Mark, I am always amazed at your very intelligent and worldly interpretations of the events and opinions. It is a great pleasure to find SO Much clear thinking in you and that you are brave enough to express it so freely.
Thank you,
Al-ilahat
Al-ilahat is from Iran and has been living here in Minnesota for the last 40 years or so. She travels back and forth to the Middle East quite frequently and, in the last three years, has been talking to "the person on the street" in various countries in the Middle East quite a bit lately. I consider her to have much more knowledge of the area then I do so I have decided to make her the first official correspondent for Notes From The Front and have given her the opportunity, this week, to post as a guest writer.So, without further adieu, here is a true Note From the Front.
The Language of the Conversation Iraq
The language of the conversation about Iraq needs to change not the course. George Bush has wanted the people of the United States to believe that there is a danger to the United States and that Iraq represents every bit of danger that we face in the world. This is the lie and the total false cover for his personal need to remove Saddam from the picture. Saddam was the Bush family henchman just like Noriega and the Shah of Iran and perhaps even Musharraf if he is not careful. These people were recruited, trained and did all the dirty deeds in the name of “protecting our national interest”. It was a good cover for our arms sales, controlling OPEC, and eavesdropping on the good old Soviet Union.
If Saddam Hussein had been interrogated any more he would have had to admit to the fact that he waged War with Iran war on behalf the Bush family. We have all seen the pictures (left) of Rumsfeld visiting him in Iraq to provide him all the arms, aerial reconnaissance and tactics for that 9 year war. They bombed the oil fields in Southern Iran to retaliate for the Shah for wanting to raise oil prices and getting OPEC unified around him.The language needs to change because the Muslim fanatics are angry with the United States for violating their sacred homeland with our troops. We betrayed them in Afghanistan when they fought the war on our behalf to remove the Soviets and clear the way for more oil pipelines in the region. The language has to change because the Bush family brought on the Islamic power in that region by supporting the Ayatollah Khomeini in to power to topple the Shah. We had seen this type of activity before in Central and South America. Islamicising really back fired and they are stuck. The anger we face from that region is not about jealousy for the "freedom" of the United States. It is about the US imposing what they perceive as being a inherently corrupt system on to them.
The people of the Middle East are hardworking and proud
of their heritage and history. They have always lived with their rules and religious order. They are God fearing and mean it. The United States destroyed that social and moral web and abandoned them. Our modern methods were imposed on them without reason and without basis. The natural evolution of social and political self discovery has been disrupted by our greed and want of control. Much of this has been done in the hands of one Bush or the other. The arrogance and disdain for the humanity of that region had brought on all this hatred. Let’s change the language and call it what it is.I want to end the killing of the people first, Americans, Iraqis, Iranians and others. Any course is better than this.
Al-ilahat
16 comments:
Hey, this is cool. I get to leave a comment on something...groovy, baby.
I think conservatives do an excellent job at manipulating the language of Iraq. Those who post on this blog are prime examples. If President Bush's actions are criticized, then that is just "people hating Bush and not looking at the other side." Reality has taken on a new meaning in the last five years and any sort of ownership or responsibility for mistakes has basically been thrown out the window. Any presentation of facts that disrupt the Bush Agenda are skewered through the lens of lies and in the end....it's the fault of intolerant liberals.
Necons have done a great job of controlling the debate....you can't call Bush stupid, you can't call neocons uninformed or ignorant even though their only source of news is AM 1280, you can't suggest that they read more or learn more because then you are being elitist, you can't look at polls because they don't matter...basically you can't do anything that is even remotely contrary to whatever whim Bush supporters decided they are going to cling to on any given day.
They do a good job of it because they know that liberals, for the most part, are decent enough people that they WILL spend the time on self reflection--questioning things constantly and always thinking critically of themselves and the world--so it's easy for neocons to deflect any criticism through re-direction...making liberals think, falsely so, that the responsiblity lies with them...even though they have been completely out of power for the last four years and have essentially had control over the color of the Congressional toilet paper.
Well, they have control over more than that now...and my oh my....they have actually done something constructive with it. And so have some Republicans...maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
What the hell is going on here? It's bad enough that your write the drivel that you do that only helps the people we are trying to kill.
Now, you put up a post from someone that consorts with the enemy?
I am done with this shit.
I don't mind admitting that I see nothing worldly in much of what you write or in the writings of your guest. Your response is just another episode in the history of angry drivel that does nothing to address issues or solve problems. [Liberals are] questioning things constantly and always thinking critically of themselves might be the most laughable bit yet.
