Why Saddam Hussein didn't deserve your vote

[cantdog]

comments for Virtual

I had an odd, but interesting, conversation with a patron at work last night.

I will pass the pith of his argument along, as well as I can relay it.

The argument strikes me as being somehow mendacious, but I am not equal to the task of discovering where. I do not know enough about Islam as a religion, nor as a social movement, to judge. Perhaps, someone with more information, or knowledge, could comment.


The argument goes like this:



Any comments?

It might be more germane if we were forcing them to freedom, but we're not doing much of that. The torturers were trying to get information about the al-Qaeda, trying to get information about the resistance.

In the meantime, the army pulls out of a town, surrounds it and shells the hell out of it.

The same sort of action is occuring in the whole theater, as the units realize they have a larger problem than their numbers can enforce a sloution to. The whole area of Kurdish Iraq is not being occupied, and the people in the Triangle and in the Shi'i area have forted up and surrounded problem areas.

This isn't forcing our freedom on anyone, it's preserving our asses in the face of resistance.

Earlier, when the resistance was less formidable, we did a lot of going house-to-house, spreadeagling people on the floor and ruining their stuff, breaking things, ripping things up, busting holes in walls and yelling at everyone, threatening everyone in the house and pounding people around with rifle butts and whatnot.

We did a lot of that in Afghanistan, too. Hardly a forcing of freedom on anyone. This was a boneheaded attempt to do security work.

We *did* reject a draft of a constitution with an Islamic basis when one was proposed. That's about all I can think of that might fit the description.

Sorry.


cantdog

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Muslims do not want our liberty, in fact, they reject that freedom.

Muslims have chosen (or at least have grown up in) a religion which acts as much as a support, defining who they are, as a restrain against what they must not become.

This religion defines their self-image, shapes their community, and controls their interpersonal relationships.

To force a Muslim to accept the freedom we value over the structure he desires, is like forcing a Christian monk to leave his monetary.

Which is why, the more we attempt to force our style of democracy onto Iraqis, the more we push them into embracing a theocracy?

Most religions are similar in their ethical outlook, but their 'flavors' are different. At the risk of being offensively simplistic, I would say that Judaism emphasizes study and obedience, Christianity stresses love and forgiveness, and Islam is concerned with submission to the will of Allah. If I'm not mistaken, the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission'. Devout Muslims are in the habit of adding "Inshallah" (If God wills it) to any statement concerning the future to show that what happens is re4ally up to Allah.

I think you might say that Muslims in general take a more passive role in things like politics. (Maybe the word "accepting" would be more accurate.) The idea that 'God helps those who help themselves' is kind of foreign to Islamic thought, which holds that all things are in God's hands and if God wants people to live in a democracy then He will provide it.

But don't forget that Islam was the freeist and most learned culture in the world for close to 1000 years. While Europeans were hacking each other to death with axes over supposed pieces of the Virgin's cloak, Muslims were inventing algebra and astronomy and presiding over the most vibrant and liberal culture in the world. The Renaissance only happened when crusaders brought back Arabic translations of Plato and Aristotle and other ancient classics. The Christian world had burned all of theirs.

Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin are no more representative of Islam than Timothy McVeigh and Pat Robertson are representative of Christianity. In both cases you're talking about the near-lunatic fringe on the extreme right, rabid fundamentalists who've lost sight of the essential ethical message of their religion. There are plenty of Muslims who are horrified and embarrassed by Al Qaeda, and enraged by what Bin Ladin has done to non-believers' perception of their religion.

---dr.M.

 

[KarenAM]

Islam, in my understanding (and be aware that I have a complete block when it comes to theological speculation), is seen by Muslims not only as a religion, but a complete way of life. Part of this way of life is a strong ideal of social justice, which in my view means that Muslims are less concerned with what Americans consider "freedoms" than they are with fairness and equity. As a result, I get the impression that "democracy", which is sacred in American culture, is not something a predominantly Muslim country would be willing to embrace if it did not come with guarentees of social justice.

Which is why so many Muslims really respect and are impressed by American principles and average Americans but are repulsed by the American government. They see the same corruption in Washington DC that we do, the same excesses of the wealthy, the same mistreatment of the poor. I think it can be reasonably surmised that since the Middle East has no long tradition of democracy, they have come to believe that democracy as we practice it doesn't bring the social justice they crave.

Of course, in their own countries, they see the injustice brought by their own leaders and fellow Muslims, and this is causing a lot of social upheaval. They want compotent, just government, elected or not.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Is that firm, upright thing the hilt of the sword?

