Pope's quote/comments on Islam

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Even if I agreed with all that, which I don't, it doesn't have anything to do with these facts:

1. We have an economic interest in the area.
2. We have a moral interest in people everywhere enjoying peace and prosperity.

In fact, the second point appears amplified by your analysis.

You really think that the 'moral interest' goes any farther than rhetoric, especially when you look back at our foriegn policy? We've backed more than our fair share of dictators and we continue to do so when we find it convenient to our interests. One needs only to look at Saudi Arabia.

Realistically, we are in the Middle East because the ME has oil. That is NOT to say the war was fought over oil. But, I think everyone has to admit that no one would give a flying fuck about the ME if they had no oil. We wouldn't need to have friendly governments in the region, wouldn't need to ensure stability (then again, taking out Saddam kind of messed that up), etc.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You really think that the 'moral interest' goes any farther than rhetoric, especially when you look back at our foriegn policy? We've backed more than our fair share of dictators and we continue to do so when we find it convenient to our interests. One needs only to look at Saudi Arabia.

Realistically, we are in the Middle East because the ME has oil. That is NOT to say the war was fought over oil. But, I think everyone has to admit that no one would give a flying fuck about the ME if they had no oil. We wouldn't need to have friendly governments in the region, wouldn't need to ensure stability (then again, taking out Saddam kind of messed that up), etc.

Agree with your second point (more or less), but your first point has nothing to do with what I was saying. What I am saying is not that we claim a moral interest, but that we HAVE a moral interest, regardless of what anybody says.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

1. We have an economic interest in the area.
2. We have a moral interest in people everywhere enjoying peace and prosperity.

In fact, the second point appears amplified by your analysis.

Whose morals are we talking about here? What we are doing in the Middle East goes completely against my morals.

Face it, we really could care less about their well-being. As long as they keep selling us cheap oil, that's all that matters. That's always been our stance towards the Middle East. If we are so concerned with peace and prosperity, why don't we leave these nations alone to deal with their own problems instead of sticking our nose in and screwing things up? And why are we only concerned with the Middle East? Why does Africa get the cold shoulder? Or the rest of Asia?

[Dutch]

As long as they keep selling us cheap oil

I would say that is an overstatement of "As long as they keep trading fairly."

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Face it, we really could care less about their well-being.

Speak for yourself.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Why would they feel inferior to us? Are they jealous of our culture, that they view as shallow and evil? Why would they care about the economic differences? They don't value the same things that we do. Do they really want a 42" HDTV?

The answer is obvious to me and I wonder if its because I did not clearly delineate something ... Just for clarification purposes, in my replies, I've made a distinction between extremist Muslim and Muslims in general. If I do not explicitly state etremist Muslims ... assume the latter.

The reply above was to a statement made about Muslims in general. Yes, I do believe, in general, on average Muslims care about the economic differences (of course!) and do want our 42" HDTVs (or fully stocked grocery selling all sorts of foodstuff at reasonable prices). This is obvious to me.

I know that people in this thread don't think history matters, but remember how long the West has been interfering in the Middle East. They have experienced hundreds of years of repression (sometimes violent) at the hands of the West. They've been told that they aren't as good as Westerners and have had to suffer at the hands of violent dictators who were installed by the West (yes, including Saddam Hussein).

You're right that the West has repressed these ME countries. The West has repressed Malaysia (Muslim), China (Buddist), India (Hindu et al), South Africa (?), other sub-Saharan African countries (?).

Do these countries blame the West for their problems?

The answer is yes to a certain degree and scale, but not to the extent we get from the ME.

So the question is why not? Probably a combination of factors (1) economic prosperity (or the vision of it) (2) education (3) lack of religious figures inciting it (4) et al/

And now we come along and tell them that we're going to make it all right, since they obviously can't do it themselves. We overthrow the same dictator we helped install and then set up a government that suits our needs, not theirs

I assume we are talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan as the latter does not fit your description. Where's the kudos for Afghanistan?

