[NotCranky]

Allan,Just a reminder. I am not supporting Islam over Christianity because for my purposes religion would be better kept a non-state issue. Now, that topic gets some individuals really angry, so for the sake of civil debate I have avoided it. I think since you seem to give Catholicism some credit for the advancement of western civilization in the last 1/2 millenia the topic may be necessary again. I think the Catholic church unfortunately carries political weight in the world and that maybe it is good for some individuals but I would like to see where it has actually contributed to the advancement of western civilization or for peace, by efforts free of motive for fortification of its power.It is better by virtue of having been rendered less powerful and less oppressive. I thought is was the marginalization of religion in favor of other forms of creativity free of dogma that gave the Renaissance and western civilization wings. Now, if you want to argue that the near and middle east might benefit by having more freedom from religion that is a different topic. However I don’t think the U.S would be treating the region any better at this time if it were entirely secular and it continued to possess and threaten to politicize resources that satisfy our interest as Iraq and Iran have done. Again my issue is that we are using Islam as an excuse to vilify an enemy that we have to a large part created and to justify our nefarious foriegn policy towards .It is not which religion is better. It is about wether or not we are justified,or behaving in a christian manner if you wish, in man handling the governments ,seas, oil and economies and in killing innocent people while doing so. I will respond to your post later. It looks like there is a little possibility to philosophize a bit.

THANKS to all the book link posters. Honestly they won’t all get read by your’s truly but I “surfed” each and everyone out and that in itself was relevant and edifying.

[NotCranky]

Allan,Just a reminder. I am not supporting Islam over Christianity because for my purposes religion would be better kept a non-state issue. Now, that topic gets some individuals really angry, so for the sake of civil debate I have avoided it. I think since you seem to give Catholicism some credit for the advancement of western civilization in the last 1/2 millenia the topic may be necessary again. I think the Catholic church unfortunately carries political weight in the world and that maybe it is good for some individuals but I would like to see where it has actually contributed to the advancement of western civilization or for peace, by efforts free of motive for fortification of its power.It is better by virtue of having been rendered less powerful and less oppressive. I thought is was the marginalization of religion in favor of other forms of creativity free of dogma that gave the Renaissance and western civilization wings. Now, if you want to argue that the near and middle east might benefit by having more freedom from religion that is a different topic. However I don’t think the U.S would be treating the region any better at this time if it were entirely secular and it continued to possess and threaten to politicize resources that satisfy our interest as Iraq and Iran have done. Again my issue is that we are using Islam as an excuse to vilify an enemy that we have to a large part created and to justify our nefarious foriegn policy towards .It is not which religion is better. It is about wether or not we are justified,or behaving in a christian manner if you wish, in man handling the governments ,seas, oil and economies and in killing innocent people while doing so. I will respond to your post later. It looks like there is a little possibility to philosophize a bit.

THANKS to all the book link posters. Honestly they won’t all get read by your’s truly but I “surfed” each and everyone out and that in itself was relevant and edifying.

[NotCranky]

Cardiff,

I only brought up the Protestant/ Catholic divide because I felt Allan used the fact that there is sectarian infighting in Iraq, within a major religion, during an invasion/occupation a proxy war and under a puppet government to prove the religion is fundamentally flawed compared to his. I could have gone further back in history to find examples of more continuos conflict between Christian cultures and sects which I don’t believe he would consider should engender the same devaluation of his own religion.

The fact of the matter is the world has been fighting forever yet it appears we use any example of Musliom agression to promote our own relgious superiority/moral authority which in turn is used to justify our own agression which is really undertaken for greedy purposes or to stabilize a region that we are to a large part responsable for destabilizing.

“Isn’t there one camp of Bush critics who consider this area as incapable of civility, and therefore not worthy of losing men in battle?”

Probably. I think there is a “camp” for everything.

Now you can apologize for calling my participation here yesterday a rant….Just kidding :).

I respect Allan very much. In the end I found many things that weren’t on the table initially that surprised me about him ,in a good way. I also still don’t agree with him too much on the main points of the discussion. I think he is taking the “spread by the sword thing too far”. There are similiar issues of interpretation of the bible where violent references are concerned. Christendom has found tremendous support for violence from within it’s doctrines and from the holy men, authorities and politicians who are apparently closer to God.
I have no doubt that at times violent passages or religion derived righteousness are used to motivate men to battle including Al Qaida and the U.S marines. That doesn’t mean on a daily basis the majority of Muslims throughout the world are chomping at the bit to spread Islam by the sword, at least not anymore than we are. It is very much fear based and irresponsible and destructive , to propagandize this way.

