Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
elcid    RE:Grand Strategy   10/5/2004 2:19:07 PM
You have missed the essential difference between a historical imperium and the present world order. While it is true that the USA acts in its own interests (except when it does not), it is not true that it does so in anything like the selfish sense a classical empire does. The USA does not "rule" in the sense an empire does, nor does it have "vassels" in the sense an empire does. Further, the world order is much more collective than, say, a Roman or Chinese empire was. The International Postal Union, one of many such institutions, is not defined nordominated by the USA - but it is a vital and functional part of the world system - and one we respect and defend because it is in our interests to do so. But it is no less in the interests of all civilized nations. And if we have legitimate national security reasons to invade a country such as Afghanistan, we do not for that reason ignore the rights of Afghans, and in fact are empowering them in a sense that would not have occurred had the Taliban remained in control. We don't have to implement democracy to deal with AQ - we choose to do that. Rome would not have done. China would not have done. The USSR would not have done. Even the UK would not have done. Why do you not give us the moral points we diserve? Are you truly anti-American? If so, why? What is wrong with admitting that, had another nation been the world's first atomic power, with its most powerful conventional armed forces (the US in 1945), things might have been very different? But in US politics it was not even an option to think of dominating the world. We didn't choose to, but built a collective system instead. And we defend that system today. Not entirely for our own interests. Do you wish it otherwise? If so, how?
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Grand Strategy   10/5/2004 3:07:27 PM
The reference to death sqauds and torture chambers were to many of the allied governments of the USA: Egypt, Uzbekstan- though one could also mention the out-sourcing of torture by present adminstration as well history of US involvement in central America- but that another story. My point was and is- if the US order in Islamdom is maintained thorugh exercise of 'torture chambers and death squads' which suggests to me at least it does not enjoy much support.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Sarcastic cries for HELP!   10/5/2004 3:16:15 PM
HELP, the US is bringing me to heel by forcing me to live in a democracy. I'm being opressed by a government asking my opinion during elections. I'm losing all my Dutch culture to a bland "Western culture" to the point where you cannot distinguish between me and a Turk, Japanese or a Korean. Please give me the freedom of a fascist dictatorship, where cultural revolution and book burnings will insure cultural survival and where I will not be brought to heel by vile consideration of my opinion.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Grand Strategy- ideology and pragamatims   10/5/2004 3:25:29 PM
I think our differences are based on your belief that ideology and pragmatism are anti-thetical to each other. 1. I could make the rather frivilous point that pragamatism is also the name of distinct (American) philosopy associated with people like James, Dewey and Pierce and Rorty... 2. But more importantly I think the distinction that you to make between ideology on the hand and professionalism/pragamatism itself an ideological distinction. By ideology I simply mean, distinct web of beliefs, valves, and identities. In sense, you have an ideology (much as I do) in that we understand the world through a prism of habits, social conventions, cultural practices and ultimately language itself. The professionalism that you speak about in US foregin policy community is itself coloured by the idea of America its place in the world and its destiny. The neo-cons are simply articulating a set of beliefs which have now become policy: 1. Preventive war 2. Use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states 3. Shift status quo to regime chang... U could argue that these and other changes are due changes post-9-11 this would only hold if you would also believe that only one course of action was availibe to us policy-makers- one this list demonstrates is that is not case- imagine if rpbrooku had been in charge - you can imagine a different set poicies maybe followed. 3. As for Bush denying the US is an empire- he is not alone I think most Americans would also deny the US is an empire. At the same time there many people who would argu that the US is an empire- to settle this question requires a discusion not citations.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Grand Strategy   10/5/2004 3:34:06 PM
Is it anti-democratic to impose democracy?