No, it's not even attached to the sword. What is that thing?

Just another phalic symbol?

 

[Guest]

Karen and Mab., just a centavo here. I cannot recall the name, but a fellow who is considered the western expert on Muslims, says that Islam is not merely a different kind of religion, but a different "way" of looking at religion.

I've read books, taken a class, listened to Imams, but I don't feel anywhere close to substantially understanding Islam. I have great respect for those Muslims of good faith though.

Perdita (just a lurker here)

 

[cantdog]

Bernard Lewis

That "fellow" is a suave racist.

I recommend Hodgson.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Devout Muslims are in the habit of adding "Inshallah" (If God wills it) to any statement concerning the future to show that what happens is re4ally up to Allah.

One of the many influences of the Muslim rule over Iberia, is the word oxalá, an interjection that expresses the desire for something to happen (a desire, not a passive acceptance of whatever comes). It comes directly from the arabic ua xä illäh - 'and may God want it' [to happen].

 

[cantdog]

Islam, in my understanding (and be aware that I have a complete block when it comes to theological speculation), is seen by Muslims not only as a religion, but a complete way of life. Part of this way of life is a strong ideal of social justice, which in my view means that Muslims are less concerned with what Americans consider "freedoms" than they are with fairness and equity. As a result, I get the impression that "democracy", which is sacred in American culture, is not something a predominantly Muslim country would be willing to embrace if it did not come with guarentees of social justice.

Which is why so many Muslims really respect and are impressed by American principles and average Americans but are repulsed by the American government. They see the same corruption in Washington DC that we do, the same excesses of the wealthy, the same mistreatment of the poor. I think it can be reasonably surmised that since the Middle East has no long tradition of democracy, they have come to believe that democracy as we practice it doesn't bring the social justice they crave.

Of course, in their own countries, they see the injustice brought by their own leaders and fellow Muslims, and this is causing a lot of social upheaval. They want compotent, just government, elected or not.

As far as I can be sure, having discussed it only with Moroccans (He said to me, ya Farid, you seem like such an intelligent man, that I can't understand why you aren't a muslim?) Karen has the nub, here. This is the place where the two approaches pass each other.

We want democracy, but we want it to remain responsive, because the reason we tried the republic in the first place was to secure social justice and relief from arbitrary despotisms.

Voltaire's ideas had a lot to do with why reason and kinglessness were linked, and why the two were chosen over kings and state religions as the road to justice.

In the Islamic tradition, justice proceeds from God. The question is, by what route? How do you find where He has put it? In the old world, there are four centers from which civilizations arose, four large cultural origin points. Islam-dom, as it were, is one of those, and not ours. It takes a lot of stretch to perceive the underlying assumptions in any of them which isn't your own, and I admit I haven't really done it. But that tradition, Islamdom, didn't have anything really resembling our Reformation, and so hasn't had the centuries of internecine murder and genocides over religion to teach it the wisdom of separating church and state.

But, as you noted, the Islamic Republics, so-called, are surely no more just than any other society! The factor that makes our own system unjust is not democracy, but unregulated and unbridled capitalism and a technocratic approach to all of life. In my opinion.

This kind of question needs many books, not just a short post. Anyway, Karen, I agree with you. And you state it sensitively and well.

cantdog

 

[KarenAM]

Thanks, cantdog!

 

[cantdog]

Thanks, cantdog!

De nada, querida...

cantdog

ps read a story of yours. Thanks for that!

 

[shereads]

"Hello," he lied --- Part 27

Trucks made to drive without cargo in dangerous areas of Iraq

BY SETH BORENSTEIN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs.

Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile re-supply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel."

Defense Department records show that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, has been paid $327 million for "theater transportation" of war materiel and supplies for U.S. forces in Iraq and is earmarked to be paid $230 million more. The convoys are a lifeline for U.S. troops in Iraq hauling tires for Humvees, Army boots, filing cabinets, tools, engine parts and even an unmanned Predator reconnaissance plane.

KBR's contract with the Defense Department allows the company to pass on the cost of the transportation and add 1 percent to 3 percent for profit, but neither KBR nor the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., which oversees the contract, was able to provide cost estimates for the empty trucks. Trucking experts estimate that each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars.

Seven of the 12 truckers who talked to Knight Ridder asked that they not be identified by name. Six of the 12 were fired by KBR for allegedly running Iraqi drivers off the road when they attempted to break into the convoy. The drivers disputed that accusation.

