GENIUS FORUMS

OH yeah, by the way. I despise looking at fictional books to make points about society or philosophy. That's like quoting a stand up comic, and nagging me saying, "you see? you see?"

I don't see. I don't see a reason to talk about George Orwell. Because some of what he said was timeless? I don't give a fuck. I've said things in my posts here that transcend his seeming "timeless" nature. Do you think what he's said still applies...and to this topic? I don't. I think he wrote about pigs and their fucking egos. Nothing important. Why do I care about farm animals and what they think? Why do I care about an author who has the time to write about something so retarded? Why should I?

avidaloca wrote:(To Scott): If you don't understand Muslims you're not in the best position to be walking into their country and trying to change them to be the way you want them.

There's not much to understand about Muslims - they're just insane, the same as most people. You could study the details of the insanity for years and not make any headway with it, since it is always changing.

If anything, the U.S probably underestimated the insanity of the Muslims in Iraq, largely as a result of their natural blindness to their own insanity.

Likewise it is virtually impossible to "understand" the insanity of Nazi Germany, but that is not a reason to refrain from intervening with their plans.

If anything, the U.S probably underestimated the insanity of the Muslims in Iraq, largely as a result of their natural blindness to their own insanity.

Duh..ya think?

I have all the pity in the world for those Iraqis suffering in Iraq now and those who suffered under Saddam. But, damn, things were better under Saddam. His control may have been venomous and terrible but, at least, he had control.

The current dolts in Washington were stupid enough to convince themselves and the American public that the poor Iraqis would welcome the great American liberators with open arms.

There are still very wide tribal differences in Iraq, as anyone can now see.

The chemical killing of the Kurds back years ago was a disgusting act among many disgusting acts by Saddam Hussein. From what I can tell, the Kurds are the more civilized tribe to the north. In a re-partitioned Iraq, it would be well to allow a separate Kurdish state and let the Sunnis and Shi'ites go at it. Then, put Saddam back in control.

The US had no problem controlling Saddam after the first Gulf War. He was contained and diminished. No Hitler outside his own country.

No Iraqi was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Saddam was secular. A sex addict who envisioned himself as a Mafia godfather.

Pakistan -- another fucked up country -- has long recognized that things are better under marshall law. More tribal control under marshall law. Musharraf has been good for Pakistan in his struggle toward secularism and modernity. Slow process but, sometimes, people need to be forced into it. You cannot hope to have a modern country when people are hell bent toward tribalism. I hope that Musharraf may continue long in his tenuous hold over Pakistan. Inshallah, he may force his people into the secular, modern world.

Religion culturally stained is, by definition, insanity.

Islam is not a worse religion than Christianity. Islam speaks of Jesus and considers him to be a prophet of great importance. It is the bullshit and cultural misconception of Islam that is the "bad" thing. For instance, the recent Afghani fiasco involving the Christian convert. There is no Islamic law against apostasy. The so called law is cultural. So is the suppression of women.

Yet, if that Christian convert remains in Afghanistan, he will be killed.

This is insanity, yes, and also growing pains. The tribal Islamic world is not going to become tolerant and culturally enlightened over night.

Compare this to resistance in the US to homosexual marriage. Personally, I do not care what asshole marries what asshole. I believe that assholes should be free to marry, no matter what. I think an individual should be free to marry whatever he wants. In this way, the idea and institution of marriage and the female hold over it may finally be destroyed.

But most Americans are not there yet. It will take a few more decades.

Yes, Iraq presently, is very insane. I think Saudi society is insane -- females are not allowed to drive. I think the wearing of the chador and the burqa is insane.

But you can't have it both ways. You cannot abolish "Brittney Spears" and admonish Islam at the same time.

What do you want -- the bellybutton or the veil?

You hate Islam but you despise modern woman at the same time. The culture of tribal Islam suppresses woman. The west encourages freedom of woman.

How do you reckon woman will become masculine without freedom to develop that masculinity?

Slow process. Not going to happen overnight.

I think you should examine your hatred and fear.

Faizi

Oh my God! [laughs] What, are you rushing to Scott’s defence, or something? I don’t think he needs your help.

...And the Muslims underestimated the insanity of their own government, nay, the rest of the world, largely as a result of their natural blindness to their own insanity.