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Grand Strategy and anti-Americanism   10/5/2004 4:08:57 PM
El Cid I am not sure whether we are not 'talking' past each other. I have not said or believe that US is evil or responsible for the evil in the world or whatever- I simply make that point that US is a country of human beings all humans act for mixed reasons some alturistic and some selfish-- very often selfish reasons are presented as aluturistic. All power requires the exercise of force and law (I mean this metaphorical as sense that is legitimacy maybe a more accurate term). Law without force is impotent, and force without law is just violence. I think the US had until the late 60s, this combination of force and law. American force was considered to be legitimate- that legitimacy for variety of reasons has been eroded. Both the Roman empire and Chinese empire provided public goods, which nearly all empires tend to so if nothing more than bringing order and integrating smaller economies etc. The US is not different in the regard. The US benefits from it role in the world order (how is that American consumers can maintain such high level of debt) why do you need moral points to be award? Why not the US is an empire in the sense of a Great Power, which exercise high degree of influence over the international system. I would be so crude to suggest that everything in the international system is simply a product of American will (IPU is good example, the US inability to win the soccer world cup would another example_ and there many others) but current international system is large extented by US power. If the US had green lighted the Iraqi invasion of Kuiwait- its very likely Kuiwait would be 20th province of a greater Iraq. Regardless of how many UN resolutions were passed. Why do need the affirmation that American empire is good? Why is it argue that American imperium like many other imperium has good and bad aspects to it? Why is considered to be anti-American to say that US is ultimately a polity governed by fallable humans and thus has no special virtue or no special vice? There are millions and millions of people who benefit from American dominance not just in the United States but elsewhere, similary there millions and millions of people who do not benefit from the AMerican system. What is so controvertial about saying that? Considering what often said about other countries and cultures on this list (and I do not include you in this) surely denial of the exceptionality of the US cannot be equated with simple anti-Americanism.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Grand Strategy-different kinds of empire   10/5/2004 4:21:31 PM
I think your picture of the Roman and Chinese empire is rather limited (and I do not mean this in hositle or rude way). There is an interesting distinction made between territorial emprie and hegemonic empires- the Roman empire was hegemonic unitl Augustus when it become terrirorial. The intial inventor of the empire the Assyrian introduced the distinction between territories directly ruled by governors and indirctly ruled. The U.S rules indirectly it has clients and vassal- I think M.Shaw global state is very good in accounting for this. But if you consider that fundamental duty of a state to be able to defend itself one could argue that how many states in the world can de facto exercise that right without American aquicence? Vassal or client rulers have great deal of domestic autonomy but they are in power more because of AMerican support than domestic support- (again I do not mean that without American support they would immeidiately fall- but let say there life would more complicated-). Hegemonic empires rule by influence and clients - territioral empires are not the only template for US.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Thank You All - 60 years ago   10/5/2004 8:51:43 PM
“Allowing the ENEMY to have the initiative and choose the time and place of battle is rarely wise. “ Just exactly why it was a dumb idea to go into and then garrison our troops in Iraq, where jihadis can attack them. Help ones enemies create alliances against oneself is simply stupid.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:rbrooku not engaging the discussion, like not wanting to engage terrorists   10/5/2004 8:58:53 PM
“Oh please, Enlightened One, teach us in the ways of your higher logic. We, who are mere peons can but hope to grasp the complexity of your thought processes.” I can only suggest you teach yourself. I just got through pointing out how one cannot force someone else to change without making an enemy of them. ”Thanks for contributing at least one item worth discussion (the possibility of withdrawal and civil war)” According to the editorials on strategypage, it already is a civil war. The question for discussion is why are we putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s civil war? Doing that simply puts us in a position of being an enemy to both sides. ”As for most of the other stuff you wrote, I guess I can only suggest: get over yourself!” Never a bad suggestion for anyone, including yourself.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Thank You All - 60 years ago   10/5/2004 9:01:28 PM
"I object. Abu G was NOT a "stab" at setting up a Stasi type organization. It was NOT policy at all." It was a play book right out of afghanistan and gitmo. As for "policy", politicians have become a lot smarter about leaving evidence. Starting with the Reagan Adminsitrations technique of "plausible deniability", I would say the White House lawyers would be guilty of malpractice if there was a clear trail of written orders.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics