hell bent on war

[Andrew McGeever]

Dear Linda,
I have been faced with a choice: how to respond to you. Do I post you privately, on another thread, or this one? I felt that the "Hell Bent On War" thread was the most appropriate, and it certainly has been the most public, in terms of contributions from correspondents. It was also on this thread that our political differences were most acutely displayed: you vehemently pro-war, and me diametrically opposite. In the middle of this heated exchange, you sat down to perform a great act of kindness : you taped Leonard's Austin City Limits concerts, 1988 and 1993 and posted them to me.
I received the tape this morning (May 19th), sat glued to the screen, felt honoured to witness such wonderful music (surely his best live performances?) and was overwhelmed by your generosity.
Thankyou Linda, from the bottom of my heart. Our political views may not have changed (mine certainly haven't), but I told you there's much more that unites us, not the least being a shared love of the works of Leonard Cohen.
On another thread there is currently some venomous correspondence between certain board members: they seem "hell-bent on war", of a personal nature. Linda, that's their choice: as for me, I'd rather offer you my heart-felt thanks and warmest regards,
Andrew.

P.S. The post mark was April 4th, and the tape arrived today, May 19th. Did the Jazz Police impound the tape in their search for Weapons of Mass Seduction , or did you send it via Wells Fargo?

[Kush]

Excellent commentary, Byron, with which I agree.....with the exception of the Islamic state. Is this necessarily a "bad" thing? Can it not be done in a manner that is agreeable to the hearts and souls of the Iraqis, and are not the majority of the people in Iraq, Islamic? So, an Islamic state would be comparable to a democracy, i.e. the "majority rule"? Please correct me wherever I'm wrong on these comments.

Lizzytysh...this comment popped out at me as i was perusing this thread that suddenly popped out near the top.
With all respect, I have to disagree with your comment.
The Islamic state as presently practiced by most (but not all) Arab, Persian (I make a distinction between the two), south-asian and former soviet regions is clearly a state-sponsored discriminatory ideology that denies 50 % of the population (i.e., women) most basic rights. As bizarre as this may sound Saddam Hussain being of the Baathist (thus, secular and in a sense anti-islamic) was in this sense quite progressive. Women of Iraq are probably the most highly educated in all of the middle east. Already, since the end of the war, I have read reports that with increasing religious presence in the political arena (Shiite clerics and such) the visibility of women in Iraqi public life is decreasing. Women in many Arab countries have never known much freedom. However, in Iran (Persia), Iraq, Afghanistan and I'd assume former communist soviet bloc republics, women enjoyed a very high degree of personal and academic freedom before "religious majority" stepped in. Which is also why a progressive military dictatorship in Pakistan is probably better than a religious islamic democracy, I don't know.
"majority" may not always be the way to go.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

[lizzytysh]

Hi Kush ~

My comment had to do with our always trying to rearrange the world to our liking. Implicitly, it would appear that perhaps we could have left well enough alone and Iraq would have been better off, at least in terms of a male-dominated society, where women do not enjoy freedoms.

My questioning of Byron "Can it not be done in a manner that is agreeable to the hearts and souls of the Iraqis" had to do with effectively dealing with whatever oppression might be at hand....and not presuming that an Islamic state is automatically going to be negative in one form or another. I believe that the women who have enjoyed their educational and professional freedoms do not want to give them up, so yes it is bizarre that Saddam's regime would have had such benefit.

Well, it's past 5:00 and I need to leave, so this will remain undeveloped properly ~ or even double-checked for editing.

~ Lizzytysh

[tom.d.stiller]

It is not very long ago, just a few centuries, that Christianity was as much a "state-sponsored discriminatory ideology" as the Islam is now, and there are active fundamentalist groups, even gaining ground presently, who want a "Christian State" in the same sense in that Iran is an "Islamic State".

Many civilized countries, however, managed to find a way to be christian and democratic at the same time. There is - principally - a possibility to reconcile the Islamic religion with democratic institutions and principles, as there was a way to do the trick with Christianity. And, basically, the Islam isn't more prone to religiously motivated dictatorship than any other monotheistic religion with a "jealous God".

Up to this point, I can share the view you expressed earlier in this thread, lizzytysh.

On the other hand, there has been a development, at least partly due to aggressive non-Islamic interventions in the region, that radicalized the fundamentalisms in the Islamic religion. (Iran is a direct consequence of the "Democratic West" supporting a terroristic Monarchy...)

