What liberals don't understand

[cryptic1]

Amir Taheri an Iranian writer/journalist set out a perfect
example of the myopic liberal view of international relations,
in an article in the National Post.
Over the past few months the French attempted to offer
an alternative approach to the so called Bushian doctrine of
regime change. The met with the U.S to find a common policy
to deal with Syria and its hegemony in Lebanon.
On Sept. 2/04 a resolution jointly sponsored by the U.S. and
France was presented to the Security Council calling on Syria
to remove its army from Lebanon and the disarmament of
all Lebanese militias. The resolution passed Nine to Zero with
six abstentions. The French were of course delirious, they had
shown an alternative to the Cowboy Bush.
Well, the results were predicatable. Instead of bowing to
collective international will, President Assad had his Lebanese
surrogate amend the Lebanese constitution to allow the Syrian
appointee a new term within 24 hours of the U.N. resolution.
Then he sent in more troops to Lebanon. Iran further
abetted its friends by increasing its arms shipments, including
medium range missiles to Hezbollah.
Mr. Assad had learned from Saddam who had ignored 12
mandatory U.N. resolutions, that diplomacy could never threaten
their power base. A despotic regime commits suicide by following
U.N. dictates, so they are ignored.
Mr. Assad has been supported of course by the mullahs of
Iran who have given him money, arms and cheap oil. Of course
Syria has been used as a back door for every Muslim terrorist
who wants to slip into Iraq to cause more carnage.
The point of this article is clear. France and many of its
EU partners have tried to entice President Assad with promises
and inducements. The UN resolution itself was in the softest
of UN legalese. All it asked was for Syria to get its army out of
Lebanon and let the Lebanese run their own affairs. Assad's
response was clear. No way.
Anyone who still believes that Saddam would have been
persuaded to follow international law through an endless series
of U.N. resolutions is either blind or stupid. This latest example
of Syria shows that totalitarian regimes only understand violence
and war. This ridiculous belief that UN resolutions have any
affect on dictatorships has been proven time and again to be
faulty. Liberals repeatedly delude themselves that this time
it will be different. Rules and laws may mean something at a
cricket match (supply any gentleman's game) but not in 'real
politik'.

cryptic1

[Dick Schmidt]

Yup!


Dick


"Stop quoting laws to us. We carry swords"
-Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by cryptic1

Anyone who still believes that Saddam would have been
persuaded to follow international law through an endless series
of U.N. resolutions is either blind or stupid.
cryptic1 [/B]

I don't know of any liberal on this board (and I could be wrong, I only came to this section about a month ago) that has argued that Saddam would have been forced to obey international law through UN resoloutions. The argument has been whether it was necessary to commit the money and manpower we have to eliminate him at this point. If we are going to depose every leader that is not following the rules we are going to be constantly at war. It is my opinion that the money would have been better spent pursuing Al Qaida. Or, if you accept the argument that we had to depose Saddam (I don't) that we could have at least waited till we had a viable plan to get out.

I may be liberal but I'm not soft on terrorism. I just want the bastards that caused 9-11.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by betchatoo
I may be liberal but I'm not soft on terrorism. I just want the bastards that caused 9-11.

Therein lies your error. It is not about just one group anymore. 9-11 was a symptom of the greater problem. To them it is a Holy war. You see it as a law enforcement issue by only wanting to aprehend those responsible for 9-11. It is a larger problem than that. Bush and Rummy understand that.......so does Condi......

enough said..........

[schweitz]

Islamic radical extremists are seeking greater control throughout the world. Radical Islamists are not just anti-USA or anti-west---they are also anti-democracy---anti-Christian---anti-Jewish----anti-Buddhist----anti-Hindu.

Radical Muslims are involved in all 26 military conflicts going on in the world today: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Cote d' Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Phillippines, Sudan, Russia/Chechnya, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.

World War III has started-----and it is not going away on it's own.

[Dave Schwartz]

Schweitz,

Very well said.

I have a couple of Muslim friends (as well as a handful of clients). Whenever we speak about terrorism (and we do occasionally discuss it) they make it perfectly clear that their personal belief structure does not revolve around a "hate all non-Muslims" concept.

Not so long ago I came to the conclusion that there were two types of Muslims - peaceful and hate mongering. The key to battling Muslim terrorism in the world is to begin by differentiating between those two groups.

That differentiation most be driven by the Muslims themselves. Effectively, a group must come forward and say "We are not about terrorism; we will not tolerate terrorism; we will not associate with terrorists."

The need for Muslims to make such a declaration must be brought about by the pressures from within but also placed upon them by society; our society.

I recently ran across the following article (ironically, on the same day that I reached the above-stated conclusion). Apparently there are those within the Muslim community who are not far off from seeing the need for such a declaration.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

++++++++++++++


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/international/middleeast/09arabiya.html?pagewanted=print&position=

September 9, 2004
Massacre Draws Self-Criticism in Muslim Press
By JOHN KIFNER

EIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 8 - The brutal school siege in Russia, with hundreds of children dead and wounded, has touched off an
unusual round of self-criticism and introspection in the Muslim and Arab world.

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost
all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched satellite television station
Al Arabiya said in one of the most striking of these commentaries.

Writing in the pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat, Mr. Rashed said it was "shameful and degrading" that not only were the
Beslan hijackers Muslims, but so were the killers of Nepalese workers in Iraq; the attackers of residential towers in Riyadh
and Khobar, Saudi Arabia; the women believed to have blown up two Russian airplanes last week; and Osama bin Laden himself.

