Posted on 11/25/2007 5:05:03 PM PST by Gengis Khan
FYI: Notice that it is converts to Islam that seem to be the leaders and spokespersons for islamic fronts and organizations, from CAIR in the US to similar groups in Europe and Bin Laden’s spokesman in Al Qaeda.
Somebody help me complete a list of these people and their positions, history, etc.
Email me at this column if you have anything you want to add. Thanks.
Mmmm, Your Grace...I suppose it’d be rude to note that the old Raj (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) appears to be having some rather serious problems of its own these days.
Thats just a difference between how services are conducted in say, the Catholic community, compared to the Orthodox or the Anglicans.
Vis a vis the Imperialism of Britain and America, well, one must remember that times are very different today than 100 years back or more. Britain, in regards to overall imperial powers of the era (France, Belgium, Germany, etc) has been thought of as a progressive regime, and it certainly advanced the social, political and economic aspects of the countries under her rule. The very stature of our former colonies in the Commonwealth proves that our benign imperialism has been the most advanced of recent centuries.
The Americans have a problem in that times are different, and there doesn’t appear to be the political or social will to pursue territory for the ‘Empire’. You boys have a economic Empire, which negates the positive effects of actual governance of another country and merely ensures that America’s fiscal interests are maintained, whatever the political or social realities. This isn’t an indictment of America, just an observation.
As for the case in Iraq, I don’t think there are comparisons to be made with the British raj, and so you and Dr Williams are wide of the mark. Supposedly, the war in Iraq wasn’t done for fiscal reasons, but to remove a man who had ceased to become a positive player in the West’s view. His support of terrorist activities was marginal, certainly in context of some others in the region. He was an avowed socialist, and ran a secular country, having no truck with the extremists and bearing a healthy distaste for neighbouring Shia Iran.
I think he’s criticizing the US for not being imperialistic enough.
“A British fellow saying we are the worst imperialists, am I the only one finding this a bit ironic, seeing as his nation expanded her commerce and empire for hundreds of years at the tip of a bayonet?”
From the Peel Commission to the Balfour Declaration and San Remo to various partition plans and Mandates, Europe and esp. England were the architects for Mid-East reorganization. These people had their fingers in this pie long before we ever did.
Perhaps the biggest irony of all is that Britain helped create Iraq in 1922, when they combined three separate provinces together (Basra, Baghdad and Mosul) which were part of the Ottoman Empire run from Turkey. Britain’s rulers wanted the territory after oil reserves were discovered there in the late 19th century.
From what I recall, Winston Churchill was even charged with governing this region as the head of the new Middle East Department of the Colonial Office. While I can’t confirm some of the claims made by others, there are reports that it was Britain who used poisonous gas on some of the population. Certainly a different perspective on the compassionate imperialism this Brit speaks of.
Just a difference? I don't consider churches that are not centered around Christ to even be Christian. If your Christmas mass is not centered on Christ then what's the point?
You boys have a economic Empire,
We don't have an empire at all. We just have a country.
His support of terrorist activities was marginal
Marginal? I'm not sure if you saw this but Iraq was involved in training terrorists on how to hijack airplanes. So I would not call it marginal.
Iraq - Al Qaeda
Iraq had WMDs, refused to allow UN inspectors in, disobeyed numerous UN resolutions and tried to assassinate former President, George W. Bush's father. The last item alone was justification alone to go in but the terrorist and WMD concerns were paramount.
Its interesting to see how another Western, English speaking bloke can have such an opposite view of events, and interpretations of culture. Not a criticism, just an observation.
Frankly, I dont much care about what Dr Williams has to say about stuff, cos he is coming from a religious standpoint and that has no truck with me at all. So for differing reasons, we agree that his comments are irrelevant.
As for the WMD’s and all that, I’m not arguing about that. I can fully understand that this is the real world, and its got some very harsh realities we all need to face up to. Compared to some of his neighbours (most obviously Iran with Hamas and Hezbollah), Saddam’s Iraq was not that great a danger to the world, certainly if we are to go for a state that posed a lethal threat to the UK and US.
As for my point about the US having an economic empire, don’t be so afraid of the term. It means you have influence and stature. All nations eventually lead through to imperial powers, as they try to find markets for their ever growing economies. Its simple stuff, but sometimes you US’ers get a little scared when Empire is mentioned, automatically thinking of the term in a negative context. We British certainly dont view our time as the biggest, greatest, empire the world has ever known in a bad light. It did wonders for our nation, and brought industrial, social, political and ecnomic advanced to all nations under the Crowns dominion.
I appreciate your comments. For the most part they are well thought out. I appreciate your perspective on the term" empire". Certainly the British empire in my view was a positive thing for mankind - not negative. So we certainly agree there.
On Iraq though I view your statements as a tad simplistic. This has been rehashed over and over and not sure why I burden you with this but you and/or others may not be aware of all the facts. Some searches here at Free Republic will yield a wealth of info on this Iraq saga. But I'll restate some key points.
- Iraq invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabi and was poised to take over the Saudi oil fields.
- A world-wide coalition put Iraq back in its box and exercised restraint in allowing Saddam to stay in power. (this was a mistake)
- Iraq possessed and used WMDs. Iraq refused to allow international inspectors to see what was going on.Iraq had a nuclear and biological WMD program although with all the sand in Iraq we are not sure how far they got.
- Iraq was a brutal regime that fed people into shredders feet first.
- Iraq attempted to assassinate former President of the U.S.
- Iraq trained terrorists to hijack airplanes in a manner identical to the 9/11 hijackings.
- There were communications between 9/11 terrorists (Atta) and Iraq.
- Al Qaeda has operated inside Iraq and continues to do so
- Iraq refused to abide by dozens of UN resolutions and the terms of surrender from Gulf War I and shot down U.S. planes in no-fly zones
- Iraq was small enough that it could be dealt with without spawning a world war. We simply cannot use military force as we did in Iraq in all areas of the world, e.g. Soviet Union, China, NK, etc So Iraq was "fixable".
After Iraq's embarrassing rout in the first Gulf War Iraq had a motive in getting back at the west. This was demonstrated by their attempt to assassinate a former U.S. President, our current President's father. So the cumulative case against Iraq warranted action after 10 years of talk. What good are UN resolutions if they are just empty talk? Libya gave up on WMDs because they didn't want to be invaded also. So Iraq was a two-fer as we fixed Libya at the same time. And the war in Iraq redeemed the U.N. from itself by enforcing its resolutions.
I understand there are different perspectives on Iraq. I can understand people saying we shouldn't have gone in because they are scared of what the muslims will do (in essence cowardice) or because they view it as too complex and difficult. But I just disagree with those who do not feel it was justified or that Iraq was not a threat. Having said that we cannot fix the world nor should we. I believe Iraq was a unique situation with a long history. Iraq started it and the coalition finished it. Had Iraq not gone into Kuwait I doubt any of this would have happened.
My apologies for a long post. Cheers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.