The situation given and taken as it is, I'd consider it highly improbable, almost impossible, to find a way to create an Islamic state "in a manner that is agreeable to the hearts and souls of the Iraqis". So I share the doubts you, Kush, posted as well.

But I definitely disagree with you calling a military dictatorship "progressive", Kush. This dictatorship might be the lesser of two evils, and thus to be preferred, but it is essentially as regressive as an islamic state.

Tom

[Paula]

Hi Andrew and Linda - I was not at all surprised that Linda copied the tape for you Andrew. One thing I have learnt on this site is that no matter what the conflict there are no hard feelings.

Linda you are in America aren't you and Andrew is in the UK. How did you get the copy so it was compatable with our system as I want to copy a tape to send to the USA.

Lizzie and Kush to a certain extent I can see Lizzie reasoning on the Islamic state. We are in danger of inflicting our thinking on other countries on the basis that "mother knows best". I would prefer it not to be an islamic state but we must be careful not to demonise other countries cultures. If only Tony Blair would heed that warning over here. The UK is in danger of bending so far back to accomodate religions other that COE. We run the risk of becoming an Islamic state ourselves.

I have over dramatised that but give it a few more years. In the UK there is already a lot of unrest concerning the perceived bais to nationals other than those born in this country and I would not be at all surprised if a backlash comes sooner rather than later.

I have no cross to bear (excuse the pun) as I am not into religion in any shape or form.

[Byron]

Kush. I have to be brief in this reply. The progressive military islamic government control in Pakistan is not the benevolent creature which it claims to be. You will recall our discussions on the forum about the possible stoning to death of women in a certain African state?
It was about 18 months ago that British Television was able to show a documentary shot in secret in Pakistan. The treatment of ordinary women in all aspects of society was laid bare by a very brave British Woman Reporter, who risked her life to get the information out of Pakistan. Women there live in abject terror of their male relatives and the local judiciary. At the conclusion of the programme, viewers were asked to e-mail their disgust at the visions and facts put before them throughout the documentary. The e-mails (like the Amnesty International ones) were sent off in their thousands to named judicial, political, military and police officials, concerning one terrible act of matricide. The result was that I myself received a heartfelt thank you from a Lady Pakistani Lawyer who had at last been able to get 'the powers that be' to get off their asses and bring a murderer to trial.
We all have to be aware that the public face of a country must not be taken as the normal personna of that country's elite and power players.
I studied Islam, Hinduism, Theology and Philosophy and their various impacts on the human condition during my degree and I have to say that the ideologies are interesting, enlightening and thought provoking for all of them. The real problems arise when articulate, manipulative, self serving, power greedy men, take over the distribution of knowledge to lesser educated people. The problem has been and always will be, men bullying other men. Men hoodwinking other men. Men deceiving other men. And as I've written in previous threads, its always the women who suffer. They always have and they always will. And you and I cannot alter human nature. We can only try our best.
It is the interpretation of ideas which creates oppression, not the pure form of the idea.
It's late and I must go.
Byron 'sends his regards'.

[Kush]

I wasn't intending to stir up things here but guess I did so let me qualify my statement (which I stand by) further.

1. Lizzytysh...Saddam's hero was not Bin Laden, it was another narcissistic butcher Josef Stalin, who also believed in equality of woman. So that may explain my previous statement better. Things are never conveniently black and white, merely shades of gray.

2. Tom (Still the Stiller)....your point is well taken re' "Christian State". I didnt explicitly say so but I know so. The point is separation of church and state, mosque and state, temple and state....whatever.

3. To both Byron and Tom....I think the ground realities of democracy in the so-called "Third world" is far different from that of the West. Democracy presumes a responsible educated population of independent thinkers.....this condition is not really met in the West ("Democracy is comin' to the USA") let alone the Third World (I believe this term is not p.c. nowadays but I am using it for convenience sake). The ground reality in most Third World countries is that they have a very highly educated middle class who are a minority and an uneducated lower class which is the vast majority. The former have great ideas of democracy etc etc. The latter really don't care - they vote for who they are told to vote for and are simply concerned with feeding hungry mouths.
Re' Pakistan.....they have gone through a succession of democratic governments and military dictatorships. The military dictatorships came into being each time becoz' of incredibly corrupt democratic governments.
Corruption (to an extent unimaginable in the West) is the malaise of the entire Third World (in politics and in everyday life), quite possibly a natural outcome of too many people competing for too few resources. This is not a criticism, merely a statement of fact. One has to address a problem in order to fix it. Byron, the example you offer is not because of the present dictatorship.....it is due to other social factors and these conditions prevailed much before the present govt. I know atleast a couple of pakistani-americans - and while they do not represent the vast majority, being the educated elite - who are quite content to let the status quo continue w.r.t the military rule atleast in the near future. Also, from everything I have heard, I have to believe that the present dictatorship is atleast better than the previously corrupt government.

