Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban
- Thread starter SHASH2K2
- Start date
Nonynon
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2011
- Messages
- 246
- Likes
- 16
The religious part is that a large part of the US Christians think that by supporting Israel, USA can make the gog omagog war (something like the final battle with good and evil) come faster. The jewish minority in USA couldn't get USA to bomb the Nazi death camps in ww2, I don't think they're that powerful that they can dictate USA's policy on a strategic level like that. Besides, there's an even larger Muslim minority in USA and a huge and powerful Oil lobby that hates USA's support to Israel.
AOE
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 23
So the fight against communism, one of the most depraved political systems in human history, was not a moral one? Now we're teetering here on moral equivalence.
The fact there are many Christians in the US that support Israel is not the same reasons I support it, in fact far from it. I support it because I know exactly what would happen to the Israelis if they were not able to defend themselves, and the answer is a second holocaust. Apart from Turkey (arguably), Israel is the only country in the region that has a functioning democracy with human rights; so my respect goes out to the Israelis and their struggle against Islamic imperialism and terrorism.
As for Darfur, Burma, etc... they have been left up to the UN who simply sat on their hands, just like they did with Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda. Blame the anti-war movement for Americas inability to intervene in these situations, it's the same kinds of people who spew the rhetoric of America only looking after its economic interests that are also the same people who would have preferred if Iraq was still the tyrannized property of the mafiosi Baath party, Afghanistan to remain under the tribal religious extremist rule of the Taliban, and Bosnia and Kosovo to be a cleansed and annexed part of a Greater Serbia. You want Darfur and Burma liberated? Tell these people to grow a pair, and to support the US military to depose of these regimes, because no-one else will.
Last edited:
I don't understand why the logic that because women in Saudi Arabia aren't allowed to wear bikinis, French citizens should not be allowed to wear niqab. This is completely ridiculous.
(1)Every other country in the world with Muslims allows women to wear bikinis, Egypt, UAE, Turkey, Indonesia and so on. Of course, you won't be wearing a bikini and walk in the street but either on the beach or in some private area. And guess what, in private beaches(for example ARAMCO beaches) or in pools in private compounds in Saudi Arabia, women do wear bikinis too.
(2)The women who are being targeted here are French citizens, some are migrant French and some are converts. According to a survey half of the Niqab wearing women were converts. This is the statistics, so why would any Arab or Muslim country feel compelled to do anything other than say a few words. It doesn't affect them and they couldn't care less. Unless of course you have a weak govt. and you want to show your people that you will defend Muslims by raising the rhetoric, but that is all. Cue, Iran or Pakistan both of who have weak governments and are likely to raise the most noise and even they were mostly quiet. They just don't care. In fact, this line of thought indicates that the French govt. wants to "battle" the Arab countries through Niqab wearing women. Very tasteless which doesn't make any sense. And the Saudis and French continue to have a very close and cozy relationship as always.
(3) Lastly, for how many people is this law made? Niqabis are estimated to be around 300-400 women. The entire population of France is around 65 million. Its the height of stupidity to create a law to tackle 300-400 women. There is no sense of proportion here. For example, in Australia, marijuana use is a problem, there are so many users that although initially it was illegal to have even a single gram of marijuana, they basically came out with a new law that said that those in possession of less than 10g for personal use will just be let off. It wasn't worth it because the police will be overstretched and run after these personal users which numbered in the 10s of thousands rather than catching the big fish.And this is exactly how the French police felt. They don't want to lose their limited resources fining and catching grandmas in niqabs out shopping. There are more important issues to address and they were actually opposed to the law. That doesn't make them less French or pro-Arab or whatever. Its just commonsense. Besides, in a generation or two, their daughters would probably not be wearing the niqab anyways.
Just a point to clarify the confusion on sikh turban bans. The ban is in government and schools and colleges. This also applies to headscarfs as well. But although there is no ban on sikh turbans if you go out shopping, there is a ban now if you wear a niqab.
I personally don't see wearing a niqab as necessary nor do I support it. But the law is just one of Sarkozy's way of getting the easy way out by pandering to the electorate instead of actually performing and showing statesmanship. Now he can claim to have protected France from 400 niqab wearing women.
(1)Every other country in the world with Muslims allows women to wear bikinis, Egypt, UAE, Turkey, Indonesia and so on. Of course, you won't be wearing a bikini and walk in the street but either on the beach or in some private area. And guess what, in private beaches(for example ARAMCO beaches) or in pools in private compounds in Saudi Arabia, women do wear bikinis too.
(2)The women who are being targeted here are French citizens, some are migrant French and some are converts. According to a survey half of the Niqab wearing women were converts. This is the statistics, so why would any Arab or Muslim country feel compelled to do anything other than say a few words. It doesn't affect them and they couldn't care less. Unless of course you have a weak govt. and you want to show your people that you will defend Muslims by raising the rhetoric, but that is all. Cue, Iran or Pakistan both of who have weak governments and are likely to raise the most noise and even they were mostly quiet. They just don't care. In fact, this line of thought indicates that the French govt. wants to "battle" the Arab countries through Niqab wearing women. Very tasteless which doesn't make any sense. And the Saudis and French continue to have a very close and cozy relationship as always.