Like you, I am learning about Islam and the Middle East and how our national agenda and Christian heritage plays into it.

[NotCranky]

Cardiff,

I only brought up the Protestant/ Catholic divide because I felt Allan used the fact that there is sectarian infighting in Iraq, within a major religion, during an invasion/occupation a proxy war and under a puppet government to prove the religion is fundamentally flawed compared to his. I could have gone further back in history to find examples of more continuos conflict between Christian cultures and sects which I don’t believe he would consider should engender the same devaluation of his own religion.

The fact of the matter is the world has been fighting forever yet it appears we use any example of Musliom agression to promote our own relgious superiority/moral authority which in turn is used to justify our own agression which is really undertaken for greedy purposes or to stabilize a region that we are to a large part responsable for destabilizing.

“Isn’t there one camp of Bush critics who consider this area as incapable of civility, and therefore not worthy of losing men in battle?”

Probably. I think there is a “camp” for everything.

Now you can apologize for calling my participation here yesterday a rant….Just kidding :).

I respect Allan very much. In the end I found many things that weren’t on the table initially that surprised me about him ,in a good way. I also still don’t agree with him too much on the main points of the discussion. I think he is taking the “spread by the sword thing too far”. There are similiar issues of interpretation of the bible where violent references are concerned. Christendom has found tremendous support for violence from within it’s doctrines and from the holy men, authorities and politicians who are apparently closer to God.
I have no doubt that at times violent passages or religion derived righteousness are used to motivate men to battle including Al Qaida and the U.S marines. That doesn’t mean on a daily basis the majority of Muslims throughout the world are chomping at the bit to spread Islam by the sword, at least not anymore than we are. It is very much fear based and irresponsible and destructive , to propagandize this way.

Like you, I am learning about Islam and the Middle East and how our national agenda and Christian heritage plays into it.

[NotCranky]

Allan,
Thanks for your time today. I particularly enjoyed your last post.
Best wishes

[NotCranky]

Allan,
Thanks for your time today. I particularly enjoyed your last post.
Best wishes

[NotCranky]

Allan, With Jesuit “soldiers of christ” and Teutonic ,an order of knights influences how could not be fiesty?

Please don’t think I am picking on you. I appreciate the chance to voice my ideas and you are giving me the opportunity to do that on a subject I feel is very important.

For my cognitive faculties, you are drawing way too many conclusions of the nature of Islam and muslims from examples that in my opinion belong to the correlation does not mean causation species of logical fallacies.

This is the paragraph in question from your post.
“However, it is interesting to note the decided lack of “moderate” Moslems when it comes to confronting Al Qaeda on their home turf. While I agree about the poor citizens in both Iraq and Afghanistan being killed in a war that was not of their choosing, would I also not be remiss in remarking upon the fact that the majority of the casualties being inflicted upon those people are from fellow Moslems? You’d be hard pressed to argue that point when Sunnis and Shia are killing each other with reckless abandon all in the name of Allah.”

I think it is natural for some Iraqis and Afghanis and others to see Al Qaeda as a natural ally, Does “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” seem applicable as much as some inherent defect in Islam? I think you might be giving religion way to much play in all of this. Perhaps because much of your reality is based in it from your Jesuit education and upbringing? In From my secular view point mostly I see Religious contexts as secondary and mostly mostivational in nature.
Primarily I see the fighting between the Shiites and Sunni to be political, the result of a occupation, a quasi- proxy war and a civil war all at the same time. Groups that happen to be divided along sectarian lines and christians(us)are all taking part. The sects which happen to also coincide with political divisions are greedily grasping for power as a result of a void created by the toppling of the dictatorship and the installation of an American puppet government. They are not fighting each other over interpretations of the Quran. If this is not true why didn’t they have an unrelenting “holy war” before we got there?