4. Paula.....I don't know so much about "inflicting our thinking". Some of us are quite mixed up you know...between "our" and "their". The time for "not inflicting our thinking" was 500 years ago, not now. The world has more or less gone the Western way, so be it. It is a legacy of Western imperialism which I think was inevitable given the relative lack of resources in Europe, the Industrial revolution for overcoming harsh environmental conditions there etc etc.
But you cannot turn the clock back now. Anyway, if it was not Western imperialism it probably would have been somebody else - Japanese imperialism ?? - a country with a similar lack of natural resources. A Korean woman once told me what Japan calls Japanese culture was really stolen from the Koreans hundreds of years ago.
Actually, it is not even 500 years ago...."inflicting our thinking" has been done throughout history.....Turks, Roman's, Alexander, ancient Persians, ancient Indians..they all inflicted their way of thinking on the locals.
As for the Tony Blair thing...i don't know much about internal Brit politics but I guess it is a legacy of Britain's colonial past. You reap what you sow. I am not saying it is right or wrong - I don't know enough specifics - but that it is cause and effect.

5. Byron....re' the point about the Amina Lawal in Nigeria....I guess she was sentenced to death for adultery by Islamic law in a democratic country. So we selectively "inflict our way of thinking" because we are horrified by such acts ? Or do we let it go becoz' it is Islamic law.
I see a contradiction of sorts here. The necessity for separation of mosque and state is amply demonstrated here.

I'll leave the last word to Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) from the new X-men movie:
"After all, sharing the planet has never been one of man's defining attributes."

[Byron]

Kush. May I thank you for your responses to the several points raised by various contributers. I am not posting here and now to address any of those points, but to acknowledge, that in what can sometimes be a miasma of verbal diarrhoea within these threads, I know I can take pleasure in reading your reasoned and eloquent arguments. Many thanks. Byron 'sends his regards'.
Bye the way, lest any readers misinterpret my remarks, this is a genuine show of gratitude to Kush.

[witty_owl]

Tom, I concur whole heartedly with your view point. The die is cast. In the words of the late John Lennon, "Imagine----".
For the last few thousand years we have seen the rise and rise of various brands of monotheistic, male chauvinist faiths; all to the detriment of subsequently invaded cultures by social and political imperialists using these faiths as justification for the appalling atrocities we have committed against each other. It does seem that there is little that can be done now to alter the status quo but the seeds of change lie within each and every one of us. Until we cease to create divisions via ideological crusades then the world as we know it will continue to languish in the mire of the world as we know it. The core of the problem lies in the realm of thought, ideas and belief that we carry in our consciousness. I think we are very clever in the ways that we use our consciousness but very stupid in the recognition of the hazards that our consciousness creates. Always we blame out there;- the other ones,- us and them, and so on. How often do we acknowledge the source of a conflict to be within, to be personally responsible for any conflict in which we are a part or even observing without?
For example;- the conflict between G.W. Bush, John Howard and Blair and others such as Saddam or Bin Laden is due to the way I think. Not some other beat up reason found in the media. The way I think contributes to the way we all think and so I am to blame as much as any of the aformentioned protagonists. Does this make any sense or is it a bow, too long to draw?
Regards,

[John the Shorts]

Kush

Sorry to be a pedant (It's my nature I'm afraid) but you refer to Pakistan having corrupt democratic govermnets - What I would say is that it is the nature of all goverments to be corrupt, all leaders have a desire to be re-elected and so manipulate policies so that unpopular things are done in the early paret of their regime and when elections are due you get give it away budgets, tax cutting, etc

By their very nature all politicians are morally bankrupt.

JTS

[Kush]

Well yes and no.....JTS.
Yes, corruption exists in the higher echelons of power here both in politics and in the corporate environment. The recent string of debacles with CEOs is a prime example - i couldnt believe what the Carty guy (AA CEO) did and said with a straight face on TV. What do you do with so much money and still want more ? Eat an extra meal a day ???
However, the West is a much more stable economic and social environment. It hurts but not so bad when the powers-that-be steal and lie if the average income is $ 22,000/annum across the country. It hurts really really bad, maybe fatally so, when the powers-that-be steal and lie and the average income is $35/annum across the country. these numbers are off the top of my head but it's in the right ballpark.
I am not singling out Pakistan.....it is the case across the entire third world - the real world. Outside this 'prison that wealth has set apart'.
And I cannot explain this to you. You have to be intimately familiar with what I am talking about and/or have lived in the third world. The extent of corruption in politics and in everyday life (and the lines often become blurred between the two) is quite unimaginable in the West.
Byron...thank you for your kind words.