(3) Lastly, for how many people is this law made? Niqabis are estimated to be around 300-400 women. The entire population of France is around 65 million. Its the height of stupidity to create a law to tackle 300-400 women. There is no sense of proportion here. For example, in Australia, marijuana use is a problem, there are so many users that although initially it was illegal to have even a single gram of marijuana, they basically came out with a new law that said that those in possession of less than 10g for personal use will just be let off. It wasn't worth it because the police will be overstretched and run after these personal users which numbered in the 10s of thousands rather than catching the big fish.And this is exactly how the French police felt. They don't want to lose their limited resources fining and catching grandmas in niqabs out shopping. There are more important issues to address and they were actually opposed to the law. That doesn't make them less French or pro-Arab or whatever. Its just commonsense. Besides, in a generation or two, their daughters would probably not be wearing the niqab anyways.
Just a point to clarify the confusion on sikh turban bans. The ban is in government and schools and colleges. This also applies to headscarfs as well. But although there is no ban on sikh turbans if you go out shopping, there is a ban now if you wear a niqab.
I personally don't see wearing a niqab as necessary nor do I support it. But the law is just one of Sarkozy's way of getting the easy way out by pandering to the electorate instead of actually performing and showing statesmanship. Now he can claim to have protected France from 400 niqab wearing women.
A good article on the Niqab debate which covers some points that I didn't
The Niqab ban: A Study in Stupidity
On the eleventh of April, it became illegal to veil one's face in public in France.
This is something that seems to have made a lot of people happy, and they defend their being happy quite vigorously.
The arguments, if one can call them so, run along three fairly broad and predictable lines:
First, that the burqa, in whatever form (hijab, niqab) is against "French/European culture" and said culture has to be protected from it
Secondly, that the burqa is, by its very nature, oppressive to women; and
Thirdly, that the burqa is a security hazard.
Each and every one of these arguments is hollow and self-serving.
Let's take the first argument first.
Now, I'm not denying that to people who aren't exactly used to seeing masked faces, the sight of a woman in a veil may be momentarily unsettling. But that's all she is"¦a woman in a veil. If a woman in a veil is a threat to one's culture, I submit that said culture has problems far greater than can be cured by merely banning the veil.
Besides, while culture is of course a plastic item and changes, albeit usually rather slowly, over time, exactly how great is the threat to French culture from the niqab? Actually, we don't have to resort to guesswork. France has roughly three million Muslim women. The French police did a survey to check how many wore the niqab. The answer? 367.[1]
Now you tell me what kind of culture is at threat from a miserable three hundred and sixty seven veiled women? And in Belgium, which is also planning to ban the veil, there are half a million Muslim women, of whom a humongous two dozen wear the veil [2]. Amazing.
I think, for the moment, we can put the culture issue aside as a shoddy excuse.
The second argument is the idea that being made to wear a veil is "oppressive" to women.
On the face of it this might seem a seductive notion, and it is"¦so long as you don't ask those veiled women what they think of it. If you do, the reactions might be surprising.
This is what Kenza Drider, a French Muslim woman who wears the niqab and is determined to violate the ban, has to say [3]:
"This whole law makes France look ridiculous"¦I never thought I'd see the day when France, my France, the country I was born in and I love, the country of liberté, égalité, fraternité, would do something that so obviously violates people's freedom.
"I'll be getting on with my life and if they want to send me to prison for wearing the niqab then so be it. One thing's for sure: I'm not taking it off."
So here we have an "oppressed" woman prepared to go to prison rather than remove the symbol of her alleged oppression.
In fact, worldwide, the burqa or niqab can be seen to be an empowering garment rather than an oppressive one.
How so? In order to answer that, we must ask first this question:
Who, precisely, are the people who wear burqas, hijabs or niqabs? Aren't they fundamentalist Muslims? They are.
Now, the burqa or other veil is actually not required wearing in Islam. It's more a cultural thing, and it's mostly a coincidence that those cultures which traditionally veiled their women also tend to have the more fundamentalist interpretations of the Islamic faith. But the fact remains that the veil is worn by women, primarily, in cultures where they have to wear it in public if they go out at all. Tradition, reinforced by their menfolk, ensure that they keep the veil.
Often, in fact, the veil is just a temporary garment, for wearing in public. Women in many countries will dress to kill, put on the burqa over their hip-hugging jeans and low-neck tops, and go to all-woman malls and discos, where they will dump the veil in the check-in and turn into birds of paradise for the night. You'd call that oppression?
For many women it's much more of a necessity. I myself knew a dentist in Calcutta who worked in her clinic in the regulation white coat, latex gloves and face mask. But when her clinic hours were over, she would put on a burqa for the trip home. And this was a well-educated professional. There are many more who do the same, whose lives outside the home take place within the folds of a burqa.
Now, suppose you ban the burqa. Will those veiled women suddenly gain the freedom to go out without their enveloping garments? Of course they won't. Instead, they will find themselves confined within the four walls of their home, prisoners of their inability to put on the veil that set them free.
Pretty strange way of enforcing female emancipation if you ask me!
Then, the third excuse is the "security" one. In these days of Islamophobia and terrorism-mongering, this strikes a raw nerve. In fact it's so clearly designed to strike a raw nerve that you know right away that it's a fake argument.