If we want to use a similiar example from Christendom let’s look at Ireland. Does the constant fighting between protestants and Catholics prove a tremendous flaw in the validity of Christianity or do you see beyond the religious issues to a battle for control betwen Irish nationals and the interests of the British? I see the later. The religious soldiers are pawns.

I don’t dislike or mistrust you because you are affiliated with a religion that has “Skeletons in the closet”. I do hope that the parent of that religion, Christendom does not pack the closet further with bones. I hope that you would ease up on your opinion of a people that happen to have a religious history in Islam and some skeletons in the closet.
I think the confusion detracts from what you have to contribute to your hopes to “find our way back to those ideals that made us great and assert a sense of decent leadership again.”

Then you said:
While I fear that the cause is lost in Iraq, I don’t disagree with the underlying rationale. I think nation building is worthwhile and I agree that justice is all important.

I hope somehow we can have a decent ending to this situation. Imagine the new wounds it has caused that will cause people to be vunerable to extremism. We will reap what we have sown probably.I am not greatful that my children will grow up to that rotten fruit but I will tell them we are in great part responsable.

I simply don’t agree that Nation building for any higher purpose was on the table. Besides there were lots of parties or coalitions that might have liked to have done the nation building given the oil and the strategic importance of influencing the region . Maybe they would have been more diplomatic and had less brutal results. Perhaps Iraq would have had an eventual solution on their own just might not have been so much in our interests and I don’t think we had grave concerns over Iraqi quality of life issues. I think there are problems in the world we could have easily influenced for the better that we have let go to the ruin of many more lives, mainly in Africa. greed maybe even desperation took over our leadership.

You will probably continue to have a hard time putting your finger on your mistrust of Muslims. I think we have an deeply conditioned fear and hatred of Muslims and especially Arabs. It probably has roots in the fact that they were one of the last non-european expansionistsa dn the target of there expansion was Christendom . I do believe there has been a a propaganda campaign during my entire 45 years on this planet and can only imagine that people raised under Christian traditions are even more conditioned.
Spastic hateful commentary on this blog from devout Christians and my observations of George Bush plying his constituents seem to confirm this belief. For the record. I am not intolerant.

[NotCranky]

Allan, With Jesuit “soldiers of christ” and Teutonic ,an order of knights influences how could not be fiesty?

Please don’t think I am picking on you. I appreciate the chance to voice my ideas and you are giving me the opportunity to do that on a subject I feel is very important.

For my cognitive faculties, you are drawing way too many conclusions of the nature of Islam and muslims from examples that in my opinion belong to the correlation does not mean causation species of logical fallacies.

This is the paragraph in question from your post.
“However, it is interesting to note the decided lack of “moderate” Moslems when it comes to confronting Al Qaeda on their home turf. While I agree about the poor citizens in both Iraq and Afghanistan being killed in a war that was not of their choosing, would I also not be remiss in remarking upon the fact that the majority of the casualties being inflicted upon those people are from fellow Moslems? You’d be hard pressed to argue that point when Sunnis and Shia are killing each other with reckless abandon all in the name of Allah.”

I think it is natural for some Iraqis and Afghanis and others to see Al Qaeda as a natural ally, Does “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” seem applicable as much as some inherent defect in Islam? I think you might be giving religion way to much play in all of this. Perhaps because much of your reality is based in it from your Jesuit education and upbringing? In From my secular view point mostly I see Religious contexts as secondary and mostly mostivational in nature.
Primarily I see the fighting between the Shiites and Sunni to be political, the result of a occupation, a quasi- proxy war and a civil war all at the same time. Groups that happen to be divided along sectarian lines and christians(us)are all taking part. The sects which happen to also coincide with political divisions are greedily grasping for power as a result of a void created by the toppling of the dictatorship and the installation of an American puppet government. They are not fighting each other over interpretations of the Quran. If this is not true why didn’t they have an unrelenting “holy war” before we got there?

If we want to use a similiar example from Christendom let’s look at Ireland. Does the constant fighting between protestants and Catholics prove a tremendous flaw in the validity of Christianity or do you see beyond the religious issues to a battle for control betwen Irish nationals and the interests of the British? I see the later. The religious soldiers are pawns.