I do not believe we helped install Saddam. We did help him fight in the Iran/Iraq war.

Your last sentence is interesting and I would like to explore that more. Before doing so, can you define what 'government that suits their needs' would be?

Instead of hiring Iraqis to repair the country we rely almost entirely on American companies. What kind of message does this send? American troops set up camp in Saddam's old palaces. Again, what kind of message does this send? And throughout out it all, we tell them that this is for their own good. It's okay that thousands of innocent Iraqis died because freedom is really what the Iraqis want. We know this because we said so.

Blatently unfair. Lets assume post war Iraq was like what GWB hoped for. Sure there would have been a US company(ies) taking the lead, but clearly Iraqi citizens would have prospered working for them, repairing the country.

If (and unfortunately not the case) there was peace in post war Iraq, this paragraph is moot.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I would say that is an overstatement of "As long as they keep trading fairly."

Fair according to whom? As soon as they start making noise about raising oil prices, we get all in a huff and start pressuring them to back down.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Speak for yourself.

Do you speak for the rest of the US when you say "We have a moral interest in people everywhere enjoying peace and prosperity"? The only time I have ever heard anyone mention something like this was once it became clear to everyone that Iraq didn't have WMDs and the administration was scrambling for ways to justify the invasion.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yes, I do believe, in general, on average Muslims care about the economic differences (of course!) and do want our 42" HDTVs (or fully stocked grocery selling all sorts of foodstuff at reasonable prices). This is obvious to me.

It might be obvious to you, but it's wrong. You're looking at this from the wrong angle. Don't confuse our values with theirs. Their culture is completely different from ours, and until we realize that, nothing will ever change.

You're right that the West has repressed these ME countries. The West has repressed Malaysia (Muslim), China (Buddist), India (Hindu et al), South Africa (?), other sub-Saharan African countries (?).

Do these countries blame the West for their problems?

The answer is yes to a certain degree and scale, but not to the extent we get from the ME.

So the question is why not? Probably a combination of factors (1) economic prosperity (or the vision of it) (2) education (3) lack of religious figures inciting it (4) et al/

Have we repressed China, India, etc.? If so, not nearly to the scale ( ) of the ME. Have we orchestrated coups to overthrow popularly elected officials in China? Have we really interfered with India's affairs?

On the other hand, look at Central and South America, where he have always imposed our will. There is quite a lot of animosity towards the US. Just look at Chavez.

I assume we are talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan as the latter does not fit your description. Where's the kudos for Afghanistan?

Do you really consider Afghanistan a success?

I do not believe we helped install Saddam. We did help him fight in the Iran/Iraq war.

"Concerned about Qassim's growing ties to Communists, the CIA gave assistance to the Ba'ath Party and other regime opponents.[4]Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...#Rise_to_power

Your last sentence is interesting and I would like to explore that more. Before doing so, can you define what 'government that suits their needs' would be?

I don't know what form of government would best suit the Iraqi people, but the current government was written under the supervision of the US. Basically, the US told the Iraqis what kind of government was best for them and they had better follow along.

Blatently unfair. Lets assume post war Iraq was like what GWB hoped for. Sure there would have been a US company(ies) taking the lead, but clearly Iraqi citizens would have prospered working for them, repairing the country.

If (and unfortunately not the case) there was peace in post war Iraq, this paragraph is moot.

The administration was convinced that resistance would be minimal, right? So why were they handing out rebuilding contracts even before Saddam fell to American companies? If they were so convinced that they could trust Iraqis, why not give them business? Why were Americans flooding into Iraq before Saddam fell?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Do you speak for the rest of the US when you say "We have a moral interest in people everywhere enjoying peace and prosperity"?

I believe our nation has such a responsibility. It's a minority opinion, but in my case it's not a new one.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I assume we are talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan as the latter does not fit your description. Where's the kudos for Afghanistan?