Let's think about a veiled woman in the street. Sure, she could be hiding a bomb under her niqab's folds. Hell, if it's winter, any guy or gal in a heavy jacket could be hiding a bomb under said jacket. Do you ban jackets?
Then, in a world where Al Qaeda has already produced and used intestine bombs [4], a burqa-clad suicide bomber would be rather"¦obvious, no?
But let's not even go to all that. A burqa-clad woman stands out in a crowd, instantly. If you are in a situation where you need to check her identity, just ask a policewoman to do it. It's a system used in India, for example, where a large number (yet very, very far from a majority, let alone all) of Muslim women are veiled, and so far it's worked more or less perfectly.
In North India, a lot of Muslim women,who are otherwise poor, semi/illiterate,and from fundamentalist families,wear the veil. They go shopping,work,even drive,wearing it. I've treated veiled Muslim women many times. You ban the veil,and what happens to them? Answer-they're, instantly, disempowered.
The irony is that the nations banning the veil have almost no veiled people,while nations full of veiled women don't seem to have any problems with them. You'd think India might have more problems than France with the veil,wouldn't you, assuming of course that said problems exist?
Right.
But of course all this veil-banning has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the three "arguments" advanced. It has everything to do with scoring cheap political points in an environment where Muslim-bashing is an easy way to popularity, so long as you don't openly call it Muslim-bashing. The fear of Muslims has seeped so thoroughly into modern Europe (replacing the fear of Jews) that anything that targets them will get electoral support, no matter how ridiculous it is.
And of course this veil-banning is counterproductive. Leave the veil alone, and it's fairly certain that the children of the veil-wearing generation will abandon it for what their friends and colleagues are wearing, or their children will. But ban the veil, and wearing it becomes an instant act of defiance, a badge of resistance against cultural diktat. I'd be very surprised if non-niqab-wearing Muslim women in France don't now start wearing it as a mark of protest.
And since populism and tokenism aren't the prerogative of any one party, the Islamic Right will (in case it hasn't already done so) instantly leap on the ban as yet another proof of the evilness of the Crusader West, and use it as a tool to further raise anti-Western hatred. It suits their agenda perfectly.
In fact this kind of thing (like Switzerland's banning of mosque minarets, another ludicrous bit of stupidity) is so tailored towards cleaving societies asunder that I'd be astonished if those responsible weren't doing it deliberately.
Clashes of civilisations can be created in inventive ways.
Sources:
[1] French Parliament to Investigate a Possible Ban on the Burqa and Niqab - NYTimes.com
[2] BBC News - Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban
[3] Why I will defy France's 'burqa law' | World news | The Observer
[4] http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sout….1002 56280.html
Further reading:
The French Ban on Niqab and Burqas: An Exercise in Empathy - Technorati Politics
Ray Sir,
Actually there has been a lot of research into this and the findings are very interesting. If you look into the nitty gritty of what motivates a suicide bomber it tends to be occupation or fear of occupation by a foreign state. That is why most of the suicide bombers who give their motivation then to cite political reasons rather than religious. Pakistan of course tends to be a special case were small children are being brainwashed but in most cases the suicide bomber is an adult and makes a conscious decision to do so.
Please check out the links below:
Insight on developing US policy to tackle Suicide Terrorism
Robert Pape speaks on Suicide Terrorism and how to stop it - New America Foundation
AOE
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 23
This is nonsense, and Pakistan is no exception to religious extremism. The same kinds of thinking and behavior can be found all across the Islamic world, and one has to consider the obvious point that if the US removed all of its bases from the Middle-East; there would still be Islamic terrorists who hate Jews, Hindus, Christians, Atheists; basically anyone non-Muslim. The overall goal of terrorists groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is to establish a worldwide Caliphate, through any means necessary. This would include terrorism, intimidation, various forms of Jihad, claiming 'islamophobia', gaining special religious privileges in the west, etc...
As for the article you posted that tried to debunk the three reasons why France (for example) bans the veil, its reasoning against female oppression is weak when someone takes a casual glance at the state of human rights in Islamic theocratic or Muslim majority states; instead of comparing in western countries where they have far more freedoms and liberties. Another point you should consider is would you legally allow a white supremacist to walk around in public in a KKK outfit? It's a form of prejudicial clothing just like the niqab and burkha, and it covers an individual completely from head to toe, including their face. If you answer no, then the corollary needs to be extended to the niqab and burkha.
Last edited:
I was referring to suicide bombing, religious extremism is found in other countries and across other religions as well. Suicide bombings is a more recent phenomenon and using teenagers for suicide bombings is pretty much a Pakistani or more specifically a Waziristani phenomenon. Otherwise, those who do commit suicide bombings are not brainwashed teenagers but adults who intentionally commit suicide bombings.
Do go through the links I posted earlier, it refers specifically to suicide bombings. Its based on research done by an American Air Force officer who is studying the phenomenon for about 10 years now and maintains a DB of all suicide bombings that have taken place since 1980. It was his conclusion that I was summarizing, so I would hardly call it nonsense when it is based on a systematic approach of quantifying suicide attacks and their motivations for doing so. Check out the video lectures or read "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" for more info.
Are there any laws banning people from wearing a KKK outfit in public? I don't know I'm asking. I know there are laws against the Swastika because of its association with Nazism but I don't think there is any such laws with wearing a white pointed hoodie. Ofcourse, this includes the fact that KKK has a history of intimidation and violence against blacks.