I also didn't see the point of the original posting. Was there a point? Other than the traditional "Americans are bad and have caused all of the world's political turmoil over the past 50 years"? To her credit, your guest does elevate the game one level higher, not only pinning the blame on nameless, faceless America but specifically on the Bush family.
I see nothing worldly about that point of view. I don't begrudge you or her the right to hold that view, or to express it as you desire. But the hubris being disguised as enlightenment and education is really quite tiresome.
Here's a counter point of view...certainly no more enlightened or worldly. The arrogance and disdain that your guest cites is, plain and simple, a reflection of the globalization of free-market societies. The US is, rightfully so, the figurehead in that globalization, although our hold on that position is becoming tenuous at best. Those Middle Eastern countries that now decry the US for invading and occupying their lands shouldn't kid themselves. We don't want colonies. We don't want subjects. We don't want land. We don't want millions of converts to Christianity. We want the oil coming out of the ground. 20 years, 50 years, 100 years from now when everything is powered by leaves or dirt or brain waves, the Middle East will be about as interesting to the US as the Sudan is now. That's not a rip on the people of that region...it's simple fact.
So, to the degree that we need to become involved in that region to ensure that nobody dominates the oil, I will support our involvement. To the extent that our involvement causes conflict with the religion or beliefs of the people of that region, I don't mind telling you which side I want to dominate that conflict.
Well, since I always think critically of myself and question myself, then, according to you, I must not be a liberal. Crab is wrong about something else...sigh...
I would question the premise that you are always critical of yourself and question yourself, not that you are a liberal. Unless I took "critical" to mean something different from what you meant.
HMHC is wrong about many things, although far be it from me to air that laundry list.
First observation - Mark starts the guest post off with a ego-stroking quote. External sources of validation are not required or even necessary when one has a strong internal sense of self-worth.
"Imposing a corrupt system on them"...as opposed to the hunky-dory system they all live under now???? If Islam is ever to peacefully co-exist with other faiths in the manner that Christianity finally learned how to do, then it has to start abiding questions and criticisms without resorting to violence. Islam has to learn to persuade and to attract people through reason, not through forced conversions and coexistence through violent supremacy. Muslim leaders around the world still believe that the US and Israel can only exist at their sufferance, and any question of their doctrinal beliefs has to be met with violence or demands for apologies, not with rhetoric, facts, and reason.
I don’t really feel like enabling that to continue. We must demand that somebody in a position of power over there renounce violence and intimidation. When you apologize and retreat, they understand that as a triumph for their religion, a victory won with force and threats rather than through intellectual engagement. This encourages more of the same IMO.
There is an article in the end-of-the-year edition of Newsweek International called "Iraq's Economy is Booming" by Silvia Spring. It notes that real estate prices have gone up several hundred percent since the fall of Saddam Hussein; that Iraqi workers' salaries have increased more than 100 percent during the same period; that the number of cars in Baghdad has grown by 500 percent; that the Iraqi construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are growing substantially; that the number of registered businesses has increased four fold in three years; that taxes are lower and government revenue higher; that the Kurdish region is booming; that Iraq's GDP grew by 17 percent in 2005, with 2006 growth projected at 13 percent by the Global Insight firm (and 4 percent by the World Bank); and that foreign investment from neighboring countries is pouring in. Stephan Perkins even told me about all the satellite dishes that are being purchased. So, taking into account both the level of violence and the economy, is Iraq better off now than it was under Saddam? If you're a Sunni living in a mixed neighborhood in Baghdad, no. If you're a Shiite living in such a neighborhood, probably not. But if you're a Shiite living in the south or a Kurd living in the north, then you're almost certainly much better off now.
Yeah, Americans are all gullable. That's how we managed to become the world's superpower in under 200 years while the Arab world ruled by muslims has floundered at best for the last 13 centuries.
I love hearing all the analysis of how conservatives arrive at their conclusions. Notice that you never, ever hear the same analysis of how muslims arrive at their conclusions...people just say "They hate us" and move on.
As I've said before, notice that in the Koran, the 2nd most used word after Allah is ilm, which means knowledge. In the Koran it urges followers to seek out as much knowledge as possible.