Afghanistan has to count as a success (even considering the fuck-up at Tora Bora), and I doubt many would many challenge that. It remains to be seen whether the new government will hold; things have taken a bad turn lately. But the primary mission was to kill or capture Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and if I recall correctly it has been reported that 85% of them were killed or captured. The goal was to retaliate against those who had directly attacked the United States, and the mission was accomplished. Kudos.

I do not believe we helped install Saddam. We did help him fight in the Iran/Iraq war.

This is partially correct. The CIA did help to bring the Ba'ath party to power in Iraq. They were, of course, worried that Iraq was going to go Commie, and that the Ba'athists could prevent that. At the time Saddam wasn't running the show. Then, as you noted, the US did provide support during the Iran/Iraq war, including authorizing the sale WMD's to Iraq. Similar things happened throughout the Middle East during the Cold War... It was a playbox for the CIA and the Soviets to fight their proxy wars. In the final analysis these actions may or may not have been necessary to the successful conclusion of the Cold War, but even they were justified in that sense, there were a lot of people who were badly used by both sides in the Cold War, and a lot of injuries were inflicted that have not been forgotten.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, my stance is that even where it effective at retrieving information, it would still be unwarranted. Sometimes doing the right thing is painful.

I do understand that there are some hypothetical scenarios which really do paint a challenging picture.

I was listening to NPR who was interviewing Clinton about torture.

This is all paraphrasing and apologize if I miss some nuances, but basically ...

Clinton said that GWB should not try to 'allow' torture in general by removing restrictions (ex. on torture). In the best case scenario (ex. the hypothetical scenarios of impending attacks etc), setup a specific law for that on a case by case basis. He used the example of AQ #2. If we picked him up and we believe he knew things, 'bang him up' to get the information after GWB specifically signs off on it. If it was that important to 'bang up' AQ #2, then its important enough for GWB to be accountable for it.

I like this compromise. Use it if you absolutely need to, but know that you will be accountable for it.

[Edward64]

It might be obvious to you, but it's wrong. You're looking at this from the wrong angle. Don't confuse our values with theirs. Their culture is completely different from ours, and until we realize that, nothing will ever change

Their culture is different. I would contend their parents want the same for their children as Western parents want - peace, prosperity, stability, religious tolerance etc.

I'm still trying to understand why something obvious to me is not obvious to you. Its not because you believe I am referring only to Muslim extremists. Do you believe I think 'on average Muslims only care about ...'. I naturally don't mean 'only', I really mean they 'care'.

Have we repressed China, India, etc.? If so, not nearly to the scale ( ) of the ME. Have we orchestrated coups to overthrow popularly elected officials in China? Have we really interfered with India's affairs?

Nope, but certainly Great Britian (ex. the West). Maharaja's would say differently.

On the other hand, look at Central and South America, where he have always imposed our will. There is quite a lot of animosity towards the US. Just look at Chavez.

Can you show me some statistics that shows alot of animosity towards US before Chavez? Or was Chavez (substitue extremist Mullahs) inciting this animosity?

I'm pretty sure Panama, El Savador, Mexico historically held alot of animosity but they have worked past it and now tolerate/like us.

Do you really consider Afghanistan a success?

Yes. I would like to understand why you do not?

"Concerned about Qassim's growing ties to Communists, the CIA gave assistance to the Ba'ath Party and other regime opponents.[4]Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...#Rise_to_power

Sorry, faulty logic. There is at least 1 degree of separation plus 24-25 yrs (EDIT: 14-15 yrs) inbetween. I accept keeping Saddam in power during Iran/Iraq but you should concede 'installing Saddam' is not accurate.

I don't know what form of government would best suit the Iraqi people, but the current government was written under the supervision of the US. Basically, the US told the Iraqis what kind of government was best for them and they had better follow along.