If there’s not much to understand about “Muslims,” “they’re just insane,” and;

Most people are just insane, and;

The US probably underestimated the insanity of the Muslims because they (the US) are mostly insane, then; drum roll…nothing.

You’re not saying anything of value at all -- especially to the reasoning individual. Nothing that would impress anything other than a pack of lemmings.

“Oh, look [pointing casually], they’re the nutters over there, just like Hitler. Yeehaw.” Emote, emote, emote...

So much for the powers of differentiation.

I read in the paper that just over 50% of Australian families have PCs/access to the internet. Now, I figured that the chances of coming across many more deluded Christians than Muslims on the net looked pretty good. Course, there's always the off-chance that you'll get a few "Muslim sympathisers" but I reckon if the direction is "Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection"; then, whose/what delusions and/or insanity would you think it better to encourage?

I think it comes down to the fact that you value a self enough that it doesn't matter. You, Kevin, should be prepared to die for wisdom, not just lip service.

MKFaizi wrote:His control may have been venomous and terrible but, at least, he had control.

Wives the world over often say things like, "My husband might be an abusive, violent, idiot, but at least he provides a roof over my head, and I know what I have to do."

A forced separation might not be the best thing, but it could hardly be much worse.

Islam is not a worse religion than Christianity.

It's just as insane, but there are probably more fundamentalist Muslims than there are fundamentalist Christians, so it is more dangerous.

This is insanity, yes, and also growing pains. The tribal Islamic world is not going to become tolerant and culturally enlightened over night.

It may go the other way - the opposite of growth. Things may become even more tribal and insane. It is the human way.

You hate Islam but you despise modern woman at the same time. The culture of tribal Islam suppresses woman. The west encourages freedom of woman.

How do you reckon woman will become masculine without freedom to develop that masculinity?

Women certainly need opportunity if they are to develop masculinity. In the West women are rightly given that opportunity.

Leyla wrote:You’re not saying anything of value at all

I wasn't trying to say much, only that we can't always wait to understand the details of other people's insanity before we intervene. And if we ourselves are insane, we will naturally intervene inappropriately. It's the nature of the beast. Nothing we can do about it. We must accept it.

I don't necessarily think the U.S did a wise thing in occupying Iraq when it did, but I don't blame them either. They did the best they could with the information available at the time. It's all any of us can ever do.

Imagine you have a daughter (representing oil, or the Iraqi people) living in a house and dominated by an insane man (Saddam), who claims to have terrible weapons to torture and kill her, and he has a long criminal record and there is some evidence that his claims are correct. It is understandable that you might choose to invade the house and rescue the daughter.

.” Emote, emote, emote...

I wasn't intending to use emotive force to make my point. I think I was just being matter of fact. "Insanity" is the right word - it's not emotive from my perspective. I repeated the word a lot because we all have a tendency to look for reasons as to why people behave the way they do - when there aren't any. To look for reasons (other than insanity) is often the wrong approach to take. In fact, many times the best kind of understanding one can have of other people is to understand that they are insane. This is compassion.

You could say there are all kinds of delusions and people fall under some combination of them no matter who they are, except an "Enlightened One". Those who exude wisdom or ability in one area usually have some other trait that their admirers would retch at.

Kevin wrote:

I wasn't trying to say much, only that we can't always wait to understand the details of other people's insanity before we intervene.

That may be true to some degree, but to fail to understand the details of other people’s insanity as well as our own after many years of involvement? That is an entirely different situation. Karma -- causality -- does exist. No need for anyone to get emotional about it at any particular point, really.

We here in Oz happily go along filling our cars up, building our high rise buildings, eating our barbecued shrimp, etc. with no idea at all of what is back of that. It’s like living in a “closed” system of thought -- and I think you and I agree that there actually is no such thing as a “closed” system of anything.

Geopolitics and the complexity of alliances that was the First World War, that clearly lead to its outcomes through the consequent poverty brought about by sanctions and some 6 billion odd pounds in reparations from Germany to the rise of Hitler, the violence-ridden despatch of the Jews into Palestine (violating another treaty), which was apparently a blessing in disguise, right up to the “precariously perched” alliances of this day are clear for anyone with an ounce of intelligence to see.

And you want to promote the idea that we can’t always wait to understand the details of “other people’s” insanity before we intervene? We have always intervened. There are no closed systems.

