>Because I'm telling you, I don't want to see
>> an unstable Arab country develop nuclear
>> weapons. Unlike the communists of China
>> and the USSR, some of them don't care
>> about unleashing nuclear death on
>> everyone. The communists for the most part
>> didn't believe in an afterlife. The Islamists
>> believe they'll be going to "paradise."

>Why do you continue to use that world? The
> correct word is "Muslim."

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ISLAM THE RELIGION. I'M TALKING ABOUT
***ISLAMISM****, THE POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO UNITE THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST
UNDER ONE STATE AND FORCE IT INTO A THEOCRACY RUN BY SHAR'IA LAW.

(Since I put it in CAPS LOCK, I don't think you'll miss it).

Bin Laden is an example of an Islamist.

>Now who sounds racist? I'm afraid of extrmeist
> theists of any faith getting ahold of WMD.

I'm glad we agree on that. I certainly wouldn't want a Jerry Falwell to
have access to the little red button either.

>>>Notice that our efforts at a "representative
>>> government" in Iraq currently consists of
>>> the US picking people we like to run things
>>> with no input from the people. That's a
>>> military dictatorship.

>>For now it is, but then again, it's just a
>> transitional government.

>Sure. And that's what ever coup leader has
> said throughout history.

So did we leave a military dictatorship in Imperial Japan and Nazi
Germany? I guess I must be living in an alternative universe.

>>>Arabic society is strongly tribal, lines of
>>> personal obligation are strong. People will
>>> follow a leader solely because of an
>>>obligation created generations ago. You
>>>cannot simply create democrasy out of the
>>> cloth!

>>So how do you explain what happened in
>> Japan post-WWII?

>Japan already had democracy. The military
> seized power in the 1930s.

That's truly nonsense, Doug. I thought you knew what you were talking
about, but it's obvious you failed to realize that Japan had *always*
been run in a fuedal fashion, with the Emperor and the Shogun at the
top. It was always a monarchy where the Emperor was thought to be
divine. He wasn't questioned (at least, not by the normal people).

That's not democracy in *any* sense of the word.

>The postwar constitution included gurantees
> to stop this from happening again.

And it also forced them to accept a democratic form of government which
was foreign to the culture.

>>Your comments sound like that coming from
>> a racist. "They can never change." They can
>> change just like the Japanese and many of
>> the Eastern Bloc nations (also countries who
>> never had democratic governments but
>> somehow, someway, did the "impossible"
>> and found it).

>I didn't say that change was impossible, I just
> said that change at the point of a gun is
> unlikely at best.

Then *how* would you be able to import it into the Middle East? Keep in
mind that the Islamic extremists out there are much more violent than
the moderates (kind of like they are everywhere, actually). Every time
a moderate thinker comes along and proposes a change towards democracy,
the radicals come out and try to intimidate him. And if that don't
work, they kill him. Ask Farag Foda of Egypt about that sometime. Oh
wait, he was killed by the Muslim "Brotherhood" and his killer got apass
by Islamic judges (despite the fact that Mubarek is a secular dictator
who plays nice with the MB because Sadat was killed).

Heck, Salmon Rushdie is still in hiding after Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa
to kill him was issued. And Rushdie wasn't even Iranian!

>>> The current view of the US way of doing
>>>things is that of a bully who is great at
>>> destroying bet is terrible at fixing things.

>>Which is a wrong view.

>Really? Tell that to the people living in Iraq
> right now.

Funny, but I saw lots of them cheering our troops on as they were going
through the streets. The majority (99% probably) want to get on with
their lives. In time, hopefully that wil happen. The other 1% are the
ones who are pissed off that their little cushy arrangement under
Saddam's time is gone.

>>>At least under Saddam, the trains ran on
>>> time!

>>Just like in Nazi Germany, the trains to
>> Auswitz ran on time. What's your point?

>The point is that to the average resident of
> Bagdhad, life under Saddam maybe wasn't
> the best, but at least he had electricity, a
> police dpeartment, clean water and a job.
> Under the Americans, he has none of these
> things. That is wehat builds resentment.

*If* it continues for long periods of time. That's a big *if* at this
time. They're probably happy that they can express their dicontent
openly right now.

Of course, the Iraqis now have a chance to have their lives improve.
Something which would never happen under the old status quo.

