Re: Sunni Political Group Withdraws From Iraq Cabinet

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:03:09 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

El Castor wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:45:46 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

noname wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:04:37 GMT, Justine
<wherethereistruth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:32:57 -0700, noname <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:48:07 -0700, El Castor <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:32:02 -0700, noname <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:15:47 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

noname wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:35:12 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

noname wrote:
Sunni Political Group Withdraws From Iraq Cabinet

By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 4:40 PM

BAGHDAD, Aug. 1 -- Iraq's largest Sunni political group formally
withdrew from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government Wednesday,
dealing a major blow to Maliki's efforts to build a cohesive
government.

The Accordance Front announced that it will vacate its six seats in
Maliki's cabinet after the prime minister and other leading government
officials did not make progress on a list of demands the group issued
last week. Accordance Front members said their decision came after
Maliki failed to show a commitment to solving the problems of ordinary
Iraqi people.

"The government is continuing with its arrogance, refusing to change
its stand and slamming shut the door to any meaningful reforms
necessary to save Iraq," said senior Accordance Front member Rafaa
al-Issawi.

The announcement represents a setback not just for Maliki, but for
President Bush, who is expecting a progress report from the top U.S.
military commander in Iraq on Sept. 15. The discord within the Maliki
government and the lack of legislative progress in parliament could
undermine his assessment of conditions in Iraq and further decrease
congressional support for the war.

Bush pressed Maliki Wednesday to move forward on the political issues,
White House spokesman Tony Snow said. During a 45-minute video
conference, Snow said, "The president emphasized that the Iraqi people
and the American people need to see action -- not just words -- but
need to see action on the political front."
So now, not only the parliament, but also the cabinet is not going to
accomplish anything before September.

I've seen this happen in organizations before. When they lose
confidence in the leadership, they start drifting, putting out the
minimum effort and hoping that something will change. You cannot whip
them into action and an attempt to do so is pretty much guaranteed to
fail. Either the leadership has to change or the situation has to
change in some substantial way. Preferably both.
Seems obvious the U.S. has no influence with Maliki. Maliki has
to cater to Shiites and has always done so. There never has been
anything approaching a unity government in Iraq. Let's see how
marib, Jose, Joe Avelon and the other true believers spin this one.
Even Tony Snow was unable to do so.

It is all very badly broken at this point. There will be more
Republican defections in September. I don't see how they can continue
to support the Bush administration without committing political suicide.
The most that we can hope for at this point is an orderly withdrawal.
I sincerely hope that the Pentagon is working on that contingency. If
they only give it lip service, we will see the same result as for the
poorly planned and mostly neglected plans for the occupation.

On a related note, I'm beginning to hear references to criminal acts
rather than "War on Terror." Wouldn't it be interesting if the
Republicans came around to the point of view that terrorism is really a
law enforcement problem rather than a military problem? Too much to
hope for?
I don't know about that -- but in Iraq there are outside terrorists
and Iraqi terrorists, if by terrorists one means those who commit
violent acts against the population.

But I also think the term "war on terror" is never really defined
and thus is a meaningless phrase. It is a phrase I don't think the
Republcans will let go of, however.
Would you settle for "War on militant Islam"?
Would you define "war". War means to me military action against
a specific nation or, as in World War II, more than one specific
nations.
Let's see -- we've had war on poverty, war on drugs, war on want. And
now you're getting picky about war on terror or war on militant Islam?
Justine
I think a question on exactly what is meant by any of the above is
germane. The phrase has been used as you say in so many contexts
and I never have been sure what action or actions that translates
into.

To me, the word "war" should only be used to describe armed conflict
between nations. A "war on terror" raises the status of the terrorists
to that of freedom fighters or other such image which appears to justify
what they are doing in their eyes and in the eyes of those who support
them. IMV, they are criminals. Whatever cause they support, they
operate outside the law. We would have been much better off to join
with the rest of the world in improving our collective ability to
investigate, arrest, prosecute and punish people who resort to
terrorism. Let the world see them as the criminals that they are.

You may consider them to be criminals, but they would not agree. In
their minds they are fighting on behalf of God. For a Muslim, to die
while engaged in Jihad against the Infidels is the only guaranteed
ticket to Paradise. Their goal, which is commanded by Allah, is to
spread Islam to every corner of the earth, and they have been doing a
very good job of it. From a few converts in the city of Medina, there
are now 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide -- and growing. Muslims make up
the second largest religion in the United States, after Christianity
-- only, of course, Islam isn't just a religion, it's a social, legal,
and political system as well.