Every society has the minds of the children in their hands. Here, in the West, what do we do with that fact? What we do with that fact is rather than educate them in high school on philosophy and world history (“open” systems of thought), we indoctrinate them with ideas of equality and how to be a safe worker (OH&S). On top of this, as a society we are so bogged down with being a good citizen through the accumulation of wealth and power and its consequent record keeping and reporting and laws and appeals and bureaucracy that, after high school, you still don’t have the time to think. On top of this, a large quantity of our children are still bloody illiterate!

Time is a precious commodity. It costs money. I can buy it by selling my body or kissing the right arse -- man, it’s at its most valuable, then. But, seldom can I buy it by saying anything intelligent. No, to be wise, you must outright spend, not sell and buy, time.

Red herring: a mother does not have enough time to become wise. Herring: the Great, Big Mother of Mother-fuckers is too stupid to see the forest for the trees yet “She” is the one calling all the shots.

More later. I have to go buy some time. To hell with the sacrifice.

Imagine you have a daughter (representing oil, or the Iraqi people) living in a house and dominated by an insane man (Saddam), who claims to have terrible weapons to torture and kill her, and he has a long criminal record and there is some evidence that his claims are correct. It is understandable that you might choose to invade the house and rescue the daughter.

Given that there is not a shred of evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 plotters, do you expect us to buy the line that the US invaded to liberate the Iraqi people (as Bush later claimed after flip-flopping from WMD)?

Kevin wrote:

I wasn't trying to say much, only that we can't always wait to understand the details of other people's insanity before we intervene.

God, that remark is astonishingly sheepish. I cannot believe -- comprehend -- that you were not trying to say much.

I think you are pretty good at wisdom, Kevin, but could be you might want to leave politics to the smoke filled rooms.

That is not to say that your remarks are not welcome. Personally, I like naive maidens.

Could be that, because you do not live inside the Great Satan, you cannot comprehend his greedy motivation.

You mentioned something about Iraq being like a young daughter living with a depraved and dangerous man who rules her. You attack the man in order to save the young daughter.

Very romantic and idealistic in a fairy tale sort of way. Quaint.

But what if the lovely young daughter is not young and innocent at all but a great, roiling pig; as depraved or more depraved than her ogre husband? What is the point of rescuing a depraved, hideous, roiling pig?

Iraq, unleashed after Saddam's control, is a great, depraved, hideous, roiling pig.

Unfortunate because I know that there are many civilized Iraqis alive within the pig. For some time, Iraqis were well educated and secular. Iraqi women did not wear the chador. Iraq, under Saddam, was not a state ruled by Islamic law. It was ruled by Saddamic law, Don Husseineone.

The Mafia state kind of sucked but it was a state. Saddam had control. There is no control there at all now.

Partition the Kurds. Give the Shi'ites to Iran where they belong and let Saddam have the Sunni triangle.

The British partitioned Pakistan and caused a great migration. Protect the Kurds. Let the Shi'ites move. Air-lift out -- Vietnam style -- any Sunnis you can who want out -- hanging onto helicopters and whatnot -- and give complete control of what remains back to Saddam.

Vietnam is much better off since the US left. I think the Sunni Triangle would be better off, too.

A daughter does not have to be rescued. Iraq -- the Iraqi people -- was never the daughter of the United States. The US imposed itself on Iraq. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the WTC attacks. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

The rescue of a daughter is a lie.

Faizi

Kevin:

Wives the world over often say things like, "My husband might be an abusive, violent, idiot, but at least he provides a roof over my head, and I know what I have to do."

A forced separation might not be the best thing, but it could hardly be much worse.

Exactly. Under Saddam, there was electricity. There were bountiful markets and there was safety, until sanctions were imposed.

Obviously, the forced separation is much worse. Many interlopers and rapists. Iraq has become the pit that was Afghanistan before 9/11. The separation of Saddam has brought Al Qaida styled groups who are currently in control of chaos. Taking of hostages, continual bombing, beheading; disruption of any civilized overtures toward self government and self determination.

Civil War cannot begin to describe it. Tribal factions are splintered into myriad and minute sides. There are no clear sides. Iraq is in chaos. Civil War would look good in comparison.

