Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
There was some talk of the Syrian war dragging itself to a conclusion recently, yet still the agony goes on. Many are understandably sceptical that any meaningful end is in sight. Every man and his dog have involved themselves in what could have been a short lived internal uprising.

Forgive the council of despair but I do wonder if there is any real point in praying for peace in the Middle East. Sometimes, and in some places, attitudes and acceptance of violence is just so deep rooted nothing in the world seems capable of shifting it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Sometimes, and in some places, attitudes and acceptance of violence is just so deep rooted nothing in the world seems capable of shifting it.

---

That was my attitude too, until recently.

It has always seemed to me that the seemingly interminable conflicts in the Middle East, one following another, were a product of a mindset that legitimizes revenge and makes peace impossible.

But then I read Stephen Prothero's 2016 "Why Liberals Win the Culture Wars".

It completely changed my perspective. I realized that what has been going on in the Middle East is not just a product of their own mindset, but a symptom of a much larger struggle.

The larger struggle is about the decline of Islam in the face of encroaching Western values. The West has long been a potent threat to Islamic culture and values in every sense of the word. Whether secular or religious, Western interests are constantly manipulating them financially, militarily, and most importantly, in terms of values.

It seems obvious to me that in the long run Islam will struggle to flourish in liberal, democratic, well educated, and affluent societies. It is broken down by western influences that are, by Islamic (and Christian) standards, immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic.

This naturally makes the religious authorities angry.

Prothero's book points out that the dynamic that ensues in this situation is that conservative forces go to war against these liberalizing elements. Conservative forces are enraged at the immorality of whatever the new trends are, whether local or imported, and they do whatever is necessary to stop them.

Unfortunately, Prothero points out, the conservative case against liberal transgressions cannot gain traction until the changes are dramatic enough to be perceived as a threat by substantial numbers of people. By that point, he argues, it is too late.

So conservatives launch the wars, but in the end they are unable to stop the overwhelming forces of cultural change. These changes, in turn, are driven by the liberalizing forces inherent in technology, education, and globalization.

Tragically, the victims of these wars are not those from whom the liberal threats originate. Instead the violence and anger are directed mainly at local elements within a culture that seem to be the agents or the vanguard of these changes.

This doesn't mean that wars in the Middle East will never end. It just means that Islam is a potent, organized force that will not stop resisting any time soon.

Fortunately, most parts of the world assimilate these kinds of changes much more easily.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

It is broken down by western influences that are, by Islamic (and Christian) standards, immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic.

....

Fortunately, most parts of the world assimilate these kinds of changes much more easily.

---

I assume that's an ironic

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

It is broken down by western influences that are, by Islamic (and Christian) standards, immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic.

....

Fortunately, most parts of the world assimilate these kinds of changes much more easily.

---

I assume that's an ironic

---

Not entirely ironic.

Every culture is different and everyone has their own unique perspective. Some cultures seem to have a greater ability to roll with the punches that the West delivers, and not be too bothered by it.

Of course there is give and take everywhere.

Globalization is seen as a threat by many in the West, just as Westernization can be seen as a threat elsewhere. Hence Donald Trump.

But to plenty of people worldwide globalization is perceived as a good thing.

So the are not so ironic.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

Every culture is different and everyone has their own unique perspective. Some cultures seem to have a greater ability to roll with the punches that the West delivers, and not be too bothered by it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
You mean we accept standards which are "immoral, materialistic, disrespectful of authority, and atheistic" and aren't too bothered. I'm not sure that is "fortunate"!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

But I'm thinking of their ability to minimize the aspects of Western culture that have those qualities, and benefit from its more positive aspects.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
But getting back to the OP, are the conflicts between shia and sunni a reworking of the European religious wars?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Freddy, would that I could be as optimistic as Mr Prothero. He assumes two things:-

