Thap if it were just Islam the US was after, target would be any Muslim country but Iraq which is the least 'Islamic' of all..
and frankly, Muslims have done enough damage to Islam themselves than any outside force could ever do.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
On your earlier points, I don’t think isolated perceived rogue nations are deemed much of a threat (N Korea), especially since they do not have a strong ideology. *Ideology is important * to the US, and it is this that is being bombed tonight.
[/QUOTE]
I'd have to disagree. Iraq is perceived as an isolated rogue nation. I don't think anyone in the US views Iraq as a fundamentalist Islamic state. What strong ideology do you think is being bombed?
I thought I'd made that clear.
The school of thought that deems imperialistic aggression intolerable, it's a fundamental belief in Islam. It's disturbing enough to suffer home grown Kingdoms and dictatorships never mind proxy-dictatorial rule. These are the root causes for terrorism.
What do you 'think' is being bombed, and if you give me some crap about Iraqi freedom I wont post back, so be genuine please.
Thap: You are losing me now. I just don't see that any of Iraq's actions over the last couple decades has been motivated by a strong ideological voice opposing US imperialistic aggression. It's invasion of Iran and Kuwait, the gassing of the Kurds and the total repression and torture of the Iraqi people seems pretty unrelated to US imperialism.
I'm with you all the way that the invasion of Iraq is part of a much larger global US policy and that Iraq is the hapless object lesson for the day. You wrote: "Hawkish US global policy has always been about taking care of problems before they arise." I would suggest to you that the current hawkish global policy to take care of problems before they fester is really quite a new doctrine and one that will require reassessment of military thought and planning around the world.
The bigger message the US is sending is that we have the will and capability to address certain types of threats in a pre-emptive fashion. I think the hope is that this policy will cause the voluntary or internal de-radicalization of certain hotspots around the world.
myvoice,
You were never with me.
You mention 'threats' against the US, please expand on them and the likely causes and how this military venture will reduce them, and why is this important to life outside if the US.
You mention Saddams repression and brutalisation of his people (didn't happen yesterday) please expand on this linked to the military campaign today.
You mentioned invasions of Iran and Kuwait; one totally supported by the US and the other 'allowed' again didn't happen yesterday.
Finally back-tracking a few posts I judge (pardon the pun) I wont have to quote you, words to the effect that the US is 'teaching' in some way. What does the US have to teach? I would agree its demonstrating. But teaching what? How arragont.
I honestly think you believe very little of what you wrote, taking care of problems before they 'fester'/occur is not a new doctrine, no great revolution of thought here. Pre-emptive punitive, overwhelming action is as old as warfare itself but was/is deemed brutal and viscous one might say uncivilised. The redcoats in Afghanistan in the 1800’s, the Romans against the Germanics, the Mongols against the Chinese/Russians/Muslim empire I could go on.
In this day of world leaders drawing lines in the sand, the military action in Iraq has put the US in the bounds of the uncivilised nations. There was never an earnest attempt made at diplomacy, this is where the inevitability comes in, and words like imperialism have a home.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
Thap if it were just Islam the US was after, target would be any Muslim country but Iraq which is the least 'Islamic' of all..
and frankly, Muslims have done enough damage to Islam themselves than any outside force could ever do.
[/QUOTE]
It's not about damaging Islam. I agree it's plenty 'damaged' already. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union has there been another even semi-united block ready to oppose interventionist policy from the US?
Whats Iraq's stance on the Palestinian issue, How Muslim do you have to be, to be a threat. PA it's not just about Islamic ideology sure.
well it's not at all about Islamic.. the Iraqis could be Buddihsts for all anyone cares.. it's the Oil they are sitting on, the irrigation systems and water resources that could help it's southern and western regions and the example set for other despots of the region.. not to mention renewed orders for Raytheon and Lockheed and co.
Man it is about Islam, where does the hard sell on reducing the threat to the nation pay off? The oil/construction contracts are a bonus. The Saudi's/Central Asia are more than enough once the pipes are in to keep the American juggernaut going for a long time.
We'll see what the next step is Iran with a sprinkling of NK to keep it balanced I guess, whats your bet?
Thap:
Our discussion seems to be getting sidetracked. I did not bring up Kuwait, Iran and repression as justification for the invasion of Iraq. You said the US was bombing some ideology. (the ideology opposing US imperialist aggression). If such an ideology exists, I certainly don’t see Iraq as being the voice of it. The actions I brought up are totally unrelated to any ideology as proposed by yourself. Iran would be a much better example of a country voicing the type of ideology you suggest is under attack.
As to pre-emption, I didn’t mean to suggest that the idea was new in the history of our world. However, the US adoption and application of this doctrine in the modern world is most definitely the expression of a new military and defense doctrine. Arrogant or not, Iraq is the classroom and a lesson is being taught. You want to call it a demonstration, OK by me. It might even be a more appropriate word.
I’m sure you and I have much different opinions regarding the wisdom of the policy and whether application of the pre-emption doctrine in Iraq was justified. Our area of agreement is that Iraq is just a small part of the application of a much bigger global US policy which extends far beyond such mundane things as controlling the Iraqi oilfields.
The truth of the matter is the animosity towards the American action and American government in general is greatest in Muslims nations (even before the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq), it’s hard to dispute. Rather than largely redressing opinion by satisfactorily settling the Palestinian problem the US has gone out of it’s way to target and victimise these vary nations and has avoided using any means of feasible diplomacy.
So unless the US intends to subdue each and every one (in which case this is a crusade against Islam in everything but the words) it is only serving in creating greater animosity towards itself.
I agree with PA and you that Islamic nations individually are no great perceived threat but the ideology/philosophy and radical nature are. Russia (Chechnya), India (Kashmir), Israel/US (Palestine), China and the Philippines all perceive Islam as a potential threat and nuisance to ‘their’ way of life. If the causes of Muslim rebels/freedom fighters in each of these areas were ever to have a galvanising state (Iraq/Iran/Pakistan etc) with any real clout then yes this would indeed be a threat. The pre-emptive actions of the US will, along with bringing the whole world to order deal with this perceived ‘problem’.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
I agree with PA and you that Islamic nations individually are no great perceived threat but the ideology/philosophy and radical nature are. Russia (Chechnya), India (Kashmir), Israel/US (Palestine), China and the Philippines all perceive Islam as a potential threat and nuisance to ‘their’ way of life. If the causes of Muslim rebels/freedom fighters in each of these areas were ever to have a galvanising state (Iraq/Iran/Pakistan etc) with any real clout then yes this would indeed be a threat. The pre-emptive actions of the US will, along with bringing the whole world to order deal with this perceived ‘problem’.
[/QUOTE]
If you change "Islam" to "radical Islam" or "fundamentalist Islam," then I would pretty much agree with what you have said. If the radical or fundamentalist side of Islam becomes the prevailing form of Islam practiced around the world, there will one day be a massive clash between a bunch of civilizations.
This debate is now really ripe for the religion forum. Degrees of radicalism, internal evolution of the religion or change due to external pressures.