Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap
Teevee,
I am sorry but my views are not racist or discriminatory.
This is not a race issue, it is an issue of a conflict between cultures.
Our western culture values ideas such as individual liberty, fundamental justice, equality, freedom of worship, etc etc etc. The other culture does not value these things at all.
I completely reject a culture which degrades women, suppresses other religions, and where the governing powers rule by fear, torture and repression. And unfortunately these are the cultural values of the entire Arab world, whether we are talking about orthodox Shi'ites in Iran or secular Arabs in Sadaam's regime. The individual nuances may vary but the basic value system is the same.
Our western ideals and freedoms have been built up over many centuries. We can not expect these people to live by our value system which is foreign to them. Their culture is similar to the culture my ancestors lived in 3000 years ago. Their beliefs values and practices are barbaric and that is a fact.
|
i agree completely. when you said in your first post "arab" rather than "muslim" i assumed you meant arab as in the race, rather than islam, which includes of course the religion and the cultural base it forms. you obviously don't believe that all iraqis are bloodthirsty then do you
however while i agree that all three branches of islam share common beliefs, i don't feel that all muslims take the more extreme ideas to heart. this is like saying that all christians hate gays or that all jews refuse to eat pork. while they are certainly aware of prescriptions or proscriptions stated in their holy books, the belief systems have been modernized for some individuals, while some continue, as is their right, to abide by age-old conventions, regardless of their applicability in 21st century civilization.
troy, resolution 1441 does not specifically authorize the americans to use force in iraq, as bush says it does. i do not consider myself an expert on political affairs by any measure, but having recently written a paper on the aforementioned resolution and participated in a model united nations forum, i heard a speech from a canadian senator and former ambassador emphasizing what the resolution calls for, and what it does not call for. as a legal document, one cannot make any assumptions in dealing with a security council resolution. it is not open to reinterpretation by iraq, america, or any other state or political body. however i understand that france, russia and china, which have permanent veto power in the security council, would have overruled any resolution supported by america to use force against iraq, and therefore i feel bush had no alternative. once again, i support the coalition in iraq, and am ashamed that canada has not chosen to stand by our largest trading partner and key ally.
thanks to everyone for the insight and opinions, and for keeping it tame, other than some minor misunderstandings.