Quote:
Islam is not a worse religion than Christianity.

It's just as insane, but there are probably more fundamentalist Muslims than there are fundamentalist Christians, so it is more dangerous.

Fundamentalist Muslims are more likely to act on their zealotry in violent ways than fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Christians are yet more controlled by secular law though that hold is tenuous. Governments of Islamic countries are more threatened by fundamentalism than Christian majority countries. So far.

In my area of the US, if one speaks openly about abortion, one is ostracized. A Christian woman would never abort a fetus or embryo. Only a whore would do such a thing, no matter the common sense of so doing. A woman who decides to have an abortion in this area of the US will keep it very, very quiet. It is the very worst thing that anyone could commit. Yet, by the same token, welfare is considered a sin.

Beats shit out of me how an uninsured eighteen year old woman is supposed to raise a child on her own without government assistance but if she decides to abort in the first trimester, she will roast in Hell.

Just punishment for illicit un-Christian sex, I reckon. Kind of like stoning.

In recent years and I expect the trend to continue, the separation of church and state is eroding in the US. I thought it was a southern thing. But it's widespread. I do not think even Boston is safe.

I think that, if Christianity was fully unleashed, Christian terrorists would put the Islamists to shame. In some quarters, it is already considered that Christian terrorists have prevailed. In many places, Bill Clinton and George Bush are considered to be Christian terrorists.

Ironically, perhaps, the US is known to support repressive governments -- like Saudi Arabia, for instance; and Iran under the Shah. And Saddam Hussein.

Under Clinton, Iraq was bombed regularly. The first act of George Bush upon taking office was to bomb Iraq. Long before 9/11.

Simply because the US does not regularly bomb Australia does not make it okay to bomb Muslim countries. The US is not likely to bomb Australia because it is white and Christian -- non-threatening.

We only bomb brown non-Christian countries since we gained power after WWII and after the demise of the Soviet Union.

Quote:
This is insanity, yes, and also growing pains. The tribal Islamic world is not going to become tolerant and culturally enlightened over night.

It may go the other way - the opposite of growth. Things may become even more tribal and insane. It is the human way.

If this is the human way, why do you suppose that only brown non-Christian countries could be at fault? Do you not have recognition of the Judeo-Christian tribe? For what reason do you choose Issac over Ishmael?

Things are likely to become more tribal and insane, as much in the realm of Judeo-Christian as in Islam.

How are "we" less murderous than "they?"

How do you reckon woman will become masculine without freedom to develop that masculinity?

Women certainly need opportunity if they are to develop masculinity. In the West women are rightly given that opportunity.

Then, why do you loathe the exposed navel; the bare breast? How is your offense different from the offense taken of the high heel by the Taliban?

The Taliban outlawed all feminine wiles -- the click of high heeled shoes because the sound was sexually arrousing.

A woman cannot become a man through constraint. A woman can only become masculine through absolute freedom.

That includes the freedom to decide whether or not to be pregnant.

Christian zealots are as guilty of suppressing masculinity as Muslims.

Faizi

The Puerto Rican dude wrote:

Given that there is not a shred of evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 plotters, do you expect us to buy the line that the US invaded to liberate the Iraqi people (as Bush later claimed after flip-flopping from WMD)?

No Iraqi was among the 9/11 conspirators.

No weapons of mass destruction.

So, GW says it was to rescue the poor Iraqi people from Saddam.

After bombing the shit out of them for years.

Such primitive people to resent being bombed back to the Stone Age for ten years.

No excuse. Ungrateful as hell -- kind of like Native Americans.

Faizi

Quote:
You hate Islam but you despise modern woman at the same time. The culture of tribal Islam suppresses woman. The west encourages freedom of woman.

How do you reckon woman will become masculine without freedom to develop that masculinity?


Women certainly need opportunity if they are to develop masculinity. In the West women are rightly given that opportunity.

And how important that is! Not only for women but for the whole of our world.
However, and most unfortunately, along with having been rightly given the opportunity, women have also been wrongly given the opportunity, and as far as many terrorists are concerned the impact has been horrendous.
So which is more important, that all women are rightly given that opportunity whatever the cost, or that the net effect to the world of both wise and unwise gender reform is mostly and ultimately positive?

avidaloca wrote:Given that there is not a shred of evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 plotters, do you expect us to buy the line that the US invaded to liberate the Iraqi people (as Bush later claimed after flip-flopping from WMD)?

