A letter from Sister Meriam

[Guest]

Hmmmm.....how is she a "sister" if she is married?

I smell bullshit.

[jojo22]

Actually, that's a bloody good point - I didn't pick up on that one.

[Guest]

In the middle east and other such countries, the term 'sister' is used frequently as a sign of respect for somebody who is seen as a fellow muslim/christian/jewish female.

[jojo22]

Thanks for that clarification - I did wonder if it had another meaning but lacked the cultural knowledge to question it.

[Guest]

Still a waft of bullshit in here.

[jojo22]

But have we not had Iraqis on the news saying they want the Americans out? Are we to deny that this sentiment exists among multiple factions in Iraq?

[Guest]

But have we not had Iraqis on the news saying they want the Americans out? Are we to deny that this sentiment exists among multiple factions in Iraq?

Among which "factions" does "this sentiment exist"?

There are three main anti-American "factions."

One "faction" is comprised of minority Sunnis, particularly members of Saddam's Barth Party who benefitted from corruption at the expense of the Shiite majority. They want the Americans out because the Americans' goal is a democratic Iraq under which Saddamists and other Baathists will no longer enjoy favored treatment.

Another "faction" is comprised of Salafist Sunnis such as al Qaeda and like-minded extremist fundamentalists, most of whom are not even from Iraq. They want the Americans out because their goal is to usurp power from the majority Shiites and the substantial minority of Kurds in order to fulfill the goal of their jihad, a Salafist state.

The third "faction" is comprised of a subset of the Shiite majority that has been coopted by the Shiite Iranian theocracy. They want the Americans out because Iran wants the Americans out so that Iran can effectively take over Iraq.

In every war, there are bad guys. In Iraq today, the bad guys are the three main factions described above.

[jojo22]

And on what good authority can you claim that there are three distinct factions, homogenous within themselves, and no dissenters outside of these 'distinct groups' who have a genuine lack of affection for outsiders being in their country and continuing to exert direction influence some three years after the initial invasion?

On a side note - it seem that the Christian churches of America have become quite disaffected by the war as well - so I'm inclined to think we won't see a repeat of republican re-election on the basis of appealing to the churches:

http://www.ncccusa.org/news/061109generalassemblywrap.html

"As men and women of faith, we believe that freedom, along with genuine security, is based in God, and is served by the recognition of humanity's interdependence," said the message, "and by working with partners to bring about community, development, and reconciliation for all, and that such freedom and security is not served by this war in Iraq."

Someone said recently that Bush will not remove the troops during the term of his presidency but will rather leave the job to the democrats to do, so that they can then generally be villified as 'cut and runners'. If that has some truth to it, it basically amounts to political strategy and I wonder just how many young American soldiers will die for that purpose?

[Guest]

And on what good authority can you claim that there are three distinct factions, homogenous within themselves, and no dissenters outside of these 'distinct groups' who have a genuine lack of affection for outsiders being in their country and continuing to exert direction influence some three years after the initial invasion?

On a side note - it seem that the Christian churches of America have become quite disaffected by the war as well - so I'm inclined to think we won't see a repeat of republican re-election on the basis of appealing to the churches:

http://www.ncccusa.org/news/061109generalassemblywrap.html

"As men and women of faith, we believe that freedom, along with genuine security, is based in God, and is served by the recognition of humanity's interdependence," said the message, "and by working with partners to bring about community, development, and reconciliation for all, and that such freedom and security is not served by this war in Iraq."

Someone said recently that Bush will not remove the troops during the term of his presidency but will rather leave the job to the democrats to do, so that they can then generally be villified as 'cut and runners'. If that has some truth to it, it basically amounts to political strategy and I wonder just how many young American soldiers will die for that purpose?

Christian congregations oppose every war, but there is no way significant numbers of religious Christians will vote Democrat in 2008 because the Democratic Party platform is pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage.

The Democratic position on either one of those two issues by itself would be a deal breaker for religious Christian voters. The combination is poison.

Moreover, the Democratic Party opposes expressions of religion in the public sphere.

The best possible scenario favoring Democrats would be for religious Christians to become disaffected with the Republicans such that they don't bother voting at all.

I can assure you that no more than a negligible number of religious Christians will ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Guest]

Someone said recently that Bush will not remove the troops during the term of his presidency but will rather leave the job to the democrats to do, so that they can then generally be villified as 'cut and runners'. If that has some truth to it, it basically amounts to political strategy and I wonder just how many young American soldiers will die for that purpose?

Who is the "someone"?

[jojo22]

Someone from another forum

[Guest]

It is an unserious comment unworthy of a serious response.

[jojo22]

You know I worry about the tendancy for humans to clump those from a different ethnic, religious or geographical background into a cohesive other.

Look around you in your day to day life - do you not find that people come in all shapes and sizes and that not all of the people you know have the same opinions, personality or even think the same way as yourself?

If this human diversity is what we experience in our own worlds, why would we assume that people from other ethnic, religious or geographical backgrounds are any less diversified in their opinions as we are? Why would we think that they feel pain and loss any differently to the way that we feel it? If you look at studies from the social sciences, in which ethnicity is a commonly measured 'construct' of categorical differentiation, I would challenge you to find a study where ethnicity explained 100% of the variance in any outcome measure. Ethnicity might contribute something towards capturing the variance, but it does not do a complete job - ever. Therefore, it is illogical to conclude too much based on such categorizations. Moreover, the measurement of ethnicity is inherently flawed because people seldom fit in the neat boxes that make lives convenient for social scientists and tend to be forced, by some arbitrary coding system, into one category over another (even though, as is frequently and increasing the case, they have ancestral ties to 2 or more ethnic groups).

Yet it is this very process of over inclusion and de-humanization - the assumption that the 'other' is basically clone like in character - that allows us to justify what we do to other human beings. It is a false justification IMHO.

The irony of invading Iraq, aligned more than once to confronting terrorism in the political rhetoric, is that invasion by an external force serves to galvanise individuals more towards a homogenous outlook as they find they have a common threat. Without the threat they would go back to being diversified in opinion and action.

The greatest irony is that by going into a country that was at peace, albiet under dictatorship (granted), one creates terrorism rather than reduces it. This has been a commentary coming from people from affected countries in the middle east - they have tried to warn us that we are creating the problem we are trying to strike out to avoid and it is high time that we listened to them and talked with them in a manner that respects their humanity as opposed to dictating our views while not listening, because it serves our own purposes - which despite how we gloss over it and make it more palatable - come down to blatant self interest.

[Guest]

In sacrificing American lives to oust from power and bring to justice Saddam Hussein, a murderous dictator who massacred and tortured millions of Iraqis, America has shown the greatest respect for the humanity of the Iraqi people.

[Guest]

What exactly is America "dictating" to the Iraqis?

Democracy, which by definition cannot be dictated.