In addition to interviewing the drivers, Knight Ridder reviewed KBR records of the empty trips, dozens of photographs of empty flatbeds and a videotape that showed 15 empty trucks in one convoy.

The 12 drivers, all interviewed separately over the course of more than a month, told similar stories about their trips through hostile territory.

"Thor," a driver who quit KBR and got his nickname for using a hammer to fight off a knife-wielding Iraqi who tried to climb into the cab of his truck, said his doctor recently told him he might lose the use of his right eye after a December attack. Iraqis shattered his windshield with machine gunfire and bullets whizzed by his ear. Glass got in his eye, and he broke two bones in his shoulder, he said.

His truck was empty at the time.

"I thought, `What good is this?'" he recalled.

Shane "Nitro" Ratliff of Ruby, S.C., who quit working for KBR in February, recalled a harrowing trip in December.

As he was hauling an empty truck to Baghdad International Airport, Iraqis threw spikes under his tires and a brick, a cement-like clot of sand and gasoline through his windshield, scattering shards of glass all over him and into his eyes.

"We didn't have no weapons; I had two rocks and a can of ravioli to fight with," Ratliff said.

Ratliff caught up with his fleeing convoy in his damaged truck and made it to the airport safely. He figured he'd pick up a load there, but he was told to return with another empty trailer.

Iraqi insurgents have killed two civilian drivers.

Kellogg Brown and Root, the Army and the truckers gave different reasons for why empty trucks were driven through areas that the drivers nicknamed "rockville" and "slaughterhouse" for the dangers they presented.

Some of the truckers charged that KBR is billing the Pentagon for unnecessary work. KBR described the practice as normal, given the large number of trucks it has delivering goods throughout Iraq. Army officials said longer convoys may provide better security.

The Army's contract with KBR calls for daily truck runs, but doesn't dictate how many trucks must be in a convoy or whether they must be full, said Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill. The area military commander or KBR officials might choose to run empty trucks as a security measure, she said.

KBR denied there was any problem with the truck runs. "KBR is proud of the work we do for the military in Iraq. It is difficult and dangerous work and requires a lot from our employees," said Cathy Gist, a KBR spokeswoman. KBR truckers say they can earn about $80,000 a year, which is tax-free if they remain in Iraq for a year.

The empty trailer runs in Iraq peaked in January, February and March of this year but have dwindled as violence has escalated and forced contractors to reduce the number of trucks in each convoy and how far they travel, the drivers said.

Earlier this year, as many as a third of all the flatbed trucks in a 30-truck convoy were empty, they said. Much of the time, drivers would drop off one empty trailer and pick up another empty one for the return trip.

"There was one time we ran 28 trucks, one trailer had one pallet (a trailer can hold as many as 26 four-foot square pallets) and the rest of them were empty," said David Wilson, who was the convoy commander on more than 100 runs. Four other drivers who were with Wilson confirmed his account.

James Warren of Rutherfordton, N.C., one of the fired KBR drivers, said he drove empty trucks through Iraq more than a dozen times. Besides the risks to the truckers, the six National Guard or Army escorts who provided security were also in danger, he said.

The KBR driver who shot the videotape of the 15 empty trailers on the road in January described it this way: "This is just a sample of the empty trailers we're hauling called `sustainer.' And there's more behind me. There's another one right there. ... This is fraud and abuse right here."

KBR documents viewed by Knight Ridder showed that one February run included 11 "MT" (trucker lingo for empty) trailers, 11 containers (which could be full or empty) and six with pallets on them. On another February day, three of 15 trucks were empty.

KBR officials said empty runs resulted from the lack of cargo at one depot. The company ran all the trucks so they'd be available to pick up cargo for the return trip. "This is the same as typical commercial trucking operations work in the U.S.," said Gist.

Drivers discounted that explanation.

"Sometimes we would go with empty trailers; we would go both ways," said one driver who goes by the nickname Swerve and declined to be named for fear of retribution. "We'd turn around and go back with empty trailers."

An independent expert on trucking economics put the cost of a 300-mile one-way run at a minimum of $1,050. Researcher Mark Berwick at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University used a computer model, the fuel costs that Halliburton charged the Army and the truckers' salaries to come up with that figure.

Wilson and Michael Stroud, of the Seattle area, another former KBR trucking convoy commander, said the actual costs were probably far higher.

"It was supposed to be critical supplies that the troops had to have to operate," said Wilson, who returned to his home in southwest Florida after being fired by KBR. "It was one thing to risk your life to haul things the military needed. It's another to haul empty trailers."

