Originally posted by Kirk
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
I've heard that from a ton of Muslims (albeit in regard to the
Nation Of Islam)
We are the infidel to all of them. Re-read Bin Laden's speech ...
he speaks of support of Iraq, and how the U.S. and Isreal are
the devil, and the infidel. We should be punished for the crimes
of those we have elected (ALL of those, this includes Clinton) in
the past 6 generations. In his own words, we have starved the
people of Iraq. Doesn't sound like Bin Laden's interested in thier
overthrow to me!
I think we really oughta be careful about the ol' blanket statements of "they all hate us." Many do, sure, but not everyone, and one of the biggest fears of people here in Canada, and elsewhere too, is that a war that the ME perceives as nothing more than an imperialistic invasion WILL CAUSE MORE HATRED. I don't want to look back 20 years from now and go, "oh, S---, that war caused 9/11 part two!" If the war is justifiable, if the US was attacked by Iraq, like in 9/11 where the US was attacked, then everybody'll join the bandwagon, and we did, to attack and eradicate the Taliban regime that sponsored the people who attacked the US. It's that simple. The international system is set up to DEFEND people from AGGRESSION. The way it's being perceived in the ME and many other parts of the world is that the US is the aggressor, and that's a dangerous perception to let fester.
That said, there was also a great line by Jean Chretien, love him or hate him. When the war was still only a thing of debate, he asked something along the lines of "the problem with regime change is, when do you stop?" How many regimes need changing? Who gives anyone the right to interfere in other countries? I know the obvious answers: strength and power, or the injustice of a regime. There hasn't been much of an uprising in Iraq as this war's gone on, not yet anyway. In fact, from the sounds of it on the BBC and CBC and independent news, there's a lot of support for the Iraqis and even for the regime being built up in the region and in the countries as a result of the war (if you want proof, go online to
www.thestar.com, and look up their coverage of the war, or to the BBC's webpages). People don't like Saddam, but they don't like being invaded a great deal more than they dislike Saddam.
The US has all the power in the world right now. I'm not a US citizen, I don't vote in the US. So I don't have any say in the US's policies that have the potential to influence me. The Bush administration is bent on reshaping the regimes of states that they either dislike, or that they perceive as a threat. Perhaps this is legit, perhaps not, but the question still remains "When do you stop?" Who's next? Russia? North Korea? No, they can actually hurt the US, they've got Nukes? What about Canada, Mexico, the Latin Americas? The great thing about defensive alliances is that it's pretty easy to see when they should get involved-- when someone attacks the members of the alliance. The problem with this whole proactive approach of the US lately is that now, everyone, even some of the US's oldest allies, are starting to get scared by the possibility that, if they disagree with the US, that they're next. I may dislike some of Chretien's policies, but I'm very loyal to my country and to the government that runs it. I don't want a regime change in Canada, and I would pose to everyone on this site that the Iraqis may have similar feelings about their regime, as repulsive as that may sound. If there is an uprising against Hussein, fine, then I'll eat my words. But if there isn't, and they go right back to a dictatorship once the Anglo-American forces get done in Iraq, or if the citizens of Iraq start fighting back against the US and the UK, what then?
Just posing some questions. Keep it above the belt folks, you know I'm a liberal, and attacking me as such ain't a valid argument. Question what I've said, sure, but be aware that liberal = bleeding heart or stupid. (In the classic sense, liberal ideology was much closer to modern day "conservativism" or Republican party ideas... go look up John Locke and his ilk, and you'll see it's true). If we want to discuss this war, let's do it intelligently. We owe it to each other as fellow martial artists and as fellow human beings to present intelligent views, 'cuz that's how we all get wiser, and how we sharpen our own views: by discussing them intelligently and having to defend them against a worthy opponent (and this is directed to everyone, myself included, I'll try to tone my language down a bit).
But that's ok.
