Subj : Current events To : BOB KLAHN From : Richard Webb Date : Mon Feb 14 2011 13:22:13 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) .