Peter Singer, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Corporate Warrior," a book on privatization of the military, said the use of empty trucks illustrates how the government's contracting system is broken.

The government gives out large cost-plus contracts in which "essentially it rewards firms when they add to costs rather than rewarding them for cost savings," Singer said.

Despite a massive increase in contracts for the war and occupation of Iraq, the Army hasn't increased the number of officials who oversee those contractors. Only 180 Army officials monitor defense contracts and only a little more than a handful of them are in Iraq, Singer said.

---

(Mark Washburn of The Charlotte Observer and Mark Rogers of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram contributed.)

 

[amicus]

Like papparazzi who dig in garbage cans, you bang the drum for a beat only you can hear.

It is seen by all who read.

amicus

 

[Somme]

Like papparazzi who dig in garbage cans, you bang the drum for a beat only you can hear.

It is seen by all who read.

amicus

What on earth are you trying to say?

 

[Edward Teach]

Like papparazzi who dig in garbage cans, you bang the drum for a beat only you can hear.

It is seen by all who read.

amicus

If you can lose your head when all about you are keeping theirs, I will defend to the death your right to say so.

Ed

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Trying to imagine the world from the viewpoints of other people and other cultures is something of an obsession with me. I guess it goes with being a writer and the need to put myself inside of different characters' heads to try and understand them. It's great for writing, but the downside is that I can usually see both sides of an argument and it makes taking a stand kind of difficult

Those of us raised in the US take the superiority and desirability of democracy so much for granted that it's almost impossible for us to imagine that anyone wouldn't share our views. We never even consider other points of view; that some might find the very idea of democracy distasteful.

I've been reading a series of books set around the time of the American revolution in which some of the characters are royalists loyal to King George, and the author did a very tgood job of explaining their point of view, which is something we never even consider. Basically they saw democracy as mob rule, little better than outright anarchy, and felt that without a hereditary monarchy, the standards of civilization would fall to the lowest common denominator.

The Royalist position comes out of a Medieval view of the world, which saw the structure of society--peasant, noble or clergy--as having been ordained by God. There were a lot of peasant uprisings in the fourteenth century, almost all of them motivated by a desire for social justice, and they were all put down by the nobility and the Church with a savagery remarkable even for that time. The uprisings were seen not so much as a threat to priviledge as they were an outright blasphemy, a revolt against God's own plan, and that's why they were resisted with such religious fervor.

I think the fundamentalist Muslim view of democracy might be similar. To the devout believer, true justice can only come from submission to God's will in a society that also submits to God's will. I imagine that all this business about voting and free elections must seem very much beside the point to them.

I think that one of the goals of education is to enable one to see the world from other people's perspectives, and to recognize one's own biases. Any way you look at it, this is something we didn't do before we went into Iraq. It really looks like our leadership saw Iraq as a wstern-style democracy just waiting to happen, and that was an error of monumental cultural ignorance and ethnocentric arrogance.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

There is some literature on democracy and Islam; apparently those sympathetic to a synthesis have used the term 'consultation' [arabic equiv.] (of the rulers with those governed).

Democracy is not an easy concept to flesh out The 'we have it and you don't approach' does not go far. It's clear the US democracy so called has had greatly different forms, including the involvement of slaves, nonvoting women, nonvoting poor, and so on.

We can say, as a prerequisite, that each interest group somehow deserves to be heard, and to have public policy protect and further its interests, so far as other's interests aren't unduly sacrificed.

That only gets as far as paternalistic or 'benevolent dictatorship' however. So for 'rule by the people', the protection/furtherance of their interests must come as a result of their effective efforts to protect/further them; what a group wants, and does on its own (by way of political activity), as it were, must affect public policy.

 

[Pure]

As to virtual's quote/paraphrase:

Muslims do not want our liberty, in fact, they reject that freedom.

Muslims have chosen (or at least have grown up in) a religion which acts as much as a support, defining who they are, as a restrain against what they must not become.

This religion defines their self-image, shapes their community, and controls their interpersonal relationships.

To force a Muslim to accept the freedom we value over the structure he desires, is like forcing a Christian monk to leave his monastery.

Which is why, the more we attempt to force our style of democracy onto Iraqis, the more we push them into embracing a theocracy?

I think there's something to this, but it doesn't go very far. As the author notes, it applies to monks; further, it arguably applies to Christian citizens of certain persuasion, i.e., those inclined to a Christian fascism, or a communitarian set up.

Probably, s/he's trying to say, the muslims in country X may not want a form of government like ours.