If you look at the core of the "modern" Abrahamic faiths (Christianity
and Islam), there is a common belief in paradise and a goal of winning
converts to their specific faith. Given the right circumstances, either
of these faiths will justify almost any action while proclaiming "God
mit uns" or the equivalent in your choice of language.

Fortunately, in the west, the abuses of Christianity in the middle ages
brought about a strong effort, not just in the US, but throughout the
western nations to separate church and state, most notably in the
development of law. This, coupled with secularism, tempered the
Christian belief and isolated the extremists as criminals.

The expansion of colonialism, on the other hand, oppressed many parts of
the world including the Middle East. Islam grew in strength in
opposition to the abuses of colonialism and efforts to introduce
Christianity which became associated with the colonial powers. This
continued after colonialism collapsed and these countries often reverted
to rule by whoever was strong enough to hold power.

The simmering anger against the west continued through most of the last
century, frequently brought to the boiling point by a whole sequence of
acts including controversial support of some pretty ugly leaders,
competition with the Soviets, exploitation of their oil, the imposition
of Israel, and highly questionable arms sales which helped to inflame
the region.

When the armies of the Arab countries were demonstrated to be incapable
of defeating the armies of Israel and later the US, the use of terrorism
grew in popularity as the only weapon which seemed to work for them.
Islam provided a convenient way to justify whatever action, no matter
how horrible, and we are seeing the results of that today.

Given only a slightly different world, the exact same thing could have
happened with Christianity.

The point of all this is to advocate the creation of the same climate
which moderated Christianity, namely secularism and rule of law. The
Bush administration has done exactly the opposite of that, most notably
in the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was one of the more secular states in the
Middle East. We would have been far better off to have utilized the
support of the world following 9/11 to marginalize terrorism by focusing
on rule of law, identifying terrorists as criminals and separating them
morally from the majority of the Islam faithful.

Instead, we elevated the terrorists to warrior status by not only
declaring war, but by screwing it up so badly. They are now supported
by a large portion of the population and are called Freedom Fighters!

It is going to take us a very long time to dig our way out of the mess
that the Bush administration has put us in.

Your understanding of history is defective. Colonialism didn't make
Islam invade Spain and France, and it didn't bring them to the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Muslim's have one main text, the Koran, a book
which they believe is the literal word of God dictated to Mohammad by
the angel Gabriel. For a Muslim, obedience to the Koran is not
optional -- it is what being a Muslim is all about. Allah demands that
Muslims spread their faith at the point of a sword -- which is exactly
how it grew from a tiny cult in Medina to embrace 1.6 Billion people.
The most recent country to fall to Islam is Lebanon. As late as the
1930's, Maronite Christians were in the majority. Since then, Muslims
have systematically driven them out, to the point that Muslims are now
a strong majority. A Muslim insurgency is trying to Install an
Islamic regime in the southern Philippines, and in Thailand, China,
Chechnya, Indonesia, Kashmir, Algeria, all over Africa, etc.

Our support of Israel, in fact the very existence of Israel, is
unquestionably an irritant, but it doesn't explain other Muslim
insurgencies all over the world. It doesn't explain demands for Sharia
in Canada and the UK, and it sure doesn't explain 112 cars a day
burned in France in 2006. It's time we faced the fact that almost
every instance of terrorism in the world can be traced back to
militant expansionary Islam -- not Israel, and not US foreign policy.
Muslims don't need an excuse to be violent. It's built into the
religion. It's what they are.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sunni Political Group Withdraws From Iraq Cabinet
    ... I'm beginning to hear references to criminal acts rather than "War on Terror." ... Wouldn't it be interesting if the Republicans came around to the point of view that terrorism is really a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem? ... Would you settle for "War on militant Islam"? ... are now 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide -- and growing. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Sunni Political Group Withdraws From Iraq Cabinet
    ... Republicans came around to the point of view that terrorism is really a ... now you're getting picky about war on terror or war on militant Islam? ... are now 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide -- and growing. ... Fortunately, in the west, the abuses of Christianity in the middle ages ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The Pope and Islam
    ... >>> which has come through Christianity, ... Islam can exploit this. ... Let's see if any Muslims can ... > next...*i repeat* there are a thousand and one 'interpretations' whether ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Cartoon network - Diana West
    ... Muslims have been in the majority and/or in power, ... a great deal of confusion caused by conflating the two terms "Islam" ... no compulsion in religion". ... what Christianity actually is, or how they *interpreted* it, being who ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: Sunni Political Group Withdraws From Iraq Cabinet
    ... I'm beginning to hear references to criminal acts rather than "War on Terror." ... Wouldn't it be interesting if the Republicans came around to the point of view that terrorism is really a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem? ... Would you settle for "War on militant Islam"? ... are now 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide -- and growing. ...
    (soc.retirement)