I accept this because its hard for me to define also. However, I can't really have a constructive discussion with you if we cannot define what should have been Scenario B. Without Scenario B, I can't analyze and couterpoint which might have been the better scenario.

The administration was convinced that resistance would be minimal, right? So why were they handing out rebuilding contracts even before Saddam fell to American companies? If they were so convinced that they could trust Iraqis, why not give them business?

My quote said the US company(ies) would take the lead and bring in Iraqi citizens. I think that is a reasonable initial plan and then 'transition'. Unfortunately, 'transition' is stuck.

Why were Americans flooding into Iraq before Saddam fell?

I didn't know this, can you add a link. I would like to understand the context (and scale) of this before answering.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Agree with your second point (more or less), but your first point has nothing to do with what I was saying. What I am saying is not that we claim a moral interest, but that we HAVE a moral interest, regardless of what anybody says.

If we have a 'moral interest', we sure as Hell don't act upon it. I like the idea of trying to spread democracy to the ME, but when we embrace Saudi Arabia that whole argument rings hollow.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If we have a 'moral interest', we sure as Hell don't act upon it. I like the idea of trying to spread democracy to the ME, but when we embrace Saudi Arabia that whole argument rings hollow.

I don't disagree with this. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is incredibly embarrasing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't disagree with this. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is incredibly embarrasing.

ISiddiqui and st.cronin. Not sure I disagree but would like to understand more from you. Your exchange dealt with morality (ex. not secular, political etc.).

Why is our current relationship with Saudi Arabia embarrassing?

My initial thoughts are: I don't view them any more or less moral than any other consitutional (or is it parlimentary) monarchy or benevolent dictatorship.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

ISiddiqui and st.cronin. Not sure I disagree but would like to understand more from you. Your exchange dealt with morality (ex. not secular, political etc.).

Why is our current relationship with Saudi Arabia embarrassing?

My initial thoughts are: I don't view them any more or less moral than any other consitutional (or is it parlimentary) monarchy or benevolent dictatorship.

It is illegal to be Jewish in Saudi Arabia. They have done as much as any state in the region to exacerbate the various tensions. But they, by which I mean the royal Saudi family, pretend to be our friends, so we tolerate them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

ISiddiqui and st.cronin. Not sure I disagree but would like to understand more from you. Your exchange dealt with morality (ex. not secular, political etc.).

Why is our current relationship with Saudi Arabia embarrassing?

My initial thoughts are: I don't view them any more or less moral than any other consitutional (or is it parlimentary) monarchy or benevolent dictatorship.

Well, I don't consider our relationship with Saudi Arabia to be embarrassing (that was st. cronin's view). But I'm more of a realist in international relations terms. HOWEVER, our relationship with Saudi Arabia IS embarrasing if you decide the goal of US foriegn policy is to spread democracy by any means possible, including force (ie, neo-conservatism). Consider Saudi Arabia is not anything close to a democracy and won't be for a looooong time, embracing them while campaigning for democracy just serves to undermine any moral claim that we are interested in spreading democracy.

Also, morally speaking, Saudi Arabia has an abysmal human and civil rights record as it concerns its citizens and guest workers. Also it is a theocracy (all citizens must be Muslim and it runs itself according to the Quran [or at least it's interpretation of the Quran] and Sharia). Values antithetical to stated American ones.

[Edward64]

Speaking about Rushdie, the Sunday AJC had a quote from him

It wasn't always like this -- this religion of permanent outrage. This isn't the religion I grew up with.

I know the phrase "permanent outrage" is simplistic but rings true for me.

[sterlingice]

Well, I'm not sure how I feel about this. At least it's a non-violent way to deal with the problem but clearly the gulf is widening between the two sides.

Muslims To Boycott All Pope Merchandise

KARACHI, PAKISTAN—In what appears to be the latest sign of a widening gulf between the Muslim world and the West, Islamic leaders upset over Pope Benedict XIV's recent controversial remarks about the nature of their religion are urging the Muslim faithful to boycott any and all products bearing the Pope's seal of approval.

