Hi Bob,

On Wed 2039-Feb-16 13:37, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to RICHARD WEBB:

 RW> I think they were misinterpreting some of what they were
 RW> seeing.  Islamic group members were vocal supporters, and
 RW> some former brotherhood members as well from what I"ve read
 RW> since, but they all say the same thing.  Ideology has no
 RW> place in this, we've got to get changes made for the
 RW> benefit of the citizens, then we're going to worry about
 RW> the rest, but this inresponsive government's gotta go.

BK>  That's how I see it. They were lining up against a bad
BK>  government. There is nothing for us to do there, but stand back 
BK> and let it happen.

INdeed, which is what we should have been doing all along
instead of pouring millions in.


BK>>  Iran was no real threat to the US from the beginning. Iran did
BK>> turn to democracy, and even supported the US invasion of
BK>>  Afghanistan and the democratization of Iraq. Bush paid them back
BK>> by kicking them in the teeth. The current regime in Iran came  after
BK>> that.

 RW> EH?  1979-80 didn't look like a friendly democratic regime
 RW> to me.  I grant they were growing that direction.  IN fact,

BK>  By 2001 they were supporting the US in the WOT. However, Bush 
BK> needed enemies more than he needed allies.

MIght be, but still imho appeared to be another despotic
state, iow a theocracy.

 RW> I've argued this for years.  Part of U.S. intervention
 RW> should be the assistance in building a stable
 RW> constitutional democracy.  THat should be an assumption
 RW> going in, and an expectation of those who ask our help.
 RW> Anything else and the troops and equipment stay home.

BK>  Exactly what I am thinking.
That imho is the only justifiable reason for any war which
is not for the purpose of directly defending U.S. teritory.



BK>> Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had
BK>>  successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have
BK>> been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make
BK>> changes.

 RW> RIght, and that one could still blow up even though the
 RW> vote is in.  There's still some pretty bad blood in Sudan.

BK>  Yep. It could. Which is why the US needs to get out of Iraq and 
BK> Afghanisan, so we can have a credible military to support
BK>  democratic govts when the locals establish them.

wHole region is still a powderkeg, and likely to get worse
as climate conditions change.

 RW>> The question is what
 RW>> they'll do if they get their wish.  WIll they work with
 RW>> secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all
 RW>> the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their
 RW>> ISlamic law?  That's the question we should be asking, and
 RW>> keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.

BK>>  That's a question we should ask, but it's not the question that
BK>> should decide our actions at this point. We need to support
BK>> democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our
BK>> needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq  and
BK>> Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us.  It's
BK>> how we lost in Vietnam.

Agreed, to a point.  Local self determination is always
preferrable, but i have the same objections to a "christian" theocracy, or any
other theocracy for that matter.


BK>>  We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people
BK>> there.

 RW> Indeed, that should be the biggest factor in our decision.

But it rarely is, it's usually commercial interests that
carry the day.

 RW> Agreed, so that's the next question, who's version of
 RW> "islamic " or sharia are we going with?  I wouldn't support
 RW> the Wahhabi version at all.

BK>  Which takes us back to the Wahabi, and the Saudis, being the  prime
BK> source of anti-US terror.

OF course it does, and the ease with which they can coopt
democracy movements over there.

BK>>  Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we  can
BK>> make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own
BK>> religious teachings and traditions.

 RW> Indeed, but there again, what are "our own?"  MOst of us
 RW> granted are Christian in one form or another.  For those of

BK>  This is a Christian culture, even for those who are not
BK>  Christians themselves.
Essentially yes.

 RW> us who are JEwish we have many teachings in common.  But
 RW> then what of the hindus and Buddhists among us?  tHen I'd

BK>  A small fraction, and not near as peaceful and spiritual as they 
BK> are painted.

 RW> venture to say that there are more atheists than one might
 RW> think, they usually choose to keep their beliefs, or should
 RW> I say lack of beliefs silent and hold the one belief

BK>  Worldwide the top belief systems are, Christian, Muslim,
BK>  Unbeliever. And Catholics are the overwhelming majority of
BK>  Christians. IOW, unbelievers are the third largest group. In the 
BK> stats they are divided between atheists and unbelievers. I think 
BK> that's to reduce the apparent numbers.

I would tend to agree with that.  THere is a difference, but that one's hard
to explain to many, of all faiths.  The true atheist has no theology, hence
a-theist.  HE might keep an
open mind however.

 RW> publicly which states that your religious beliefs are your
 RW> own business and between you and whatever you perceive your
 RW> ggod to be.  Although I was raised Christian I turned my
 RW> back on all of it as a young man, and learned soon after
 RW> doing so the advisability of just keeping my mouth shut and
 RW> avoiding religious pomp and ceremony whenever possible.

BK>  True. And now the evangelical extremists are becoming a danger  to
BK> this country. Read up on the Millitary Religious Freedom 
BK> Foundation.

I have, in fact I've read up on those isues for years.  My
period of ahteism sensitized me quite a bit to those issues. See the tagline.

BK>>  Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious
BK>> traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient
BK>> ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of
BK>>  Islamic fundamentalism.

 RW> YOu got that right!!!    What are we talking here?
 RW> 14th amendment if I'm right (first cup of coffee) and
 RW> proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

BK>  See the tagline.

NOted, cruel doesn't become unusual once practiced.

Regards,
           Richard
...   RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM A THREAT ABROAD, A THREAT AT HOME
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)