The point is let the woman decide if she wants to wear a niqab or not. I think the article gave some anecdotal examples of convert Muslims who wanted to wear it. I don't agree with the necessity to wear a niqab as part of religious obligation. I see it as unnecessary and unhelpful. But I wouldn't FORCE a person to not wear it. Just as I would be against any family member(husband/father) who would FORCE a woman to wear the niqab. Both are wrong.
Leave the choice to the woman weather she wants to or not. And of course, like the article mentioned, there are many niqab/burkha wearing women who go to colleges get degrees, work e.t.c. doing what many women do. There are many other ways to empower muslim women from education to jobs e.t.c. that will have a more worthwhile impact than banning niqab for 400 women.
And again these are FRENCH citizens. Bringing Arab country arguments is going no where because they could care less what happens to french citizens.
I would again bring the Indian example here. Despite being a non-Muslim majority country it has a Muslim population that is about 50 times the size of France and although niqab wearing women in India are a small minority like everywhere else, they would certainly be numbering in the 1000s if not more. It has suffered more terrorist attacks from Muslim extremists than France ever did but still there is no "law" about banning them. Female security guards routinely check and frisk women niqab wearing or not and newer generations themselves voluntarily leave the niqab aside. Infact, India's Bollywood routinely has songs or movie scenes where niqab wearing women are shown sometimes in leading roles or the main love interest of the lead actor. Maybe I am biased towards India because I am Indian, but I think France could learn from India in this regard on how reach out to their French citizens.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 5,842
- Likes
- 1,837
At one point in History USA did not support Israel, they only used french weapons to fight the 6day war. As i told you the Republicans see it as an Religious duty and the Democrats continue the state policy. It is merely an policy of the growing Evangelist lobby in the USA to help the Jews so their God can kill them on Judgment day.
What happened in Asia or against the Communists in general was an fight for supremacy, it was the same case with Nazi Germany. They had no issues with Nazism till Hitler wanted to take over Europe, so it was merely an struggle for imperialism. Britain itself was raciest and supported regimes like South Africa till the 80s. So why would they have any issues with the Nazis?
Take an guess which football team is that? If you guessed British you would be right, they had no need to do the Nazi Salute while the Anthems where playing yet they did it to show they had no problems what so ever with Nazi ideology but the problem only started when Hitler invaded.
Just as Democracy is not completely correct, Communism was not entirely bad like that part where religions need to be kept out or equality in wealth distribution where all good ideas but it was power hungry and had an oppressive system architecture, which did not give enough rights to the people. I dont repeat communism is bad just because it was the official brain wash line of the west during the Cold War, i see there are some good points in it and some bad points.
USA had no problems with Communism till the Soviets became an threat to their own ideology. Weather you like it or not its merely an fight for supremacy and resources.
I am not moved by the arguments you make about Bosnia or Iraq, i myself am from a country that was subject to US double standard in policy, when USA sold Pakistan weapons for the past 50 years to fight against the only Democracy in the region it did not look like an fight for Democracy from my angle. It looked more like strategic positioning and opportunism. When millions where ethnically cleansed out of Bangladesh(then east Pakistan) the US sent the famous 7th fleet into the Indian Ocean to threaten India. It was an horrific ethic cleansing with Millions killed by the Pakistan army and it could be only equated with the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis, yet there was no support from the US and it was only the Soviets who gave us a 14 day time frame to go in and do the job while they will keep the US away by using diplomatic pressure in the UN. Same way i see double standards every where in what US does in the world.
Indra Gandhi here says how she pleaded with the West to stop the genocide but they did nothing except to turn a blind eye to Pakistans atrocity.
You blame it on the UN for Dawfur but apparently UN meant nothing when USA invaded Iraq and went against the UN, when it wanted to? Which shows it could have done something if it really cared about Dawfur or Policing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet they claimed WMDs as an excuse to invade, how many WMDs did they discover in Iraq? The truth is Iraq invaded the Bush families allies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which the Bush family is cozze with and did not like. What makes Iraq an worse nation than the Saudis when women in Iraq could work and drive cars or have some sort of liberty compared to Saudi Arabia. There are so many such double standards be it in supporting China with its economy while economically sanctioning North Korea, Iran and even India post the nuclear tests. After all even wars should be economically worth your while.
So Bosnia could be an exception to the rule but exceptions to the rule dont become the norm. There are double standards every where be it in Pakistan,India,China,Arabia,Asia or Dawfur Africa. You just need to be a lot less partisan to see this.
Last edited by a moderator:
AOE
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 23
Suicide bombings are common everywhere, they are committed by Muslims of all ages, and they are not exclusive to Pakistan; you can find similar people wanting to end their own lives for martyrdom in Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia, in fact anywhere there is often a sizable extremist Muslim religious community. Occupation as a reason for suicide bombing is actually incorrect if you take into account the fact that if the US withdrew all of its bases from the Middle-East, and dropped its support for Israel; the extremists would still hate everyone outside their faith, they would still hate America and Israel, and they would actually increase the level of bombings and attacks as they would see it as a window to take full advantage.
