Some comments below, preceded by "BOB2:"
From: Peter Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror Inline ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Giramma To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [Libertarian] Stop the War FOR Terror From: Peter A lot of it is history. Everyone seems to forget longer term history where Judao Christian countries were not that free. Inquisition anyone? just to name one..... BOB: Ancient history. None of us live in those times. The US did not exist during the Inquisition, Crusades, Islamic conquest of the Middle East and southern Europe, etc. It's academic. History repeats itself. The fact that it is old (I dont believe its acient) does not matter. Your assertation was one of religious basis. The Iniquisition is at least as bad as what you see now, given the actual impact and the fact that they didnt have the technology we do today, you might say it was worse. Want something more recent? How about Chavez? Cuba? Haiti? Soviet Union? All of those peoples were/are dominantly Christian. Oh I forgot one, Nazi Germany. BOB2: Chavez is a socialist and claims to be a Catholic, but NewsMax reports, "The Catholic Church has been one of the most critical voices against the leftist Venezuela president, who has in the past called the church leadership a "tumor." Fidel Castro is an atheist, as were the Soviet leaders. Gorbachev recently claimed he did not crush the revolt violently because of his Christian beliefs. I have never seen any evidence that Hitler was religious, but I did read something claiming he intended to create a religion of the state. BOB: Wasn't it mostly the British and French that carved up the Ottoman Empire and installed dictators and kings? I don't recall reading about the US being involved. Many British and French intellectuals even today say the The ones careved up post WW1 were British and French. However post WW2 the Americans were everywhere and in each of those countries heavily messed with since as well. The Americans were all over Cyprus, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt..... You should check out Charlie Wilson's war, Legacy of Ashes, just for two starters. Arabs are incapable of democratic self-government. Of course, they may be trying to rationalize their own post-war actions. They are full of BS. Libertarian ideals alone should let you know that its a basic human instinct and anyone is capable of this. They said that about the whole Soviet block too, now look at Poland, Ukraine, and many others. BOB2: I question whether liberty is a universal basic human instinct. Most people seem quite content to sacrifice some personal liberty in exchange for authoritarian rules to prevent their neighbors from doing things they don't like. This is a bigger problems in tribalistic societies like those in the Middle East. Having their own tribe dominate is less important than liberty. Americans are far from perfect, but American culture seems to respect the individual more than what's found elsewhere. BOB: Why was it OK for the Ottomans to dictate over Arabs and other Muslims in the Middle East? Why did the Palestinians not complain when Egypt and Jordan were running Gaza and the West Bank, respectively? Because Egypt and Jordan were not bombing them daily, restricting their movement, cutting off supplies, etc. And because they are Arabs. Would there be a big difference to you if the US capital was in California versus DC? What if was moved to Mexico and the US was now under Mexican rule? People still identify themselves by culture - and do not want to be ruled by other cultures especially. BOB2: So why are the Palestinians bombing the Israelis daily? BOB: I could interpret that as evidence that 21st century Middle East Muslims are not yet as civilized as 18th century Americans, who did a far better job at self-government. Israel suffered a lot more interference than any of them, and it thrives as a free and prosperous society -- without oil. Israel is interfered with? Ha... More like Israel does whatever they want. Israel is rarely interfered with.... 18th century Americans were already self ruling. Give an Arab state self rule without American interference or external pressures of American allies/proxies and it has the same chance to succeed as any Christian nation. BOB2: I seriously doubt that. It has never happened. Americans interfered in Europe, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Latin America, yet those are among the most free parts of the world. I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You might consider that the US interfered to prevent things from getting worse. I see no great call for liberty from the Arab world. BOB: From what my Iranian friends tell me, I doubt "everyone wanted rid of the Shah" at the time. It sounds more like the radical Islamists, who were My best friend left when the Shah was exiled. Some knew what the Ayatollah really was - but most wanted the Shah gone. But some of those were also afraid of the Ayatollah - but those that didnt understand what would happen put in the Ayatollah because they wanted rid of the Shah. You might get Clinton because people want Bush out. Not a 1:1, but you get the point. If the Shah hadn't been installed and held up, there would be no Ayatollah now. BOB2: What would Iran have had instead? I don't know the history. Was the Shah installed and propped up to prevent the Soviets from getting the warm water military port they lacked? subsequently. I bet most Iranians had a lot more freedom under the Shah. Iran was more modern and progressive from what I hear. The Saudi BEFORE the Shah. You are mixing up leaders....It was more under the Shah yes.. but you really need to look before the Shah and also realize why they wanted rid of the Shah. Laden or something similar is the most likely successor. Until very recently, non-Muslims were not allowed in Saudi Arabia (except when they needed help), so it's rare that I meet someone who has been there. Yet the reports I read describe a very backward culture. They wanna party like it's 1399. Your misinformation of the Middle East is really quite extreme. I think you need to expand your horizons beyond reading American news print and talking to other Americans, few of who have been there outside of military duty. Non muslims have been allowed in Saudi for many many years. It's easier to get a Saudi visa for me than an American one (No I'm not muslim). If you need an American visa, all applicants are treated like potential criminals. The Saudi embassy may require BS paperwork, but at least they treat applicants like humans. And as bad as the Saudi border CAN be, I can tell you I've had MUCH worse encouters at the US border, and since 2001 travellers are much more likelky to have trouble at the US border rather then the Saudi one. For Saudi, just dont take alcohol, drugs etc. The US border on the other hand they can just harass you for no reason. BOB2: Regarding non-Muslim visits to Saidi Arabia, I am referring to tourists. From the Lonely Planet: "In 1999, the first high-end tour groups entered the difficult-to-visit nation, but visas remain officially restricted to business travellers, Muslims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, and those few lucky folk able to convince a Saudi national to sponsor their visit." Perhaps the reputable Lonely Planet tour book company is misinformed. My wife is an immigrant from Nepal, a third world country. While it's gotten a bit more difficult for citizens of Nepal to visit the US since 9/11, her friends and relatives still visit quite often. My colleagues from Europe don't seem to have trouble getting here either. I do experience more of a burden reentering the US, but that's a consequence of the Islamist attacks on the US. BOB: And what happens if King Abdullah allows full democracy in Jordan? I hear it's majority Palestinian. Would it become just another territory for the Palestinians to screw up? Arafat did try to murder Abdullah's father, King Hussein, after all. And most of those Palestinians have Jordanian citizenship and like the King. Why? Jordan was one of the ONLY countries to WELCOME the Palestinians and allow them to work, go to school, etc. And they are repeating it with Iraqi refugess. Iraqi refugess still cannto work legally in Jordan, but last year (or maybe year before) the King said all Iraqi refugee children can go to school - even if it over burdens the system, he didn't want to make the situtation worse. BOB2: Good for Abdullah, who BTW was educated in the US and UK, and trained in the UK military. More Western interference. BOB: My interpretation is Turkey functions mostly because Ataturk left a legacy of heavy-handed secularism, which is enforced aggressively by the Turkish military. They use a kinder, gentler, version of religious oppression than that used by Saddam and other Middle East secular dictators. Well kind of. Its much more complex than that. But what is MORE common in all of these countries, much more than the fact that they are Muslim is that they are poor and opressed/interfered with. BOB: Poor? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? The Emirates? Lebanon? (Before the Muslims got the upper hand over the Christians) Most of the 9/11 terrorists were not poor at all. The governments are rich, the people are poor. Only in Kuwait and Emirates do any of the general population have real money. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