[tom.d.stiller]

Kush

I agree. The essential point is the "separation of church and state, mosque and state, temple and state....whatever". But the atavistic traits of the present seem to gain ground all around, within and outside of the Islamic world.

And you're right about the huge difference between the extent of corruption in economically stable Western countries and the extent of corruption in "Third World States" (politically correct or not - it will be comprehended, whereas artificial neologisms are mostly incomprehensible and widely unknown). The difference is in quantity, but the quantitative difference is that huge that it effects in a different quality - contaminating every aspect of social, political, economic, private life, making all dreams of democracy illusionary (for quite a while, at least).

My point wasn't that democracy would be a really available option right now; it was that the military dictatorships are just as atavistic as the Religious States, but maybe the lesser of two evils.

Tom

[tom.d.stiller]

Witty Owl

as you correctly stated we do concur on monotheistic religion, but since we both don't want to start another religious war, I'll leave it at that.

I agree that we all much too easily push the blame for practically everything on others instead of thinking about our own share of the responsibility. Though I don't believe in a direct personal responsibility of yours (or mine, or ...) for the doings of the Bushs & Blairs, Saddams & Bin Ladens of this world - if we all really had done our best at taking up our responsibility, it might have made a difference.

Yes, it all starts within our heads, not because the basic reasons are there, but because of the unused ability to change the way things go. We can either push the blame, or start feeling responsible - and act accordingly. And we could have foreseen the way things would go, if a certain politician is elected; and...; and... No one ever does enough, though many tried to do more than they could shoulder...

I often ask myself why I don't discuss some of the world's issues with more different people, and especially with those who hold opinions I disagree with. It's no use saying that I'd never have been able to change their minds - one should never give up before the game started, and who doesn't try will never succeed.

Yes, it does make sense, but trying to think about it, I realize how difficult it is to get down to the real possibilities of the human mind... Thoughts start to get frayed... The longed-for clarity gets lost... It really is a long long draw...

Tom

[Kush]

Ok I had to look up "atavistic" before posting. Tom, the human lifetime is too short to measure the changes that have been occurring every 100 years. We think and comprehend so much in the present.
Actually, i think if you compare century by century, atavistic traits are losing ground big time. The "very very present" is just a temporary blip on the historical time scale.
Yes I believe that democracy is not the best form of govt. but it is the best there is at present. However, there are peculiar situations in different parts of the world where democracy in the local environment does some harm atleast in the short term, if not in the long-term. Remember, Hitler was a democratically elected leader.

[witty_owl]

Tom, thanks for the considered reply. Yes it is all too easy to start a religious war which is why I am often reluctant to go down this road except in a face to face discussion. Why is this so?- the ease of potential conflict. Perhaps because we are so thoroughly conditioned with respect to our beliefs, and thought processes. Any approach that challenges the fundamental way in which we understand reality can provoke strong emotional reactions. Instantly conflict arises and we invariably accuse a source outside rather than inside. This is a natural defence mechanism but what are we defending? Is it our Physical presence from a real danger? No, it is in the abstract realm of thought upon which we hinge our viewpoint and we fight to protect our opinions as if they are our real physical life. Before to long this escalates into a real conflict (war) and once again we are trapped into fighting for notions that really need only be a focus for discourse.
The example I offered was not to imply that I am personally responsible for such fiascos as the Iraq war but to imply that my thought processess are common to all humans and that I cannot separate my self from all other selves. If I could change my understanding of consciousness then perhaps I could assist in the change of all consciousness. Is this venturing into the Jungian idea of a commonly shared "collective unconscious" that bonds us all in ways that are not always apparent?
If we see the whole content of consciousness (thoughts, beliefs, ideas, knowledge, memory etc) as something that is the invention of the human mind then how can we take too seriously any part of that content to the extent that it may be a cause for war? I contrast this with other tangible causes for war such as food, water, territory, or other material resources.
To quote an Aussie songwriter, Mark Seymour;- "I'm a fool for the holy grail".
P.S. I do realise that there is a difficulty in trying to use thought(language) to identify and find solutions to the problems the arise from thought. The observed and the observer are one and the same, hence this becomes very tricky. How does one avoid self delusion in the process?
Regards,