I am not dismissing that Pakistan is a hotbed of terrorism and extremism (it unequivocally is), but I am saying that Islamic terrorism is not unique to just Pakistan; that is incorrect when one looks elsewhere in the Islamic world. If you have not heard of these websites already, you may want to have a browse through them to see the motivations, methods, and practices of these terrorists:
Jihad Watch
The Religion of Peace.
Naturally if people in the west are suspected of harboring anti-Semitic or National Socialist views, they will have their lives ruined, but I wasn't necessarily asking if it was banned or not; more so if you would want it to be banned and if so, on what logic? If you say because it's a symbol of oppression, bigotry, and xenophobia; then the niqab and burkha also have to be banned on similar grounds.
Do you think someone should be arrested if they wore a KKK outfit in public? If not, then why?
The sad fact of the matter is that even women who immigrate from the Islamic world often still live in strict religious communities and traditions that force these values on them, and if they try to escape; often they are beaten, raped, murdered, and ostracized. If you believe that the niqab and burkha are not mandatory Islamic dress for women, then that makes the argument for allowing them to wear it less, since they can simply wear a hijab instead. Problem solved.
The funny thing is that wearing a niqab or burkha as a teacher actually makes it difficult for students to understand what they are saying through a layer of cloth, especially if they are teaching children. Those women mostly have those opportunities here in the west or in various Asian countries, but in the Islamic world; they are few and far in between, and the niqab/burkha are very much symbols of oppression there. Whether or not the number of women is 400, 4,000, or even 400,000 makes no difference to the argument. If the number is less then simply put, it should be less of a problem that it is banned.
I don't see how. What applies to one country does not necessarily apply to another, also interesting to note that the larger the Islamic community is in a particular country, statistically there is a larger number of terrorist attacks. This is due to the problem that the Islamic world is still stuck in the dark ages, and that they need a reformation/enlightenment of some kind to wake up from this. If Muslims are so concerned about having these freedoms here in the west, why is it that Atheism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, indeed any other faith/non-religious group is banned from building places of worship or organizations in numerous Islamic countries? I'm afraid it works both ways.
Last edited:
AOE
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 23
Yes, the Americans did not originally support Israel, and yes, they also sat on their hands in the early stages and lead up to WWII; which can partially be blamed on Americas xenophobia and isolationism at the time (two ideas that tend to go hand in hand I might add). The UK also did support an apartheid state. Winston Churchill justified the killing of tens of thousands of blacks in gas chambers during the Boer War, this is not news to me. I have my criticisms of this and I know that this paints a less than perfect picture, but this in no way takes away from the point I was trying to make.
I'm glad the Americans are on the side of the Israelis, even if it is partly for flawed reasons (scripture and prophecy), and I'm also happy that a sizable portion of the US public is also supportive to that states existence.
That's a problem with humanity in general, not necessarily the Americans. People will only see a problem when it is almost too late, or when millions of people perish in an ensuing conflict. Communism is not a good system even on paper, as the early Bolsheviks (Lenin and Trotsky) saw human individualism, liberty, freedom, and differing views as a hinderer to the Utopian world; which is why they advocated creation of a one-party state. Lenin and Trotsky who governed Russia during the revolution (1917-1922) also killed 3.2 million people, and millions more in the Russian Civil War with the Tsarist White Army. Keep in mind that many of the statistics for fascism and communism were not made available until the fall of the main states involved (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), so peoples support for both systems came purely out of their own ignorance of their writings and political views. Yet again, this is a problem of all of humanity.
While I have great respect for what you are saying (as you are referring to the 1971 conflict, and I dismiss Islamic extremists regardless of where they hail from), I'm afraid the situation is more complicated than that. In the 1950s and 1960s, the US was searching for another 'Attaturk' in the Middle-East, and they thought they had found that with the Pakistanis (in particular, Ali Jinnah), and it took them a few decades to realize how wrong they were; yet again to a lack of information (see point above, well except for the Blood Telegram). Pakistan also was originally pro-US, and many Americans fell for the idea of a 'Pakistani democracy' which eroded eventually into the hierarchical, terrorist state you see today. So there are lessons to be learned in all of this, and I think I have already stated before that I'm not a huge fan of Nixon/Kissinger who also played a significant role in cementing US-Pakistani relations.
The complexity, however, does not end there. You are forgetting that this was the Cold War, and you must take into account that Jawaharlal Nehru was a socialist. Ever since Indias independence in 1948; he sought to improve relations mostly with communist countries, which is why as early as the 1950s he picked the USSR over the Americans for Indias choice as a greater strategic ally, and even recognized the PRC as early as 1949 when soon after, that same country would go to war with the UN in Korea. It is actions like these that would explain why America was involved in the war of 1971, but it was largely diplomatic to contain Soviet influence and expansion. It could be argued that had it not been for the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty in Indian politics, then India and America would have been long term allies by now and perhaps the state of Pakistan would* have ceased to exist after that war. This is of course ignoring other facts such as Pakistans on and off aid due to its behavior, and after the 1962 Sino-Indian war; John F Kennedy vowed to go to war with China, even to the nuclear level if they re-opened that conflict. Sadly JFK was assassinated by a sympathizer of the Soviet Union.
