Hi Bob,   
      
   On Sun 2039-Feb-13 17:01, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to RICHARD WEBB:   
      
      
      
   BK>  I can't see why Muslim on Chriatian violence would have anything    
   BK> at all to do with the revolution. I wonder if anti-Islam people  are   
   BK> playing this up. Or supporters of the (now former) dicator.    
      
   I think they were misinterpreting some of what they were   
   seeing.  Islamic group members were vocal supporters, and   
   some former brotherhood members as well from what I"ve read   
   since, but they all say the same thing.  Ideology has no   
   place in this, we've got to get changes made for the benefit of the citizens,   
   then we're going to worry about the rest,   
   but this inresponsive government's gotta go.   
      
      
      
    RW> This is also true.  I'd like to come right out and support   
    RW> a democracy movement over there, meaning that whole part of   
    RW> the world, but so far what I"ve seen with "popular"   
    RW> revolutions is something like Iran.   
      
   BK>  Iran was no real threat to the US from the beginning. Iran did    
   BK> turn to democracy, and even supported the US invasion of   
   BK>  Afghanistan and the democratization of Iraq. Bush paid them back    
   BK> by kicking them in the teeth. The current regime in Iran came  after   
   BK> that.   
      
   EH?  1979-80 didn't look like a friendly democratic regime   
   to me.  I grant they were growing that direction.  IN fact,   
   iirc Iran did make some pretty bold steps toward democracy   
   way back when and the U.S> helped tip that one over to   
   install the shah.   
      
    RW> THIs libertarian did   
    RW> *not* support the Bush doctrine, I don't support in any way   
    RW> propping up repressive governments with troops or money.   
    RW> Not a dime, not a drop of American blood.  LET those people   
    RW> all kill each other in the name of their religion.   
      
   BK>  Let those government all be told, if they require US   
   BK>  intervention, the price will be democracy. Any dictatorship that    
   BK> requires the US to intervene against an invader will find it  self a   
   BK> democracy afterwards. Under US guarantee, so they can't  expect to   
   BK> come back afterwards.   
      
   I"ve argued this for years.  Part of U.s> intervention   
   should be the assistance in building a stable constitutional democracy.  THat   
   should be an assumption going in, and an   
   expectation of those who ask our help.  Anything else and   
   the troops and equipment stay home.   
      
    RW>> Acknowledged and agreed.  You notice in the joint committee   
    RW>> report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,   
      
    RW> DOn't think I ever have, but read widely on the subject   
    RW> over the years, the history is quite plain to anyone who   
    RW> bothers to acquire real information.   
      
   BK>  Oh, yeah. If you follow it for years you see what is unknown is    
   BK> really obvious, but you have to pay attention.   
      
   OF course you do, and you have to seek it out because it   
   isn't available to you via the talking heads on cnn and Fox   
   news.   
      
    RW> OF course not, and that's why I have my doubts about this   
    RW> "groundswell for democracy" even though articles I've read   
    RW> just yesterday, NEw YOrk TImes large type weekly dated iirc   
    RW> last Friday stated the MB wants to see Mubarak ousted first   
    RW> then see what comes from there.   
      
   BK>  Mubarak has been torturing leaders of the MB. So they want him    
   BK> gone in any case. I don't doubt the groundswell for democracy,    
   BK> mostly because it started with Tunisia and has spread from   
   BK>  there. It exploded so fast I don't believe the MB had even a    
   BK> chance to understand what was happening. No one did.   
      
   WAs sort of a bolt from the blue .   
      
   BK>  Not only was it unpredicted, I doubt it could have been   
   BK>  predicted by any reasonable process. Sudan had had trouble for a    
   BK> long time, but the seperation of the South was voted this year.    
   BK> Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had   
   BK>  successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have    
   BK> been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make    
   BK> changes.   
      
   RIght, and that one could still blow up even though the vote is in.  There's   
   still some pretty bad blood in Sudan.   
      
      
      
    RW> The question is what   
    RW> they'll do if they get their wish.  WIll they work with   
    RW> secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all   
    RW> the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their   
    RW> ISlamic law?  That's the question we should be asking, and   
    RW> keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.   
      
   BK>  That's a question we should ask, but it's not the question that    
   BK> should decide our actions at this point. We need to support    
   BK> democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our    
   BK> needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq  and   
   BK> Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us.  It's   
   BK> how we lost in Vietnam.   
      
   INdeed, but there are valid concerns there as well.  But you could add Iran to   
   that other example, the installation of   
   the Shah and the overthrow of a government with popular   
   support.  The Shah wouldn't have been able to take power if   
   not for the U.S.   
      
   BK>  We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people    
   BK> there.   
      
   Indeed, that should be the biggest factor in our decision.   
      
   BK>  BTW, the idea that Islamic law is bad is something to wonder at.    
   BK> There is little if anything in Islamic law that isn't also in    
   BK> Jewish and Christian law. Cutting off people's hands and   
   BK>  beheading them is not Islamic, it's Arabic. And it's also found  in   
   BK> Christian history. As is stoning. Which comes from the Jewish    
   BK> tradition.   
      
   Agreed, so that's the next question, who's version of   
   "islamic " or sharia are we going with?  I wouldn't support   
   the Wahhabi version at all.   
      
      
      
   BK>  Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we  can   
   BK> make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own    
   BK> religious teachings and traditions.   
      
   Indeed, but there again, what are "our own?"  MOst of us   
   granted are Christian in one form or another.  For those of   
   us who are JEwish we have many teachings in common.  But   
   then what of the hindus and Buddhists among us?  tHen I'd   
   venture to say that there are more atheists than one might   
   think, they usually choose to keep their beliefs, or should   
   I say lack of beliefs silent and hold the one belief   
   publicly which states that your religious beliefs are your   
   own business and between you and whatever you perceive your   
   ggod to be.  Although I was raised Christian I turned my   
   back on all of it as a young man, and learned soon after   
   doing so the advisability of just keeping my mouth shut and   
   avoiding religious pomp and ceremony whenever possible.   
      
   BK>  Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious    
   BK> traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient    
   BK> ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of   
   BK>  Islamic fundamentalism.   
      
   YOu got that right!!!    What are we talking here?   
   14th amendment if I'm right (first cup of coffee) and   
   proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.   
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ... Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics.   
   --- timEd 1.10.y2k+   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)