I did say "oil or the Iraqi people". You can safely ignore what Bush claims, since he is unlikely to publicly tell the truth on this matter. In a democracy, truth often doesn't pay.

Closer to the truth is that the "daughter" represents the long-term security of the U.S, to which Saddam, and militant Islam, was perceived to be a threat.

I believe that a large part of the reason for the invasion of Iraq was to send a message to militant Islamists, post 9-11, that there are consequences to bombing American cities which the Islamic world generally will not like.

It doesn't matter if Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, since the U.S "successfully" made their point.

Marsha wrote:But what if the lovely young daughter is not young and innocent at all but a great, roiling pig; as depraved or more depraved than her ogre husband? What is the point of rescuing a depraved, hideous, roiling pig?

Iraq, unleashed after Saddam's control, is a great, depraved, hideous, roiling pig.

Well yes. We all have the benefit of hindsight.

Many a man courts a beautiful young maiden and ends up married to a hideous rolling pig. But you can't tell them not to do it.

Kevin wrote:

Imagine you have a daughter (representing oil, or the Iraqi people) living in a house and dominated by an insane man (Saddam), who claims to have terrible weapons to torture and kill her, and he has a long criminal record and there is some evidence that his claims are correct. It is understandable that you might choose to invade the house and rescue the daughter.

Well, yes, in terms of equal orders of magnitude with respect to emotional attachment, I guess that’s an appropriate analogy. However, It kind of goes wrong a bit with respect to oil. Saddam’s concern for the Iraqi people would have been second to his concern for oil. Not as much bargaining power -- and, really, of more US interest, too. So, I shall treat the daughter, in this analogy, as oil. Hence, the problem with your analogy.

How did the US contribute to the creation of this so-called daughter that then ended up with this evil dictator? The act of copulation, between US and Iraq, becomes trade. (I have, a long time ago, used this copulation analogy myself, so it’s not new to me.) Saddam and Bush fuck each other. And, just like in the early days of any marriage, everything’s hunky dory. But the honeymoon is short-lived, and the bitch-fighting soon begins together with an initially subtle battle for custody over Baby Oil. In the meanwhile, somebody attacks the US. Flies planes into the buildings and what-not. Now, in my view, they’re both bitches. So, I’ll stick to their surnames. Bush, having been very busy fucking with the area -- fails to notice or ignores outright that Hussein is not like his Canadian bitch, for example. And, why? Well, because he’s the one with the muscle. How masculine of her, eh? But Hussein, with an ego as big as the Middle East itself but with equally as little brains, figures he’s safe. I mean, a daughter’s a daughter, right? Wrong. See, Bush and his forefathers have been fucking the area for quite some time now and they have several illegitimate daughters there. Several who are perhaps around twice as beautiful. Only now, Bush figures that this situation of illegitimate daughters is getting out of hand. I mean, someone from that area attacked his buildings. They didn’t use the daughter as ransom. He did.

Leyla Shen wrote:So, I shall treat the daughter, in this analogy, as oil.

"Olive Oil". (Pardon me if you're not familiar with Popeye)

. . . They didn’t use the daughter as ransom. He did.

Well that all sounds pretty complex. Good reading though.

I was thinking more along the lines of the U.S simply wanting more direct control of oil (the baby - the U.S's very future) in the Middle East.

Well yes. We all have the benefit of hindsight.

Hindsight, hell. Any idiot should have been able to see what was coming. I did and I have a low IQ. I mean, it was kind of glaring -- if it looks like a Vietnam and acts like a Vietnam, chances are it's a Vietnam.

Bush was not in love with Iraq. He was in love with himself; in love with the idea of calling himself a wartime president; in love with the idea of waging war -- despite the fact that he avoided fighting in a war when he was young.

By the way, I said roiling pig, not rolling pig. Roiling means a thing that is bothersome; disturbing.

Faizi

Rizzo wrote:

And how important that is! Not only for women but for the whole of our world. However, and most unfortunately, along with having been rightly given the opportunity, women have also been wrongly given the opportunity,

I am not sure how you figure that -- something that is right and wrong congruently.