Of course what happened in South Asia bears little over Americas involvement in the ex-Yugoslavian states, or in Iraq; they are unrelated on most counts. You shouldn't throw out every conflict just because Indias past relations with the US weren't exactly warm. That's not history, that's propaganda and blind nationalism.
This is actually a subject I am very familiar with, and have done extensive research on. Most of the arguments you have presented can be easily dismissed as false if you do further research into the matter outside of media hyperbole. The Americans did not get involved because of the Saudis, in reality the Arab League was mostly opposed to US intervention as they preferred keeping Saddam in power, because they saw Iraq as a buffer state against Iran; so that claim is essentially false. The war was not started or even first promoted by 'Bush' or those god-damn right wing apocalypse-loving Christian nut jobs you seem to cite a lot; all throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, democrats such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry all made similar arguments that Bush made later about WMDs, and people conveniently forget that. The argument for regime change was also put forward by Bush, Blair, and others within the Bush administration. This is an argument that has proven effective, has been fulfilled, and I also admire; as the previous decade after the Gulf War, the UN allowed sanctions over Iraq that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi civilians, many of which were children, instead of finishing the job in 1993 (removing Baathism from Baghdad, not just Kuwait). There was also the abuse of the Oil-For-Food-Programme, and the corruption of which extended throughout the UN even up to Kofi Annans office, and that France, Germany, and Russia were making it impossible for any UN resolutions to come through to green light the removal of the Baathist regime in Iraq in 2002-2003. This included the veto of the appointment of Rolf Ekeus as the chief weapons inspector to Iraq by France and Russia, who in my view is the most competent inspector and authority on Iraqi WMDs than Hans Blix (who they alternatively nominated). Hans Blix inspected Iraq in the 1980s and certified it as WMD free, even when the gassing of the Iranians and Kurds would soon occur, and Rolf Eckeus who inspected in the early 90s destroyed more Iraqi WMDs than the entire Gulf War; those results speak for themselves.
Rolf Ekeus in 2003 explains Iraq still has ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons. <-- This is worth reading, and despite the fact that no major stockpiles of weapons were found; the premise is essentially true.
The closest thing Americans found in Iraq to WMDs was a series of documents pertaining to Iraqs attempt to buy North Korean long range missiles (longer than those permitted by UN inspections) which prior to the invasion, the North Koreans took the Iraqi deposit to buy such missiles without delivering the goods, and there was a fight within the Baath party over this. You can argue that this is minuscule at best, but the reason you can say this is minuscule is because you have the benefit of hindsight. You need to put yourself in the position of a US president in 2002 who has received CIA intelligence and documents showing attempts by the Baathist regime to obtain WMDs, and without the benefit of this hindsight. Of course, some of it later was proven to be falsified by Iraqis, Kurds, and simple mistakes that were made by intelligence workers, but if you were in his position, you would have to use Risk Management to assess the worst possible scenario of either going into Iraq to find out, or to leave it up to chance. If you did not intervene, and later were proven wrong (that Saddam did get his hands on nukes), then you would shamefully have to face the US congress and explain to them why you didn't act, and they would most likely vote to impeach you. You may not like this outcome, but tough decisions like these are often made by people in positions of power (even if they aren't appreciated), and I'm glad that they at least did intervene to bring down a dictatorship that murdered millions of Iraqis, Kurds, Arabs, and Iranians.
One thing I might add in reference to your first point about the US defying the UN, well apart from the corruption that I highlighted earlier; sometimes a country like the US has to defy international law in order to intervene in certain conflicts, otherwise the Americans would be placing the UN above its own congress and constitution. This is even more interesting considering that the Americans overthrew a government in Iraq that also defied UNSC resolutions in the past, and which harbored people who committed acts of terrorism against the US.
As for the economic bolstering of China in the last four decades; yet again this is traceable back to Henry Kissinger and Nixon, and I would say is the worst example of American realpolitik in practice (something I don't endorse). China should have been left to collapse, just like the USSR, but history is never perfect. Chinas prosperity has a good chance of creating socio-political and economics problems in future, especially if their bubble bursts and over 1 billion Chinese who live in poverty become disillusioned with their government. Time will tell what the outcome will be for them. The Chinese would still lose in a large war against the US and its allies (US Naval and Air Force superiority in particular would play the biggest role), but now the Americans and Chinese are locked in a stalemate due to economic reliance on each other. I can say with reason and optimism that in the future, the CCP will inevitably collapse and allow for the Chinese to become free, it's only a matter of time.
Quite to the contrary. A similar moral justification for Bosnia and Kosovo was also prescribed for Korea, Vietnam, the protection of Taiwan, Afghanistan, and many other smaller conflicts America has been involved with past and present. Being 'partisan' has nothing to do with it, as I am an admirer of both JFK, and Reagan on various issues, particularly related to US foreign policy. I don't believe everything right wingers say, as there was a point in history when the Republicans were indistinguishable from the John Birch Society (ranting conspiracy theorists), and who were isolationists, and in those days the democrats were more of the interventionist caliber, which is more up my alley. Even as recent as the Vietnam War you can see this quite clearly.