"The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the
world, were Muslim," he wrote. "What a pathetic record. What an abominable 'achievement.' Does this tell us anything about
ourselves, our societies and our culture?"

Mr. Rashed, like several other commentators, singled out Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a senior Egyptian cleric living in Qatar
who broadcasts an influential program on Al Jazeera television and who has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for
the killing of American and foreign "occupiers" in Iraq, military and civilian.

"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheik allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote.
"How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion
of blood and slaughter?"

Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their
adoption of violence, and the mosque was a haven of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.

"Then came the neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the
absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person
you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."

A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheik Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he
wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind,
that instead of defending true Islam, they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage taking and murder."

In Jordan, a group of Muslim religious figures, meeting with the religious affairs minister, Ahmed Heleil, issued a statement
on Wednesday saying the seizing of the school and subsequent massacre "was dedicated to distorting the pure image of Islam.''

"This terrorist act contradicts the principles of our true Muslim religion and its noble values," the statement said.

Writing in the Jordanian daily Ad Dustour, columnist Bater Wardam noted the propensity in the Arab world to "place
responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists and the American
intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case.''

"They came from our midst," he wrote of those who had kidnapped and killed civilians in Iraq, blown up commuter trains in
Spain, turned airliners into bombs and shot the children in Ossetia.

"They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils and call for the defense of Islamic
causes,'' he said. "Therefore we must all raise our voices, disown them and oppose all these crimes."

In Beirut, Rami G. Khouri editor of the Daily Star, wrote that while most Arabs "identified strongly and willingly" with
armed Palestinian or Lebanese guerrillas fighting Israeli occupation, "all of us today are dehumanized and brutalized by the
images of Arabs kidnapping and beheading foreign hostages."

Calling for a global strategy to reduce terror, he traced what he called "this ugly trek" in the Arab world to "the
home-grown sense of indignity, humiliation, denial and degradation that has increasingly plagued many of our young men and
women."

A Palestinian columnist, Hassan al-Batal, wrote in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al Ayyam that the "day of
horror in the school" should be designated an international day for the condemnation of terrorism. "There are no mitigating
circumstances for the inhuman horror and the height of barbarism," he said of the school attack.

In Egypt, the semi-official newspaper Al Ahram called the events "an ugly crime against humanity."

In Saudi Arabia, newspapers tightly controlled by the government - which finds itself under attack from Islamic
fundamentalists - were even more scathing.

Under the headline "Butchers in the Name of Allah," a columnist in the government daily Okaz, Khaled Hamed al-Suleiman, wrote
that "the propagandists of jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam.''

"They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent
civilians and exploding people,'' he said. "They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and
savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people."

"The time has come for Muslims to be the first to come out against those interested in abducting Islam in the same way they
abducted innocent children,'' he added. "This is the true jihad these days, and this is our obligation, as believing Muslims,
toward our monotheistic religion."

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by schweitz

World War III has started-----and it is not going away on it's own.

Uh..if WW III has started shouldn't the Prez be getting the consent of Congress. After all the Constitution gives them the right to declare War, or are we ignoring the Constitution now.

[Lefty]

bet, you said something like Saddam could have been kept in check with UN resolutions. He broke about 17 of them. How many do you think we should have let him brk before we got him?

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by Lefty
bet, you said something like Saddam could have been kept in check with UN resolutions. He broke about 17 of them. How many do you think we should have let him brk before we got him?

Actually, what I said was that I don't know of any liberal on this board that has argued that Saddam would have been forced to obey international law through UN resolutions. So no, I don't think he (or any other country, including ours) could be kept in check by UN resolutions

[Equineer]

After the elections, informed analysts expect the U.S. will bring the Iran question before the U.N. Security Council, seeking a resolution to mandate U.N. inspections and supervised dismantling of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Few, if any, experts expect the Security Council to pass such a resolution. In Saddam's case, the U.N. reacted to the invasion of Kuwait, which was condemned by most of Saddam's Arab neighbors.

The current circumstances in the Middle East are analogous to the cold war between Pakistan and India. When one side has nukes, nothing short of nuclear parity will satisfy the other side.

Israel has a potent nuclear arsenal (i.e., estimates range between 100 and 200 warheads), and Israel repudiates the authority of the U.N. to monitor/inspect/dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Moreover, the U.S. has blocked repeated attempts within the U.N. to sanction Israel's nuclear program.

Once India had nukes, there was no stopping Pakistan unless India was forced to dismantle its nuclear program and destroy its warheads. The Middle East is no different.

As with the U.S. and Russia, the U.N. is meaningless unless both sides in a major conflict agree to agree.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Uh..if WW III has started shouldn't the Prez be getting the consent of Congress. After all the Constitution gives them the right to declare War, or are we ignoring the Constitution now.

Now this is a truly lame response. I've had my share of lame responses, so I'm not one to talk, but this one takes the cake.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Now this is a truly lame response. I've had my share of lame responses, so I'm not one to talk, but this one takes the cake.

lol...I guess its all in POV PA. My take is your post is a lame response to what you perceive as a lame response.

[schweitz]

I would have responded by now but sec's response didn't seem to fit my post. :confused:

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Uh..if WW III has started shouldn't the Prez be getting the consent of Congress. After all the Constitution gives them the right to declare War, or are we ignoring the Constitution now.


They declared it. We have no choice but to particpate. Do you have any doubt that WWIII has started?


Wassup? Have a bad Toga meet?:D