To be fair to both or us Allan ,expressing our points of view would require a book. Neither of us can make a quality presentation on this blog. I have a feeling your book will be written with a Christain American Patriot bias and mine with what I believe to be a more holistic approach.I am white of european ancestry, born on the fourth of July, baptised catholic, so I wouldn’t be bringing forth any Islamic, ethnocentric or nationalist chauvinism to my side of the argument. I simply refuse to condone this war by use of any rationale. That said I will respond to a few items in your post.
1) “Where to begin? I guess by saying that the rulers of the Middle East have done a far better job of oppressing their people (and for a far longer time) than the Western powers ever have.”
Your argument/defense constitutes a logical fallacy. It is called “two wrongs make us right”. Your assumption that they have done a poor job is very undefined as compared to what?
See now the burden of proof is on you. It also assumes that this region does not have the right of autodetermination. It also assumes that it is our right to intervene.
2)As far as America being an autocracy: That is opinion oft advanced, but with no basis in fact.
You misunderstood my reference to “Autocracy”. In my view George Bush takes on the appearance of “Autocrat Supreme”.My view actually is that he is a puppet of other influencial people but he comes off as an Autocrat regarding the Invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The fact that the “war” was planned before he was elected.That he lied about WMD. That he unreasonalby linked Saddam Hussien and Al Qaeda. That I believe it is safe to assume that the invasion and occupancy are about power, oil and economies and not terrorism.Never in my life have I called the USA an autocracy.
As and aside: I don’t think there exists a greek or otherwise classical reference to describe what our nation is. Renaming our system would be a fine topic of a political science dissertation. It is something like a marriage between a ruling class,domestic and transnational corporations,influential institutions like the Vatican and other religious coalitions,universities, unions ect.
3)Islam has been always been a religion of war, and has been spread by the sword since it’s inception. It is a religion that demands either subjugation, or death. The idea that there is any moral equivalence between the prevailing religion/philosophy of the Middle East and Western democratic states beggars description.
You are exaggerating and ommiting here. Islam has coexisted quite peacefully for vast periods of time with Christianity, Hinduism and Buddism. The Koran is open to interpretation the same as the Bible. There are many examples of attrocities and intolerance committed by Christians historically as well. The inquisition, crusades,Witch hunts,conquests of native peoples, slavery ect.
4)As far as centuries of oppression and death, please give examples. As the various posters here are fond of saying: Please provide data.
Here the logical fallacy is to put the “burden of proof on me” as opposed to questioning your own stance. You are the better historian by far. That is, I believe you have assimilated more of the events and timeframes of movements on the world stage.Maybe you don’t know as much as I credit your for? However, I also believe that whatever I present has already been rationalized in your mind to a view that is not favorable to Muslims. Here are a few examples of what I see as oppressive that you will undoubtedly see as fair play and as favors to Islamic society. Invasions and occupations, colonizations(french and british),Establishment and armament of Israel in Palistine which I see as a standing army for western civilization, an invasion and occupation,establishment of puppet governments and Kingdoms,Embargos, sanctions restriction on sea transport. Disequal opportunity to build military power including nukes.Proxy wars.
5)As regards our (Western democracies) exploitation of their mineral resources: Explain then how Saudi Arabia, Kuwaiti, Qatar, UAE, etc, are all cash rich states. That region is awash in petrodollars, all paid by the self same Western democracies that are so egregiously exploiting them. An interesting paradox, no?
The use of selective examples justifies and proves nothing with regard to the invasion and occupancy. The examples you posit may be proof to the extent which divide and conquer has succeeded to date. The fact that compensation exists doe not prove regional autodetermiantion and a free market for fossil fuels. Do you believe that these states could refuse to sell to the U.S without consequences? The threat that the influence on the oil is vulnerable is what is really at issue.
It occurs to me that Israel’s threat presence could no longer maintain US dominance over the power oil and economies of the Middle East. Also there was the threat of other powerful nations and/or the european union, usurping our influence if not militarily, then by a shift in realtive global economic significance.
Because of the benefits aligned to such influence the Invasions and occupations were launched.
Allan I am sure I have made a few mistakes. To go on with this to this extent,and it really merits more depth, would take way too much time. You may have the last word or alternatively we just agree to disagree.
Best wishes.