As for Darfur (and similar places); well that all depends on where you come from politically. I am in favor of American or NATO interventionism in places like these to reverse the situation, as that kind of action is the most decisive and effective way historically of bringing about stability and peace (from a military perspective), or instead the Americans can desperately try to get the UN to do something about these conflicts, and more than half the time the UN will either screw up the situation or not act (Rwanda is a good example). The fact the US hasn't intervened in these places is largely due to the UN, as well as the popular anti-war movement, the isolationists, and moral relativists who fail to understand or grasp conflicts to their full extent.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 5,842
- Likes
- 1,837
AOE
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 23
I think you might be realizing now that our thoughts are perhaps not that different.
You are right about the point of science; yes we do need to keep teaching morality, and this does come in part with the spreading of democratic values, but also in turn with the spread of philosphy which is the root of scientific knowledge, and history (which is propagandistic in totalitarian societies). You might also note that the most free and democratic societies receive more criticism than the most totalitarian and unfree states, this goes without say.
I'm unsure about Attaturk in Turkey, he's a symbol of liberalization, secularism, and modernization of Turkey; yet I have seen much evidence to the contrary historically with Turkeys behavior, but I wont get into that right now; unless you want to talk about it.
As for the UK and Canada; the former tried its best to help out India because of the guilt many Brits feel about colonialism in India, and indeed I'm glad they did reach out but they were doing so under different rationalisms. Canada is also a diplomatically neutral state, which has been useful at times, obnoxious at other points.
I agree about the Saudis, lol.
Well the Saudi relationship, like most relationships the Americans have in the Middle-East; seem to be either about economics or protecting Israel from attacks. There is the counter-argument that America gets more oil from Canada and Central/South America, and at the end of the day the Americans could drop their relationship with the Arabs, which could mean that Israel would have to go back to the days of the 60s and 70s, fighting off several Arab countries at once at the threat of a second Holocaust. Yet again, lesser of the two evils situation. It's easier to be an idealist than it is to be a politician. I want the Americans to drop their relations with the Saudis, but I know for a fact that the rhetoric would flow fourth that the US would be green lighting for less stability, more wars, and terrorism in the Middle-East to occur.
As for the rhetoric about Darfur; well the US is wasting its money finishing the job the Pakistanis half-heartedly attempted to do in their own country, and Darfur itself is a problem of the UN who have sat on their hands for nearly 30 years. If you want the Americans to invade Darfur then simply say so, and encourage others to say so as well (for moral reasons) rather than say it purely as rhetoric; also realize that in order for them to carry out such an invasion, they will have to defy the UN again just like they did with Iraq. Of course Sudan does have a considerable amount of oil as well, especially in the south around Darfur, so the same anti-war rhetoric of 'LULZ US ONLY THERE FOR RESOURCES' would also be used by useful idiots.
The problem with the British response to Nazism had to do with avoiding conflict, less so supporting Nazism. Winston Churchill and others were making loud noises about fascist aggression against neighbouring states throughout the 1930s, where as the Neville Chamberlains of the day were more into appeasing than facing the obvious and inevitable problem. You are correct in terms of WWII with the wests original reaction to fascism (which is complicated, some were naive, others were anti-semites or anti-communist to an extreme sense), but with communism it has been the opposite case with China, who used to be 100% adversarial, to now being an enemy put on hold to be fought later. Many here in the west are very in tune to what the communists are up to, and we know full well what they are capable of if given too much rope.
I am also a secularist, an Atheist, but I have come to a very different conclusion. The Gandhi view of war is wonderful and very poetic, but it is no solution to the worlds problems at present. Gandhi would have never survived under a regime ran by Nazi Germany, as pacifists and anti-war people were all rounded up and shot by Hitlers men, and forgotten by history. The Stalinists did the same in Russia, and everywhere else in the world communism spread. The only thing that people this totalitarian, this far-gone and deranged understand is violence, and likewise they can only be stopped through violence. Mao even said so himself that power comes from the barrel of a gun, it is a shame that he never faced justice for his crimes against the Chinese, Tibetan, and Korean peoples. I can say with some amount of certainty and optimism that all communist and theocratic regimes will collapse or be defeated eventually, one way or another.
I can agree and appreciate much of what you say here on the problems of consumerism, but these are the limited and arguable problems of the western free capitalist world, not states run by communism, theocracy, or warlordism (the majority and rest of the world). It is true that we shouldn't run to materialism or clinical drugs all our lives to run from our problems, but put things into perspective; at least in a democracy or capitalist society you have all of that available to you. Living under a communist dictatorship, tribalism, or theocracy; almost none of this is available, people live in poverty, their lives have often little to no value or meaning, they struggle most of their lives, and there is always the chance of a grim death if they step out of line. If you have to choose between mindless consumerism, wealth, and prosperity OR living in poverty and totalitarianism, you would pick the former. Any sane human being would pick the former. The biggest political and social issues in the world today are the latter, not the former.
You are right about the point of science; yes we do need to keep teaching morality, and this does come in part with the spreading of democratic values, but also in turn with the spread of philosphy which is the root of scientific knowledge, and history (which is propagandistic in totalitarian societies). You might also note that the most free and democratic societies receive more criticism than the most totalitarian and unfree states, this goes without say.
Your POV is valid and real, and I can appreciate it even if we don't necessarily see eye to eye.