"We are sending a message to Rome that they cannot insult the prophet, may Allah's blessings be upon him, and if they do, we will close our hearts and our pocketbooks to their extensive line of retail products," said Pakistani cleric Sheikh Othman Malik, who spoke to an estimated crowd of 10,000 in downtown Karachi Monday. "Our only recourse is to refuse to buy anything—be it candles, incense, Pope Oaties breakfast cereal, Popeshine shampoo, or Craftspope-brand power tools—and, by destroying consumer confidence, bring the worshipper of the cross and all his subsidiaries to their knees."

Added Malik, "We must remind everyone that it is the oppressed buyer who makes the Roman Catholic Church the second-largest manufacturer of consumer goods in the world."

Although the Karachi protest was mostly peaceful, a downtown Stop N' Pope grocery store's windows were smashed, and in the northwest suburbs a fiberglass statue of the Mitre Man mascot was reportedly seized from a Vatican Tires outlet and set ablaze.

ValuPope Super Centers are bracing for the boycott spearheaded by Sheikh Othman Malik.

"We will not rest," said protester Ibrahim Meghwar, standing behind a burning pile of Pople magazines. "Not in our La-Z-Pope reclining chairs or even in our Popesturepedic beds!"

Despite the Pope's record earnings of $42 billion in sales in 2005, an effective and well-coordinated Muslim boycott could spell trouble for the Vatican City–based domestic-products giant and religion. Although the majority of its customers are Christian, a growing 19 percent are Muslim.

"There's no question about the Church's solvency, but a concerted effort by this important retail base could significantly affect the Vatican's yearly outlook," Goldman-Sachs retail analyst Jennifer Blaisdell said. "If it happens, Pope Benedict is going to have to answer to the Cardinals in the boardroom."

"A boycott will mean great sacrifice," Cairo protester Zahoor Ismail said. "My wife will have to buy our children's back-to-madrasah clothing from somewhere besides ValuPope, and we will put off buying that PopeScan 30-inch TV we've been saving up for. But as devout Muslims, it is our duty to reject these material goods and turn inward, to our own righteous manufacturers of affordable, quality products."

While the Vatican would remain strong in the Western processed-food market with its popular Pope-Ums sliced-mackerel sandwich fixings and Dios Mio Frozen Enchilada Dinners, a boycott could all but shut down the Church's Levantine Foods division, which produces the popular Jiffy-Pope Microwave Falafel Mix, currently a top seller throughout the Arab world.

In addition, PVC pipe, aluminum siding, and fiberglass insulation produced by the Church's building-materials arm, PopeDepot Inc., could also face the threat of drastically reduced sales in Muslim countries.

Some Muslims, however, are reluctant to join such a sweeping boycott. "I am a Muslim warrior, and I will gladly take to the streets in wrathful indignation," Malaysian-born Montreal resident Ridhuan Amir said. "But papal products mean higher quality. He may be the great infidel, but the fact is, he makes the best odor-absorbing scoopable cat litter on the market."

Hoping to quell the crisis, the Vatican released a statement expressing regret over the Pope's remarks and reaffirmed his respect for the Islamic faith in his goods, announcing plans to offer its own line of long-burning Li'l Benedict effigy dolls, with prices starting at $39.95.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/53595

SI

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Afghanistan has to count as a success (even considering the fuck-up at Tora Bora), and I doubt many would many challenge that. It remains to be seen whether the new government will hold; things have taken a bad turn lately. But the primary mission was to kill or capture Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and if I recall correctly it has been reported that 85% of them were killed or captured. The goal was to retaliate against those who had directly attacked the United States, and the mission was accomplished. Kudos.

Tell our Canadian soldiers that are coming under attack almost daily that Afghanistan has been a success. The Taliban is flooding back into Afghanistan in the Kandahar area and is more active that ever. Mission not accomplished. Kudos.