I don’t dislike or mistrust you because you are affiliated with a religion that has “Skeletons in the closet”. I do hope that the parent of that religion, Christendom does not pack the closet further with bones. I hope that you would ease up on your opinion of a people that happen to have a religious history in Islam and some skeletons in the closet.
I think the confusion detracts from what you have to contribute to your hopes to “find our way back to those ideals that made us great and assert a sense of decent leadership again.”

Then you said:
While I fear that the cause is lost in Iraq, I don’t disagree with the underlying rationale. I think nation building is worthwhile and I agree that justice is all important.

I hope somehow we can have a decent ending to this situation. Imagine the new wounds it has caused that will cause people to be vunerable to extremism. We will reap what we have sown probably.I am not greatful that my children will grow up to that rotten fruit but I will tell them we are in great part responsable.

I simply don’t agree that Nation building for any higher purpose was on the table. Besides there were lots of parties or coalitions that might have liked to have done the nation building given the oil and the strategic importance of influencing the region . Maybe they would have been more diplomatic and had less brutal results. Perhaps Iraq would have had an eventual solution on their own just might not have been so much in our interests and I don’t think we had grave concerns over Iraqi quality of life issues. I think there are problems in the world we could have easily influenced for the better that we have let go to the ruin of many more lives, mainly in Africa. greed maybe even desperation took over our leadership.

You will probably continue to have a hard time putting your finger on your mistrust of Muslims. I think we have an deeply conditioned fear and hatred of Muslims and especially Arabs. It probably has roots in the fact that they were one of the last non-european expansionistsa dn the target of there expansion was Christendom . I do believe there has been a a propaganda campaign during my entire 45 years on this planet and can only imagine that people raised under Christian traditions are even more conditioned.
Spastic hateful commentary on this blog from devout Christians and my observations of George Bush plying his constituents seem to confirm this belief. For the record. I am not intolerant.

[NotCranky]

I typed you a long response Allan but I goofed it up. Thanks for being reponsible in the presention of your views.
I appreciate that you are not blindly patriotic and nationalistic.
I am just going to address a few of your points from your last post.
I never said Muslims were never agressive,that would be stupid.

Certainly you can find as many examples of Muslims coexisting with other religions over vast periods of time in northern Africa,the Middle East and Asia? What about the sword and subjugation in those situations?What about the tolerance of secularism at various times. Islam is not a trained pitbull with no other recourse but vicious brutal actions in it’s bag of tricks. This is delusional thinking.It sounds like buying into the vilify the enemy propaganda.

You ask:
“If Islam was not a religion spread by the sword, how did Islam wind up in Spain, the Balkans and Central/Eastern Europe? And, if it was a religion that peacefully coexisted with its Christian and Jewish, why did Europe resist so strongly (i.e. the Spanish Reconquista) against it for so many years?”

You can find equally malevolent deeds by Christendom.I question the influence of your heritage and upbringing on your objectivity. Christendom has used much more disastrous weaponry for invasions and conquests including against obvious innocents or those who simply protest a dogma and subjugation! Now we feel it is our right to hold exclusively,if it were possible the most abominable weapons ever available which were BTW brought into existence not in response to Islam. But have been held over all nations by Christendom.

Above all I hope you do not feel these occupations are justified by the shortcomings of a religion as expressed over time or even currently.You drew me into this conversation with a statement that seemed to reflect a position like that. Those families in Iraq and Afghanistan, being blown to pieces, had nothing to do with that.We are not giving Justice to the Middle East.

I think we should not start to go in so many circles from here. The peanut gallery is starting ot chirp in. If recent history repeats itself digression looms.
If I understand teh guidelines promulgated by the blogmaster correctly, my post, for being located below Baseball Guys rediculous post might get deleted. Best wishes.

[NotCranky]

I typed you a long response Allan but I goofed it up. Thanks for being reponsible in the presention of your views.
I appreciate that you are not blindly patriotic and nationalistic.
I am just going to address a few of your points from your last post.
I never said Muslims were never agressive,that would be stupid.

Certainly you can find as many examples of Muslims coexisting with other religions over vast periods of time in northern Africa,the Middle East and Asia? What about the sword and subjugation in those situations?What about the tolerance of secularism at various times. Islam is not a trained pitbull with no other recourse but vicious brutal actions in it’s bag of tricks. This is delusional thinking.It sounds like buying into the vilify the enemy propaganda.