It is important to note that when Muslims talk about knowledge, they are talking about the "revealed" knowledge and not the scientific knowledge that has given birth to our civilization. The people who possess this Ilm are called Ulama. But Ulama does not mean scientists. It means religious scholars. Islam does not encourage the learning of science. Islamic languages don't have even a proper word for it. Islam encourages religious learning. This is what Muhammad meant when he said "seek knowledge". Seeking knowledge in Islam, means memorizing the Quran and the hadith and listening to whatever nutjob Iman at the local mosque is ranting about today...and Markadelphia is on here trying to tell us that the main problem is with the AM1280 listeners. If they would only listen to Air America, they would all vote democrat and we'll be closer to that light at the end of the tunnel.
This is the default mechanism of many liberals – they lash out at anyone who disagrees with them. They tell the other side that they are not educated enough or smart enough to know better. One of the favorite strategies is to say "Have you ever read a book on (fill in name of discipline)?", thinking that whoever they are talking to will be intimidated by their superior intellect and that they have "learned" the answer in the hope that the people they are debating will just go away. That is what one does when does not have the high ground. You claim to not like "being muzzled" yet you use language such as "intolerant", "uptight asshole", "murderer", "uninformed" and "ignorant" to describe people on the other side...that is the way you try to muzzle people (it’s just more subtle).
What sounds good in theory frequently is a complete failure in reality and knowing a lot of facts and sounding sophisticated is not the same as having a genuine understanding. I’m not saying you don’t look at the other side, I’m saying that far too many people look at the impact of a decision rather than the possible consequences of the opposite decision. Once you give in to demands and pull everything out of the middle east, what will you do when muslims come back with more demands?
It’s amazing that so many people are afraid to call themselves "liberal". The list of things Mark advocates is pretty much the liberal agenda. The conservatives who post here have no problem referring to themselves as conservatives.
While the author of your guest piece may want to end the killing, that is NOT the position of the leaders of Iran at this point in time. The ideal your guest ends her piece with is a departure from the reality we face today. One fact about our modern society exists – no democratic society has ever gone to war with another democratic society.
I thought the first line was just a nice commment...I don't need anyone to tell me that I am intelligent, clear thinking or worldly...I know I am.
Christianity finally knows how to peacfully co-exist? Please excuse while I laugh my fucking ass off until next the end of time. What fucking planet do you live on, dude? Our country, a "Christian nation" is one the most violent ones on the planet. On average, we murder each other at the rate of 15,000 people a year. We maim, on purpose, at a rate much higher than that. We raise our fists in the air and yell "YEAH" when people are executed.
There are many people in the world that view Christianity as being EVERYTHING you describe in your first paragraph about Islam. So, according to you, they are...what..all wrong? Since you are so "open minded" why don't you take a look at how we are perceived by other cultures?
You also completely contradict yourself by saying that Islam must renounce violence like we have (barf) but then you say that all they understand IS violence so we have to keep pummeling them. Can't you see the complete illogic in your argument?
I believed I happily defined the word liberal in my last column so I don't quite know where the fear thing is coming from....except to say that I don't like to be put in a box and expected to believe everything one side tells me and none of what the other says....that's you not me.
On the more personal stuff, if you call "lashing out" pointing out alternative knowledge then I guess I lash out. I don't want you to be intimidated. I want you to go out and read a fucking book, newspaper, web site that was not written by Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh. In fact, why don't you spend one full week getting your news exlusively from reading...doesn't matter where or who but it would be nice if you chose a balance of views. I don't want you to go away or "lose" the argument...I want you to strive to become a person of knowledge.
Ditto....except for the vulgarity....mark, please, enough already.
Gang bang, when was the last time you seriously took a look at our country and how violent it is? Until we can change our own attitude, it is extremly arrogant of us to tell other countries what to do.
I'm not even sure why I'm replying to you two since you both have yet to reply to my question of how Iran is supposed to help is stop the violence in Iraq (Marks view) when they are benefiting from the violence in Iraq (Truthgirls view).
When I say "peacefully co-exist", that means with our neighboring countries. I'm not sure how you could read that any other way. I'm well aware that we live in a violent nation. I'm not talking about your average carjacker or gang member (who I would not associate with Christianity in any way like you have). So are you associating Christianity with, say, the black people in Minneapolis who shoot pizza delivery drivers?
Christians are NOT flying airplanes into Mecca because of Jesus.
When I say violence, I mean suicide bombings, terrorist kidnappings, calling for beheadings of people who insult Islam, etc. So now it's considered "arrogant" to expect people to stop suicide bombings?
I have no control over how we are perceived by other cultures. That's their problem.
So vulgarity, insults, calling people intolerant, saying they are stupid, uninformed, etc is considered "pointing out alternative knowledge"?