1. That progress always goes forward, and
2. That what he describes as progress, is.

I don't see any reason to have confidence in either of those views, yet alone both of them.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
But getting back to the OP, are the conflicts between shia and sunni a reworking of the European religious wars?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
No prophet, I sometimes think I am too cynical, but that's a depth of cynicism that verges on conspiracy theory and that even I have never plumbed.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
In wars whose participants see them as having some transcendental significance - Islamic, Christian, marxist, fascist - there seems much less reason to stop. How much are you prepared to suffer (and inflict) to save people from Hell, create an true Aryan race, establish an eternal caliphate or the dictatorship of the proletariat? Whereas if you just want their wealth, don't fight a war which destroys it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
No prophet, I sometimes think I am too cynical, but that's a depth of cynicism that verges on conspiracy theory and that even I have never plumbed.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It doesn't seem to be about conspiracy as much as economic dominance.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
A lucrative arms trade to the Middle East and the continuation of conflict in selected theatres do tend to look like not-so-strange bedfellows from certain angles

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
if you just want their wealth, don't fight a war which destroys it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
That same sort of logic would suggest that if what you want is to be seen as a strong but benevolent ruler and live well off the taxes that people willingly pay, then causing civilian casualties and driving people to emigrate is counter-productive...

Doesn't seem to work like that in practice. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...War and threat of terror keeps the people in our western countries supporting things as they are, with all the inequality, corruption and self serving monied classes. Keeps western nations' populace voting for morally deficient devils, and keeps Russia supporting Putin....

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...War and threat of terror keeps the people in our western countries supporting things as they are, with all the inequality, corruption and self serving monied classes. Keeps western nations' populace voting for morally deficient devils, and keeps Russia supporting Putin....

---

This is classical politcal science as taught to me in university - a leader who fears internal resistance to the leadership makes sure to create an external enemy, and almost always the people will support the leader and oppose the enemy even if they dislike the leader they believe the anti-"enemy" propaganda and dislike the "enemy" more.

Bush Jr is said to have openly strategized to have a war going before end of first term because Americans historically re-elect a president during wars, and ditch him after a war ends, so he needs an ongoing war to dramatically improve re-election probability.

Classic teaching. Widespread practice because the primary goal of almost any ruler (including modern elected legislators) is to retain their power and position, to not be licked out. Nothing new or conspiratorial about distracting the internal restless with an external suppose threat.

Hasn't every American President in recent history started or continued a war?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
The Vietnam War, for example, is generally regarded as being a mistake but it's not as if the North Vietnamese would have let the government of South Vietnam get on with it, had the Americans not gotten involved. Likewise, the US got involved in Korea when the North invaded the South. Gulf War 1 kicked off when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not an unqualified admirer of US foreign policy by any means but it's a mistake to assume that the conflicts they did get involved with were just peaceful places going about their day to day business until the US Army rocked up and started shooting the place up.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not an unqualified admirer of US foreign policy by any means but it's a mistake to assume that the conflicts they did get involved with were just peaceful places going about their day to day business until the US Army rocked up and started shooting the place up.

---

I like to believe that aswell on a fair day.
But where the 2nd Iraq war is concerned I'm afraid footage pre-March 03, of palm trees swaying gently in the the breeze and a place looking relatively clean and tidy, compared with that now of a wide area badly war torn, is something that will haunt the US for a very long time.

Wars are always concluded one way or another, even if it takes 100 years, and the the initial estimate invariably becomes a pinprick against the eventual overall cost.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?

---

Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?

---

Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?

---

Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?

---

Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?

---

If you really can't see why there might have been honourable reasons for wanting to overthrow the Iraqi government in 2003 or obvious and salient differences between the political system that pertains in the UK and Canada, on the one hand, and in Iraq under Saddam, on the other then you are clearly not paying attention.