Of course, it is right to give females opportunity to develop into individuals not dependent on men, no matter the growing pains involved. You are not going to have a masculine race by keeping half the population in chains.

and as far as many terrorists are concerned the impact has been horrendous.

Fuck a bunch of terrorists. Who cares what they think?

So which is more important, that all women are rightly given that opportunity whatever the cost, or that the net effect to the world of both wise and unwise gender reform is mostly and ultimately positive?

Kind of lost you there at the end. Attempting to decipher.

Are you saying that some gender reform is wise and some unwise? If so, then, I can say that all reform that makes masculine is wise reform, even when the various stages of that may be difficult. The feminine cannot become masculine without fully exorcising itself.

I doubt that I will see it in my lifetime but I think it would be fascinating to watch the females of Islam fully outed. In time, it will happen.

God help Al Qaeda once the bitches take over.

Faizi

Well, yes, I could see the sweet, fair daughter more as oil than as the Iraqi people. Oil was supposed to pay for this war, according to Bush prior to invasion -- one of his selling points.

Never happen.

I do think the US is finally looking at alternative sources of energy. Took a full thirty years for the message to get through. But I think it is finally sinking in. 'Course, you still got assholes driving SUVs. Gonna take a while.

There are some promising technologies, however.

Faizi

I think Lela must be facetious.

Faizi

Kevin is flirting.

Unfortunately, I thought I was engaging in serious discussion.

I should bow out and leave the love birds to themselves.

Sorry for butting in with earnest sincerity and desire for truth.

Get a room.

Faizi

Why are we talking about oil here? Isn't it obvious that America isn't taking the oil? It's been a few years now; I thought that idea died out a while ago. Why's it back?

Duh, yep. It died out a long time ago, if it was ever alive. More of a GW selling point than any sort of reality.

Bullshit.

But, if you have not noticed, this thread is intruding on a budding romantic relationship. The seriousness of discussion of Iraq or Iran was abandoned some posts back. Because I am slow, took me a while to realize it, too.

SSSHHHHHH!

Let the love birds speak..well, coo. So cute.

Faizi

sschaula wrote:Why are we talking about oil here? Isn't it obvious that America isn't taking the oil? It's been a few years now; I thought that idea died out a while ago. Why's it back?

Since oil is so important to the U.S economy - especially in the medium to long-term (10-60 years down the track), I figure that it would have been a major factor in the decision-making. But I'm only guessing.

Marsha wrote:Kevin is flirting.

Just because I made a pun!

Kevin wrote:

Just because I made a pun!

Well, it’s a pretty hot topic. And I don’t think it should come as a surprise that others who take the topic rather seriously are kind of perplexed as to why a man of wisdom not only does not have much to contribute to the topic but finds it appropriate to make a pun in the middle of it. Does it really surprise you, Kevin? I think it’s understandable. I also think that it’s quite reasonable to expect a man of wisdom to say something wise on the subject.

Perhaps you guys are just bored with the subject? Interestingly, I don’t seem to recall David ever commenting significantly and directly on it either.

You did, however, also say this, which I also wanted to comment on:

I wasn't intending to use emotive force to make my point. I think I was just being matter of fact. "Insanity" is the right word - it's not emotive from my perspective. I repeated the word a lot because we all have a tendency to look for reasons as to why people behave the way they do - when there aren't any.

My issue was not to do with the fact of your repeating the word “insanity.” It was the matter-of-fact way in which you directed attention to Nazi Germany. I think there are definitely parallels there, but I’m betting that you and I draw completely different ones. I think mine are much deeper, whilst yours seem rather superficial. Would you say that was a fair call?

To look for reasons (other than insanity) is often the wrong approach to take. In fact, many times the best kind of understanding one can have of other people is to understand that they are insane. This is compassion.

Now, this takes on the hue of wisdom, I reckon. If I didn’t hold this view to some extent, I reckon I’d be in jail for mass murder, by now. But it takes a sane person to do this, no? So, aside from this, do the sane refrain from any other sort of action on matters of insanity?

I do note, however, that you say “many times” rather than “all the time.” I think this is the point of interest in this discussion. You have already mentioned that you do not think it was wise for the US to intervene when it did. Why not and what circumstances and in what manner do you think intervention would have been/will be wise with respect to G Dubbya‘s War on Terror? As I write this, I’m thinking more and more that you will not have any sort of definitive answer. Is it because you believe that hindsight is the only teacher and that history does not serve as hindsight itself?