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh...I work during the day. I listened to him the other day when I was driving to the chinese buffet for lunch but that was the first time in 5 months. Michael Savage has been saying for months (since August of last year) that George Bush is the worst president ever. Who's the uninformed one now?
You could care less where I get my news from...you've made it perfectly clear that one has to arrive at the exact same conclusion you do or else they are an uninformed, intolerant kool-aid drinker. Don't worry - I'm not intimidated one bit and never have been.
Respectfully, Truthgirl, I don't really view it as being an issue of telling other countries what to do as much as I see it being an issue of telling other countries what not to do. This isn't the world that we read about in history books. It isn't a world where we can all join hands, sing Kumbaya, and expect everyone's problems to be solved. Unlike at any point in history some very bad things can happen to a great many people because God or Allah or The Devil or a little green leprechaun told some nutjob to get his hands on a weapon. Frankly, I don't care who you are, what color you are, to whom you pray, how often you pray, or if you don't pray at all....toe the line, or you're going to get to meet your god sooner than you might have imagined.
If that's arrogant, wicked, evil, ....well, I've never been concerned with being perceived as any of those.
Michael Savage....look up 'dramatic irony' in the dictionary and you might just stumble across that little exchange right there.
I do think that the absence of democracy in the Middle East poses a threat to the U.S. in the post 9/11 environment which is why I seek to promote the spread of democracy in that region. My desire to promote it there is proportionate to the extent that its absence seems to threaten us (going back again – are you all 100% sure they will leave us alone should we depart from the middle east?).
I fully acknowledge that for decades, American policy in the Middle East centered on supporting pro-American regimes, even when those governments were barbaric and unpopular. What makes my “policy” in the region a sharp departure from the past is precisely the fact that my only criteria to which governments are expected to be pro-American is that they neither support nor spawn terrorism. Democracy in Muslim countries will, no doubt, result in the election of some governments that are unfriendly both to American culture and to American foreign policy aims. As long as those governments are not starting wars or spawning terrorism, I will be satisfied. I don’t care if muslim countries like us – I’d like for them to have the freedom to ignore us (my ideal).
I read in the Wall Street Journal (which I do often as there is a copy in our lunch room every day along with the Star Trib…betcha didn’t know that!!!!!) that there are currently 13 or so “conflicts” in the world where people are fighting each other. Every one of them involves muslims who can’t get along with a neighboring country. THAT’S what I was talking about when I spoke about renouncing violence, not the criminals who fill up our US prison system.
As PL just stated, world peace is an ideal and an ideal is a departure from reality.
I thought I did answer your question on Iran but if you like I will answer it again.
You follow the recommendations of the ISG group to the letter which includes sitting down at table with Iran and Syria. You ask Iran and Syria for help stabilizing Iraq. They will say no. We will then have their "no" on record and can say, "Well, at least we tried." You have to put them in a position of looking like they are the obstinate ones....in the world's eyes...because right now we look like that.
If they say yes (unlikely), then you have their influence with the Shite militias and factions that are on the one side of the civil war.
That is exactly what James Baker said in his news conference when asked about Iran and Syria and I agree with him. You'll have to excuse me if I take his word and knowledge over yours but I believe the man does know a thing or two about international politics.
Oh, wait, sorry. That's right, I forgot. It is forbidden to say that someone knows more than someone else....how about experience? He has more than you do and a heckva a lot more than W. So, that's why I am going with his policies.
What is truly sad is that this troop surge will fail and when I bring this point up to you, the sarge, and PL, I will get a litany about how the failure is the fault of the media, liberals, and how I'm just not open minded enough.
Hey Mark,
Put something up about Michelle Bachmann's bizarre mugging of President Bush.
Lone,
Good timing. I was already on it. Check out above.
So what do you do when you sit down with the Iranians and the Syrians, they say "yes, we'll help", but then they actually don't help? Have the UN send them a strongly-worded letter of condemnation? I'm quite certain that neither nation is overly concerned with appearing to be the obstinate one.
But PL, you have to play the game and we aren't even doing that right now. A wonderful example of how diplomcay work is the movie "13 Days" which chronicles the Cuban Missle Crisis. Back then, we had a president who worked problems from every possible angle with the smartest group of people there to help him out who were all acting in the best interests of our country.
Currently we have a president who doesn't care for diplomacy, acts in the interest of oil shills and the military industrial complex, is acting contrary to the will of the people, and has no intellectual curiosity.
This is all moot anyway because the day Iran gets a nuclear weapon is the day that Israel bombs them.
Post a Comment