If Blair et. al. had been right and we could have gone into Iraq, overthrown the government with minimal casualties and installed a working representative democracy of course it would have been the right thing to do. The Saddam regime was based on murder and torture. It's all very well being high minded about this sort of thing, but it wouldn't be your door being knocked on at one in the morning or your wife or daughter being gang-raped by the secret police. The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?

---

Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?

---

If you really can't see why there might have been honourable reasons for wanting to overthrow the Iraqi government in 2003 or obvious and salient differences between the political system that pertains in the UK and Canada, on the one hand, and in Iraq under Saddam, on the other then you are clearly not paying attention.

If Blair et. al. had been right and we could have gone into Iraq, overthrown the government with minimal casualties and installed a working representative democracy of course it would have been the right thing to do. The Saddam regime was based on murder and torture. It's all very well being high minded about this sort of thing, but it wouldn't be your door being knocked on at one in the morning or your wife or daughter being gang-raped by the secret police. The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.

---

Those are the honourable reasons Jesus would have used? For that chock full of goodness, wholesome, just, war?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why is it okay to want and force regime change? And not to bother about it at home?

---

Because "we" are right. Don't you understaand anything?

---

If you really can't see why there might have been honourable reasons for wanting to overthrow the Iraqi government in 2003 or obvious and salient differences between the political system that pertains in the UK and Canada, on the one hand, and in Iraq under Saddam, on the other then you are clearly not paying attention.

If Blair et. al. had been right and we could have gone into Iraq, overthrown the government with minimal casualties and installed a working representative democracy of course it would have been the right thing to do. The Saddam regime was based on murder and torture. It's all very well being high minded about this sort of thing, but it wouldn't be your door being knocked on at one in the morning or your wife or daughter being gang-raped by the secret police. The problem wasn't that overthrowing Saddam was a bad idea. The problem was that the goodness of overthrowing Saddam blinded people to the practicalities of how one establishes a constitutional order in a country which has been held together by force. Leaving Saddam in situ was the least bad option. If there was a good option on the table I've missed, do let me know.

---

Those are the honourable reasons Jesus would have used? For that chock full of goodness, wholesome, just, war?

---

Unlike you, Martin, I don't have a direct channel to our Lord and Saviour's views on these matters. I merely point out, and I repeat this for the hard of reading, WHILST I DID NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003, I acknowledge that there were costs to leaving Saddam in place and those costs would have been borne by people who are not me. If I had thought that there were a way of alleviating those costs by military intervention, without the subsequent costs, also borne by Iraqis, then I would have supported it.

When somebody can put forward a reason for thinking that leaving Saddam in situ indefinitely was a good thing which would have gladdened our Lord and Saviour and, presumably, His Blessed Mother, I would be delighted to hear it. Until then I will continue to insist that the options available to Western policy makers in 2003 were a choice of evils and my objections to the invasion was that it was not the lesser evil, rather than it was a failure to embrace the good option, from which only good could have followed.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Why don't you?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I merely point out, and I repeat this for the hard of reading, WHILST I DID NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003, I acknowledge that there were costs to leaving Saddam in place and those costs would have been borne by people who are not me. If I had thought that there were a way of alleviating those costs by military intervention, without the subsequent costs, also borne by Iraqis, then I would have supported it.

When somebody can put forward a reason for thinking that leaving Saddam in situ indefinitely was a good thing which would have gladdened our Lord and Saviour and, presumably, His Blessed Mother, I would be delighted to hear it. Until then I will continue to insist that the options available to Western policy makers in 2003 were a choice of evils and my objections to the invasion was that it was not the lesser evil, rather than it was a failure to embrace the good option, from which only good could have followed.

---

quote:

---

The U.S. can, with ever-decreasing credibility, pretend to stand as a beacon of freedom and liberty, arming revolutionaries and destabilizing governments that displease it, while arming allies of the country in revolution, which in turn assist that country. So this “war on terror” never ends, and neither do the abundant profits from war-making.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
If it can hold for four more days, do you think it will result in a longer term solution?

---