>>>Excuse me? Hitler and the entire Nazi party
>>> was elected into power!

>>Point being? Was Nazi Germany anything
>> other than a dictatorship. No.

>Yup. After being elected Chancellor in 1933,
> Hitler got von Hindenburg to sign an
> emergency decree giving Hitler dictorial
> powers. But he was elected.

Not honestly, he wasn't. He threatened rival politicians and had his
stormtroopers in the streets breaking skulls to get the votes.

>Japan had an elected governmet until Prime
> Minister Tsuyoshi Inukai was killed by the
> military in 1932.

Who was still a pawn under the Emperor.

>After that, they were appointed by the military.
> That lasted until the end of the War, when the
> Diet took over.

But Japan had always been a monarchy before WWII.

>>>He seized the dictatorship by getting the
>>> elected President to sign an emergency
>>>order! *You* should go read some history!
>>> Germany has been a democracy for a long
>>>time.

>>More garbage. Germany became a
>> "democracy" after WWI when the Kaiser was
>> forced to step down. For 20 years the
>> Weimar Republic lasted. It was very weak,
>> and in fact, had little power to enforce it's
>> own laws. There were mobs in the streets
>> who would beat people to vote a certain way
>> (How else do you think the Nazi party was
>> able to field 100,000's of stormtroopers
>> before taking control?)

>I agree that it was a badly made government.
> But it was a democracy, and Hitler (and his
> cronies) were elected.

Only in a technical sense (unless you call mobs of Hitler's SA breaking
skulls of opposing party members and voters who wouldn't vote right).
Sorry, but I don't consider that democratic at all.

And it only lasted for 20 years.

>>There was long democratic tradition in
>> Germany.

So what do you think the Kaiser was? An elected official?

>>>Japan was a little different, but it did have
>>> an elected house that was pushed aside by
>>> the military.

>>But Japan was *never* a democratic
>> government pre-WWII. It was run by the
>> Emperor. Unquestioningly (although
>> sometimes a powerful Shogun took charge).
>> Their customs and traditions also run deep.
>> But they've given up their militaristic ways (in
>> fact, they've never bothered to ask the US
>> whether they can once again rebuild their
>> armed forces. I doubt the US would deny
>> them that after all this time).

>Prime Minister Tsuyoshi Inukai might
> disagree. As would his 26 predecessors. The
> Emperor was a remote figure, and not
> involved in the day-to-day running of the
> government.

But he was unelected and was able to overrule anything he wanted. It
was still a monarchy.

>>>At the time Chamberlain went to Munich
>>> Hitler had already annexed the Ruhr and
>>> Austria, and they allow Hitler to annex the
>>> Studenland. What had Saddam taken? His
>>> last adventure had been Kuwait and he
>>> had his ass kicked!

>>Things have changed since then. Or did you
>> seem to forget that on September 11th,
>> 2001, we were attacked by 19 men in
>> civilian clothes instead of an army.

>Since a cliose friend of mine lost her husband
> that day, and I had to hold a friend who also
> lost a loved one, I have not forgotten that.

>Funny you should mention 9/11. The bulk of
> the attackers were Saudi.. none of them were
> Iraqi. So who are we attacking?

You're being dense here. My point is that things have changed. You're
assuming Saddam Hussein would use conventional means to attack us. But
the reality is, the unconventional is what has damaged us.

>>>The comaprison with Chamberlain is not
>>> apt. Had the British and French stood up to
>>> Hitler when he remilitiarized the Ruhr in
>>> violation of the Treaty of Versailles, as we
>>> stood up the Iraq when it invaded Kuwait,
>>> history would have been different.

>>Indeed. But letting a Saddam Hussein sit in
>> power for ever is not a good idea if you can
>> take him out rather easily (and yes, even
>> though some American soldiers and Marines
>> died, the invasion of Iraq did cost very little
>> in terms of human life when compared to
>> other wars).

>Tell that to the families.

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring

This has *nothing* to do with my point in a "big picture" political
sense (which is what we were discussing). I can just as easily tell you
to tell Iraqis that lost loved ones to Saddam to just accept it and
expect to die as well. That doesn't get us anywhere.

The fact remains that the war in Iraq had very few lives lost relative
to other wars, thankfully.

--
Henry Cotter