"Olive Oil". (Pardon me if you're not familiar with Popeye)

Yes, as a spinach and olive oil lover, I’m familiar with Popeye.

I was thinking more along the lines of the U.S simply wanting more direct control of oil (the baby - the U.S's very future) in the Middle East.

Well, they already have that. They’re the single superpower. Saddam thought he had it made. G Dubbya sure showed him, as I apparently unsuccessfully attempted to demonstrate.

Marsha wrote:

The British partitioned Pakistan and caused a great migration. Protect the Kurds. Let the Shi'ites move. Air-lift out -- Vietnam style -- any Sunnis you can who want out -- hanging onto helicopters and whatnot -- and give complete control of what remains back to Saddam.

The British created Iraq, too, somewhen in 1920, after the complete downfall of the Ottoman empire under which it comprised three provinces: Basra, Mosul and Baghdad. The Brits then gave Iraq a pro-Brit-policy-friendly king. I don’t think any of them want out so easily. Out from where and to where? A British created name to another Israel, or something?

For the most part, it was the idea of Arab roots that held the place in some semblance of togetherness (the same banner under which Saddam attempted to stabilise the place, under threat of death) and caused the overthrow of the Brit-anointed king. But there was one exception: the Kurds, who found themselves boxed into a thin line that ran across the borders of four different countries. Those at the northern border of Iraq and those in southern Turkey, rebelled, not considering themselves Turks or Iraqis and attempting to draw out their own borders of independence. The Turks kicked their arses and that was (almost, but might just as well be considered) the bitter end of that. The Iraqi Kurds rebelled, too, most notably when they attempted a revolt in Baghdad towards independence and lost, due to a large degree by withdrawal of their Iranian ally who completely turned on them, killing their leaders, even. Course, these Iraqi Kurds are now protected by a US no-fly-zone.

So, what’s the problem with Iraq?

As long as there is still some smoke-and-mirrors infighting, not too much of a problem for us in the West, really. We’ve been so busy carving up the place and sticking labels everywhere that everyone wants their own piece with their own label. Well, hell, ya know?

Let’s see. We have Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Kuwait surrounding the place. Who should get what, be put where and on what basis?

The problem with the Middle East has been half-assed intervention. Not one single empire so far has been able to manage the whole world. Not one.

I don’t think the West has ever been ready to take the whole world either. Pipe dream.

But it has found it necessary to police it.

The major issue is regional security. And, I’m afraid, underlying that, is oil. That’s what makes the GNP of the area. Just because the Shi’ites and the Sunnis and the Kurds and the whoever elses don’t really get that, doesn’t make it any less the real issue currently. No money, no country. It’s as much about oil as it is anything else. The US buys it, the Middle East (and others) sell it -- we all use its by-products. That’s trade.

There are a number of reasons to embrace alternative sources of energy. Goodness or badness notwithstanding, nuclear power was and is currently such an alternative. But this brought us also the means to completely destroy all life on Earth. And a great deal of paranoia. Well, I guess that’s one way to go.

Give the Middle East something to be proud of. Something long-term. Use the bargaining power of oil towards something that is our best chance. Buy their oil (until we come up with a more viable source of energy), but incorporate into such trade agreements policies for education, research and development that will flow back into the West and be mutually beneficial -- even provide further funding for such projects. Continue to rid the world of nuclear waste and weaponry. That I’d be prepared to fight for -- and to hell with anyone who thought differently. Involve everybody towards that goal. Until we do, it will always be about vying for power -- no matter how many peoples you air lift out of anywhere.

Stop trying to mother them: treat them like men.

It’s one thing to “give” people a piece of land. Quite another to make them feel the world isn’t closing in on them by doing so.

The world needs to be united not towards some homogenous idea of equality, but towards humanity itself.

How many of us would be prepared to bear the cost of that?

It's very common among Jews and the like-minded to make off-the-cuff, highly flippant remarks about Nazi Germany, when they have no interest in the dynamics behind it. It's a way of off-loading any doubt or guilt they might have about whether that era had any merit, because they know at some deeper level that what came out of its defeat was today's world, which has much more watery values.