You ask:
“If Islam was not a religion spread by the sword, how did Islam wind up in Spain, the Balkans and Central/Eastern Europe? And, if it was a religion that peacefully coexisted with its Christian and Jewish, why did Europe resist so strongly (i.e. the Spanish Reconquista) against it for so many years?”

You can find equally malevolent deeds by Christendom.I question the influence of your heritage and upbringing on your objectivity. Christendom has used much more disastrous weaponry for invasions and conquests including against obvious innocents or those who simply protest a dogma and subjugation! Now we feel it is our right to hold exclusively,if it were possible the most abominable weapons ever available which were BTW brought into existence not in response to Islam. But have been held over all nations by Christendom.

Above all I hope you do not feel these occupations are justified by the shortcomings of a religion as expressed over time or even currently.You drew me into this conversation with a statement that seemed to reflect a position like that. Those families in Iraq and Afghanistan, being blown to pieces, had nothing to do with that.We are not giving Justice to the Middle East.

I think we should not start to go in so many circles from here. The peanut gallery is starting ot chirp in. If recent history repeats itself digression looms.
If I understand teh guidelines promulgated by the blogmaster correctly, my post, for being located below Baseball Guys rediculous post might get deleted. Best wishes.

[NotCranky]

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.

[NotCranky]

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.

[NotCranky]

“I don’t see the present day conflict as being between Judeo-Christian values versus Islamic values. Rather, it is between the right to have individual freedoms versus submitting to some medieval autocratic ideal.”

I guess it is a real intellectuals war then. That does surprise me. I do agree that the conflict is not over Christian values from our point of view,although a little chauvinistic motivation never hurts, perhaps the other side feels a little more righteous indignation over interference to their freedom of religion and autodetermination(for better or for worse). Beyond that my uneducated guess is that it is about power, economies and resources(fossil fuels this time).
In my opinion our president has superceeded all other autocrats quite effectively(with help of course). As for ideals I just don’t see us taking any exceptional ideals to the forefront of this occupation. Does the mere envolvement of our superior(western) culture suffice as a reason for the continuation of decades or even centuries of oppression and death? By comparision Japan , Germany and Russia would have ruled us outright in various recent times .Look at the treatment given them. We are simply not giving Justice to the Middle East.

Less cravings for “bread and circuses” and we might realize that.

[NotCranky]

“I don’t see the present day conflict as being between Judeo-Christian values versus Islamic values. Rather, it is between the right to have individual freedoms versus submitting to some medieval autocratic ideal.”

I guess it is a real intellectuals war then. That does surprise me. I do agree that the conflict is not over Christian values from our point of view,although a little chauvinistic motivation never hurts, perhaps the other side feels a little more righteous indignation over interference to their freedom of religion and autodetermination(for better or for worse). Beyond that my uneducated guess is that it is about power, economies and resources(fossil fuels this time).
In my opinion our president has superceeded all other autocrats quite effectively(with help of course). As for ideals I just don’t see us taking any exceptional ideals to the forefront of this occupation. Does the mere envolvement of our superior(western) culture suffice as a reason for the continuation of decades or even centuries of oppression and death? By comparision Japan , Germany and Russia would have ruled us outright in various recent times .Look at the treatment given them. We are simply not giving Justice to the Middle East.

Less cravings for “bread and circuses” and we might realize that.

[NotCranky]

SDR: I guess you are aware that the soils will need to have certain absorbtive characteristics to do grey water.The leach fields which are similiar to septic drain fields have to be pretty deep.I wonder about the usefullness of the water infiltrating the soil at 18″ Permitting is tough and on a urban or suburban site I would be surprised if you can get a permit. Hepatitis can be spread by airborne spores from a faulty system. I think that is the biggest risk from grey water. Black water …forget it.

On topic: For fairly dense areas I like Perry’s choice of the front or side of yard courtyard style. That space would otherwise never be used socially(by adults), yet being near to the living room and Kitchen areas is perfect intimate indoor/outdoor living/entertainment. If you have no back yard and open front yard like jeeman is describing,the lack of a private or intimate outdoor setting just seems to provide for a living in a fishbowl effect. One blogger, I don’t remember who, pointed out that the open front yards are nice in that the neighborhood kids have places to play where they are still in view of the various parents. That aspect seems like a plus for families.

[Author]

Posts