Hi Bob,

On Sun 2039-Feb-13 17:01, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to RICHARD WEBB:



BK>  I can't see why Muslim on Chriatian violence would have anything 
BK> at all to do with the revolution. I wonder if anti-Islam people  are
BK> playing this up. Or supporters of the (now former) dicator. 

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



 RW> This is also true.  I'd like to come right out and support
 RW> a democracy movement over there, meaning that whole part of
 RW> the world, but so far what I"ve seen with "popular"
 RW> revolutions is something like Iran.

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.

EH?  1979-80 didn't look like a friendly democratic regime
to me.  I grant they were growing that direction.  IN fact,
iirc Iran did make some pretty bold steps toward democracy
way back when and the U.S> helped tip that one over to
install the shah.

 RW> THIs libertarian did
 RW> *not* support the Bush doctrine, I don't support in any way
 RW> propping up repressive governments with troops or money.
 RW> Not a dime, not a drop of American blood.  LET those people
 RW> all kill each other in the name of their religion.

BK>  Let those government all be told, if they require US
BK>  intervention, the price will be democracy. Any dictatorship that 
BK> requires the US to intervene against an invader will find it  self a
BK> democracy afterwards. Under US guarantee, so they can't  expect to
BK> come back afterwards.

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

 RW>> Acknowledged and agreed.  You notice in the joint committee
 RW>> report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,

 RW> DOn't think I ever have, but read widely on the subject
 RW> over the years, the history is quite plain to anyone who
 RW> bothers to acquire real information.

BK>  Oh, yeah. If you follow it for years you see what is unknown is 
BK> really obvious, but you have to pay attention.

OF course you do, and you have to seek it out because it
isn't available to you via the talking heads on cnn and Fox
news.

 RW> OF course not, and that's why I have my doubts about this
 RW> "groundswell for democracy" even though articles I've read
 RW> just yesterday, NEw YOrk TImes large type weekly dated iirc
 RW> last Friday stated the MB wants to see Mubarak ousted first
 RW> then see what comes from there.

BK>  Mubarak has been torturing leaders of the MB. So they want him 
BK> gone in any case. I don't doubt the groundswell for democracy, 
BK> mostly because it started with Tunisia and has spread from
BK>  there. It exploded so fast I don't believe the MB had even a 
BK> chance to understand what was happening. No one did.

WAs sort of a bolt from the blue .

BK>  Not only was it unpredicted, I doubt it could have been
BK>  predicted by any reasonable process. Sudan had had trouble for a 
BK> long time, but the seperation of the South was voted this year. 
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.

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



 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.

INdeed, but there are valid concerns there as well.  But you could add Iran to
that other example, the installation of
the Shah and the overthrow of a government with popular
support.  The Shah wouldn't have been able to take power if
not for the U.S.

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

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

BK>  BTW, the idea that Islamic law is bad is something to wonder at. 
BK> There is little if anything in Islamic law that isn't also in 
BK> Jewish and Christian law. Cutting off people's hands and
BK>  beheading them is not Islamic, it's Arabic. And it's also found  in
BK> Christian history. As is stoning. Which comes from the Jewish 
BK> tradition.

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



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.

Indeed, but there again, what are "our own?"  MOst of us
granted are Christian in one form or another.  For those of
us who are JEwish we have many teachings in common.  But
then what of the hindus and Buddhists among us?  tHen I'd
venture to say that there are more atheists than one might
think, they usually choose to keep their beliefs, or should
I say lack of beliefs silent and hold the one belief
publicly which states that your religious beliefs are your
own business and between you and whatever you perceive your
ggod to be.  Although I was raised Christian I turned my
back on all of it as a young man, and learned soon after
doing so the advisability of just keeping my mouth shut and
avoiding religious pomp and ceremony whenever possible.

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.

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

Regards,
           Richard
... Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics.
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)