Perhaps they want a benevolent theocracy. But this ignores the question of maturing of nations. Probably benevolent dictators would suit lots of the world, and this was true in the now 'western democracies' as well. Consider the evolution of Spain in the 20th century.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One thing I've always wondered about is just why are we so interested in bringing democracy to other countries? The usual argument--American altruism--is certainly laudible but is surely too naive to be the whole story.

A lot of our leaders cite the belief that democracies aren't as likely to go to war as dictatorships, but is this really true? I mean, the USA doesn't seem to have any problem sending troops hither and yon, and if war were so absolutely distasteful, we wouldn't engage in it so much.

It's hard to believe that it's pure altruism when there are so many things that are easier and more doable that we could do to help some countries. So what's this big deal about democracy?

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

One thing I've always wondered about is just why are we so interested in bringing democracy to other countries? The usual argument--American altruism--is certainly laudible but is surely too naive to be the whole story.

A lot of our leaders cite the belief that democracies aren't as likely to go to war as dictatorships, but is this really true? I mean, the USA doesn't seem to have any problem sending troops hither and yon, and if war were so absolutely distasteful, we wouldn't engage in it so much.

It's hard to believe that it's pure altruism when there are so many things that are easier and more doable that we could do to help some countries. So what's this big deal about democracy?

---dr.M.

"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't build weapons of mass destruction." - GWB

 

[amicus]

In those rare moments of intellectual depression that occur, without warning, I sometimes feel that I have stared into the abyss.

I glimpse and shudder when I see why those who advocate some form of oppressive, paternalistic government, I get a flash of why they do.

They believe that 'common man' simply is not smart enough to exercise a full freedom on choice. I look around me and notice the popular entertainment in sports, competition, soap opera's reality shows, daytime talk and interview shows.

I see the 'true' level of education and enlightenment, not just here, but everywhere, and shudder again that perhaps you of a 'liberal bent' might be right. Mankind simply does not have the general capacity to be enlightened, to function in a free society.

Keep the guns and drugs forbidden, confiscate excess wealth, turn it into 'benevolent research' and public projects. Guarantee everyone health care, and child care and insurance, tax them to provide for their old age, for surely the common man cannot foresee the future. Dismantle the armies and stop the weapons research, instead, institute 'national service for all at age 18' but do it in a 'benevolent way' like the Peace Corps or community service.

I let those thoughts cascade, then I light another cigarette, pour a stiff gin and tonic and turn away to more private thoughts and wait to fight another day.

But...I still wonder..how any thinking person can rationally proclaim their right to reach into my pocket and take a part of my day, for their own uses.

It is a puzzle.


amicus

 

[dr_mabeuse]

"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't build weapons of mass destruction." - GWB

I know. That's one of my favorite Bushisms. It illustrates so well how different the shoe looks when it's on your own foot.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Bumped, in case some of the gentlemen here who feign an interest in facts and logic might want to check out the link.

If they do, they still might pretend not to get the irony, but it's worth a shot. The world is on the brink and the ignorant are voting on the outcome. One does what one must.

 

[shereads]

I'm off to the office for some papers I need to bring home tonight.

Later I'll get a Diet Coke and bump this again.

 

[shereads]

Bumped. Strange, none of the fact-hungry, calmly anaylitcal neocons seem to have expressed any curiosity about this thread, the one direct from the files of their favorite politicians.

 

[Blarneystoned]

Hey Doc

If I recall history we were very nationalistic until WWII. Once we got bombed it seemed logical not to let it happen again...only we lost our heads...dismissed 300 000 military personel...closed bases...and dismantled the field agencies of the CIA....and we got bombed again...damn it ..go figure.

For the most part we have been a Free nation...granted we royally messed over the Americans and the African slaves didnt get a fare shake...but it was a Republican Administration that freed them. I dont think the Indians did well until the Cassinos personally and we still ow them a lot of land...which slowly I understand they are buying now in the midwest...which I think is awesome.

The rest of the world has been the problem...Japanese Russo War...mediated by Teddy Roosevelt.....WWI....had to send troups in...WWII...had to send troups in....Korea...um sent troops in....Vietnam..felt bad for the frenchies...sent troops in....Kuwait...felt bad...sent troups in...Bosnia....felt bad..sent troops in......Bin Laden...Sent troops in to Afghanistan...Iraq...pissed off because sanctions busted and never finished with Kuwait....sent troops in

See we are the only ones that have the balls to go in...granted sometimes you do it so the world will work right....else we would all be communists...and that just doesnt do much for anyone here....

Blarneystoned out