I agree with this as well, but I can also see that it can be a part of a greater game to contain or eventually topple tyrannical regimes; since here in the west, going to war against such tyrants is unpopular, and many naive people even think they're like us (when in reality, they're not). In short there is too much rhetoric involved in the process, as is the problem with politics in general. I might also add that Nehru also sold out Tibet early on to China, long before the west did. Nehru also did little to help out the UN effort in Korea against the communists.
Well as I said; US support for Pakistan largely came out of naivity and Cold War policies; mostly over Afghanistan and the Soviets, but that was much later. If the Americans were truly anti-Indian at any point, they would have militarily intervened in the subcontinent during one of Pakistans war with India. As the Pakistanis found out; the Americans weren't interested in any of their conflicts with India, and chose to remain neutral. Your comment about Kissinger did give me a good laugh though, as it is very correct.
I'm unsure about Attaturk in Turkey, he's a symbol of liberalization, secularism, and modernization of Turkey; yet I have seen much evidence to the contrary historically with Turkeys behavior, but I wont get into that right now; unless you want to talk about it.
As for the UK and Canada; the former tried its best to help out India because of the guilt many Brits feel about colonialism in India, and indeed I'm glad they did reach out but they were doing so under different rationalisms. Canada is also a diplomatically neutral state, which has been useful at times, obnoxious at other points.
Well the recent deal I'm not aware of that the Americans were not happy with, but the US stance on this in the past I can perfectly understand. If Nehrus NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) policy sounds reasonable to you, then you need to accept and understand Americas indifference and neutrality towards India in turn. It works both ways. In contrast, I would say that the NAM policy has done a lot of damage to Indias past and present foreign relations and foreign policy, and no country that wants to rise to the status of a super power can remain isolationist or impartial forever. Apart from the obvious point that taking an indifferent political stance in the war against communism is just as ridiculous as being neutral in a war against Nazism; the NAM included membership of Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe (Mugabe), Indonesia (Suharto), Malaysia (Mahathir Mohammad), Belarus, Algeria, Cuba, Yugoslavia (Tito), Egypt (Nasser), and Venezuela (Hugo Chavez). All of these regimes have been homicidal either to their own people, or towards others, and many of these regimes still have attendance to NAM summits. India also shamefully still attends them as well. Nehru was the creator of this political group, and he was the only person who pushed India to being closer to the Soviet Union in the first place. Nehru was the first to make those relations, and is to blame for the pointless NAM.
Well whether or not the democrats changed their argument for popularity sake I would certainly accept, but to say this was the sole product of Bush Jr and the Saudis is incorrect.
Not every country wants WMDs, there are some countries that had WMDs at one points but gave them up, or countries that have been involved in the transfer of nuclear materials but never developed their own programs. There is, however, nothing wrong with every country wanting prosperity and freedom; just certain countries lack the latter condition. When Pakistan attained WMDs, the US put sanctions on Pakistan and stopped all aid until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan; which put the US in a difficult situation, so they chose to fund the Afghans against the communists. Situations change and sometimes you have to pick the lesser of the two evils. China and Tibet I have already answered. US concerns over Pakistan and Afghanistan during the late 70s and 80s had nothing to do with oil, and same goes for China. Pakistan has US agents and drones bombing and shooting up the countryside; I hardly see that as Pakistan benefitting from the Americans. Libya you may argue that this is the case for oil, but there is also a moral argument to get rid of a tyrant who oppresses his own people, who funded and supported acts of terrorism against other Muslims, the Americans, the British, and others around the world, etc... so every conflict is complex and has its own dynamics, I'd rather focus on the positives.
I agree about the Saudis, lol.Well the Saudi relationship, like most relationships the Americans have in the Middle-East; seem to be either about economics or protecting Israel from attacks. There is the counter-argument that America gets more oil from Canada and Central/South America, and at the end of the day the Americans could drop their relationship with the Arabs, which could mean that Israel would have to go back to the days of the 60s and 70s, fighting off several Arab countries at once at the threat of a second Holocaust. Yet again, lesser of the two evils situation. It's easier to be an idealist than it is to be a politician. I want the Americans to drop their relations with the Saudis, but I know for a fact that the rhetoric would flow fourth that the US would be green lighting for less stability, more wars, and terrorism in the Middle-East to occur.
As for the rhetoric about Darfur; well the US is wasting its money finishing the job the Pakistanis half-heartedly attempted to do in their own country, and Darfur itself is a problem of the UN who have sat on their hands for nearly 30 years. If you want the Americans to invade Darfur then simply say so, and encourage others to say so as well (for moral reasons) rather than say it purely as rhetoric; also realize that in order for them to carry out such an invasion, they will have to defy the UN again just like they did with Iraq. Of course Sudan does have a considerable amount of oil as well, especially in the south around Darfur, so the same anti-war rhetoric of 'LULZ US ONLY THERE FOR RESOURCES' would also be used by useful idiots.
Well Bush largely ignored Pakistan in favor of India during his two terms in office, and I might add that if India is a geostrategic ally in Asia in the same sense that South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan is; then that would send a clear warning to China to not attack India, or else face US condemnation and retaliation. Just a thought.
As I said; Sudan does have oil, and America has condemned Omar al-Bashir for his genocidal behavior, only to have him dismiss these allegations and try to sidetrack the issue by ranting about Israel (a common punching bag now at the UN). This video will highlight how far the UN has sunk, and how little I think of them:
Last edited by a moderator:
