Rio Rules,

You still did not answer the question wether Iraqui's are better off without Saddam? I am assuming that you think they were better off with their great leader. Maybe they were, except for the 300,000 or so that are missing or in mass graves.

I also don't see a response to wether or not you believe Kadaffis moves were unrelated to the Sadamm ass kicking.

I also like your executing children analogy. I don't agree with your analogy much, I think its like comparing apples to oranges. But I do agree that executions are not cool. Since I am so happy to bomb the shit out of tyranical regimes, you may find it hard to beleive that I don't support the death penalty. Not that some of the criminals don't deserve it, some probably do. I don't support it because sooner or later someone innocent is going to get toasted and thats not cool.

It amuses me though that you think the rest of the world is so enlightened. I lived in Europe for 3 years, and now I have been in Mexico for nearly 6. Believe me the US is still one of the freest countries around. I don't know what your experience is but maybe you should spend a few years as an expat. It could change your world view. And if you already lived abroad and found it to your likeing, you could have stayed there. LOL.

batsterwhoalsohastoomuchtimeonhishands

Ah, Batster, the slippery slope you and we are on. You are now arguing that America has the divine right to choose other nation's leaders, instead of the former argument that we attack Iraq in defense of our national security.

Shall we take out, say, the French leadership, and replace them with leaders who speak English?

Aldaron...

I just want to remind you that CH is not just about sex -- although for some people, it is the only thing in their heads. There are some people here (especially on this thread) that wants to have a friendly exchange with regards their opinions on matters that are political. Who are you to tell us that it is a waste time?

So if you have anything to say to counter my post, please just post it. But please, do not get personal. I do not even know you, nor you, me.

Aldaron, Politics and sex-- both great topics and worthy of much discussion. In fact, the posts on the political threads are some of the most lively and interesting on this board.

I personally look forward to reading it

Baster, you posed the question to rio if not the iraqis were better off without saddam.

Although that is a good question to ponder, one should ask if the tenets communicated as the basis of the war were accurate and valid. The devil is always in the timing of historical events.

Your question cannot be answered by anyone. If you asked a person who was bieng acid bathed and tortured, I'm sure you'll get a definitive YES. If you ask one of the American mothers whose son got shot to hell because Bush believed Iraq posed an threat to our national security due to WMDs and nukes, you may get a different answer. If you ask those iraqs who have been valadized or those whose money has run out for food, you may get a different answer.

Was Saddam an ASS--yes. Was he a thorn is the USA's backside-- YES. Was he ruthless and corrupt-- YES.

Did we need to wage war on iraq when we did-- I dont think so. Will Iraqs come to appreciate and adopt democracy at gunpoint-- I don't think so. Did we make the region more stable-- remains to be seen. Did we spend over 100billion (I lost track) dollars and lose american lives for something that may of been avoided-- I think so.

My bottom line-- if American lives and dollars are lost, there better be a damn go reason AND have something in it for the USA and it's citizens (i.e. vital national interests).

My 2 cents.

Don Marco,

You make good points. And there is a lot of truth to them. Some random thoughts.

Some people in Iraq defintely are worse off with Saddam gone, but I think its pretty obvious that the Majority of the Iraqi public were happy to see him go. Its also pretty obvious that a majority of the Iraqui public are ambivalent about the US presence. They are embarrased that the US had to get rid of Sadamm for them. And they want the US out, but they dont want them to leave soon. Its a love hate thing.

Bush has definitely flubbed on Post war Iraq. What a mess. I just hope his exit strategy is better than Clintons for Bosnia( we were supposed to have troops on the gorund for 1 year. That was nine years ago. No end in sight)

I still think taking out Saddamm was a good thing. I believe time will show that to be true Of course I could be wrong, and it would not be the first time.

I do think we are better of taking the fight to places like Afghanistan and Iraq and throwing our weight around over there than waiting for another 9/11.

In part, many of my comments are thrown out just to raz the rabid anti-Bush crowd. Their hate for George Bush clouds their judgment on everything and some of their positions are pretty insane. Of course I felt about the same about Clinton as they do about Bush. And in reality the truth is somewhere in between. Clinton was really good in some areas and pretty shitty in others. Same thing with Bush.

I love political debate. And usually all sides have some truth in their argument. Unfortunately most people refuse to see the validity of some points on the opposite sid eof the debate. But he best thing is that we are able to debate openly government policy. There are still too many countries in the world where opposition to the government will land you in jail. And contrary to all of Bush=Hitler rhetoric, that is nowhere close to the situation we enjoy.

I also amuses me that the same people who believe that there should have been no intervention in Iraq based on the fact that we do not have a right to meddle in other countries affairs and that we had no real national interest are the same people who loudly applauded the intervention in Serbia/Kosovo. They also rabidly pushed for sanctions against South Africa in the 80's and firmly believe that the UN should intervene in Israel. So where is the consistency?

I beleieve that US has far more vital interest in trying to do something in the middle east than in Serbia. What we should do now is help the Iranians change their system. That is a country where the population is literally dying to get rid of their tyrants. A regime change in Iran will make a huge difference in the middle east. They have always been more of a threat to the US and to stability in the region than that crazy bastard Sadamm.

Explorer, damn straight we should attack France. We should set up a puppet government with Dick Cheney as Regent and chairman of ELF Total Fina. France is the only thing stopping us from total world domination. LOL.

Finally, I know that a world where there is no Tyranny and where the US can be a force for good is just a dream. But I believe that a proactive foreign policy is better than isolationism. Just my opinion.

As for Bush. I am not too sure he will get my vote in 2004. He is spending way too much and he is all over the board on his social policies. He makes me a little nervous in more ways than one.

Batsterthetroublemaker

Batster1 said, "I love political debate. And usually all sides have some truth in their argument. Unfortunately most people refuse to see the validity of some points on the opposite sid eof the debate. But he best thing is that we are able to debate openly government policy. There are still too many countries in the world where opposition to the government will land you in jail. And contrary to all of Bush=Hitler rhetoric, that is nowhere close to the situation we enjoy."

I have said before the privacy and personal liberty issues are my biggest concern in this election and why we need a "regime change" here at home.

I have posted before that if the Patriot Act II were passed, peaceful demonstrators could be labeled a threat to national security, or as domestic terrorists - a crime punishable by death under the new ACT if passed.

From an Earthlink site quoting an NY Times article:

"The two other parts of the plan are equally misguided. The new death penalty provision is not needed: antiterrorism laws already provide for capital punishment. And it is worded so vaguely that it could be used against people with no ties to international terrorism, including domestic political protesters. The bail provision, which creates a presumption in terrorism cases that bail will be denied, is also unnecessary. Judges can already withhold bail when defendants pose a threat. The new law simply tries to coerce judges into holding people they do not think need to be held."

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney2/id44.html

This Patriot Act II was pushed by for the Bush Administration and Ashcroft. So America might not be as free tomorrow as it is today. And it certainly isn’t as free as it was pre 9/11. Since there was such opposition to Patriot Act II, the administration decided to be backhanded about it and sneak some of its provisions into an intelligence spending bill - one that written in secret and passed without debate because it is considered "must pass" legislation because it funds the intelligence community.

The FBI can now spy on any of your financial records including bank accounts and insurance records without a court order. They ask and receive. And your financial institutions cannot disclose to you that they handed over your information to the FBI.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C61341%2C00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

This kind of gets off the topic of War or Peace, but that one line in your post got my attention.

Here is a better article about when Bush signed the legislation - right after Saddam's capture - and why.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0%2C1848%2C61792%2C00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

Baster,

We definetely agree that the anti-bush crowd in general is full of hot air and the nazi and world domination statements are pretty brain numbing.

I come from a pro-usa stance and could give two shits less about what a few countries (who had a vested interest in preserving Saddan) think. I was not in favor of invading Iraq at the time because I do not believe in liberating a country whose population is not involved in the uprising. It's a fine line we're walking and it really remains to be seen what the future holds for Iraq. I imagine Bush will have to withdraw sooner than he'd like and I'm not convinced a Sh'ite leader or a crony of the USA will lend itself to a stabile leadership either internally or regional.

What really bothers me is that this is now a police action (which I am firmly against using the military for), it is costing us billions, and our intellegince reports were out in left field. Is it a bush conspiracy-- definetely not, but serious questions remain outstanding. I am all for taking the fight to terrorists, where ever they reside. I'm just not of the belief our resources were well spent on Saddam.

As for Bush, he's done a fair job in light of the times. I am too concerned with our budget, pork spending, and less than strategic foreign policy methods used by the admin though to want him to remain. Of course this is relative to the competition. If Dean, Sharpton, or General Gump got the dem nomination, Bush would have my vote in a heartbeat. However I give my vote to Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt. Considering Lieb. and Geppy had not chance in hell, I'm hoping Kerry pulls through.

Xen,

You may find this site informative.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/moore/online/patriotact.htm

It points out some of the fact and fiction of the Patriot act debate. You used possible and future tense throughout you post/s, which was nice to see.

Interesting reading...

However, if the Section 215 has never been used, then why is it needed? And the recently passed intelligence appropiations bill over-rules the part about a court order being needed for information from financial institutions. Now a court order is NOT needed.

Why then is Ashcroft using the Patriot Act - not to fight terrorism - but to go after ordinary criminals? Something we were told at the time of the law's passage wouldn't happen?

http://foi.missouri.edu/usapatriotact/pareach.html

http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,60440,00.html

Why also, have over 200 communities and states passed legislation condeming the Patriot Act, with more communities on the way.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/200_communities_102303.htm

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/26/Columns/No_pause_in_Patriot_A.shtml

Why was there such opposition to the Patriot Act II, from both sides of the aisle, that the Bush Administration felt compelled to sneak in one of its key provisions into an intelligence appropiations bill that was written in secret and passed with little debate? As mentioned before, this gives the FBI the power to spy on American's financial records - defined very broadly to include such businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car dealerships.

Why can't the FBI get a court order to obtain this information? Why do they need the power to look at these records in secret without judicial oversight?

This should probably be moved out of the War or Peace thread, but since we are talking about privacy issues:

From Slashdot.org:

jxs2151 writes: "According to the Deseret Morning News former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt signed Utah's 2.4 million residents up for a pilot program that gathers dossiers on every single man, woman and child and didn't bother to tell anyone. According to the article MATRIX -- Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange '...cross-references government records from both public and private databases, putting together a dossier on individuals for use by law enforcement.' The state's homeland security specialist dismisses concerns: '...any data gleaned for Utah's participation in MATRIX is information already available to law enforcement.' The Utah legislature is trying to figure out how to get the state out of the program but the question is how was the Governor able to enroll the -whole state- without anyone knowing?"

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590039368,00.html

I fully support redoing the Patriot Act and am very wary of it. I think most folks blow it out of proportion tho-- thanks for the follow-up links.

Some banks have already started supplying the FBI complete records of their depositors. Ask your bank/s if they are already doing it. Open a new account on a bank that is not doing it yet. Good luck.

This is an interesting read.

-----------------------

The First Lie
John C. Bonifaz,  January 28, 2004


While all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph Lieberman) criticize President George W. Bush for his unilateral recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional.

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.

Those members of Congress—including certain Democratic presidential candidates—who voted for that October resolution cannot now claim that they were deceived, as some of them do. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself.

Imagine this: The United States Congress passes a resolution which states: "The President is authorized to levy an income tax on the people of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to pay for subsidies to U.S. oil companies." No amount of legal wrangling could make such a resolution constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power to levy taxes exclusively to the United States Congress.

Now let us turn to reality. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United States Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.

In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.

The wars of kings and queens of Europe had brought not only havoc and destruction to the lives of those forced into battle and those left to suffer their loss. They had also brought poverty. They were stark symbols that the subjects living under such monarchies lacked any voice or any control over their destiny.

The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear.

Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."

Several years after the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison would write: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

Today we face an extraordinary moment in United States history. The president of the United States launched a premeditated, first-strike invasion of another country, the likes of which this nation has never before seen. This massive military operation sought to conquer and occupy Iraq for an indefinite period of time. This was not a random act of raw power. It was the first salvo of a new and dangerous U.S. doctrine, a doctrine which advocates the unprovoked invasion and occupation of sovereign nations. This new doctrine threatens to destabilize the world, creating a new world order of chaos and lawlessness.

Now more than ever, the Constitution and the rule of law must apply. And, now more than ever, the truth must be told. The first lie about the Iraq war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda. The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this war.

In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president."

The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war.

It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to defy it. It is time to demand our country back.


John C. Bonifaz is an author and attorney in Boston.

A must read article...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4123507/

Decent read Rio, but the USA never delared war. Did they declare war on Iraq when Bush I was in office? If I get a chance I want to read the archives from this thread from about a year ago. It might be interesting. Now Bush wants to have an investigation on intelligence failures, to me, thats admitting he screwed this thing up, big time. It also appears that it is an admission that this was the primary reason for invading iraq, so don't give me any of that 'the world is a safer place without saddam'. Jeez, what weak explanations people can come up with. This so called intelligence failure is going to ensure the usa to be fighting many battles in the near future.

It's all a set up. The Bush regime knows from the very start they didn't have an iota of reason to go to war in Iraq; anyway, they still have to pretend to be looking for WMDs. So after nine months of looking for nothing, Kay is now coming out saying that he believes there is or never were WMDs in Iraq; but adding anyway that it s not Bush's fault, but rather poor intel. So now, Bush will call for an investigation -- and the focus turns to poor intelligence -- and away from himself, away from his lies.

Later, of course, the investigation will find that indeed it was a lousy intel work by the CIA; the CIA will put the finger on some low-level operative/s; issue a statement of apology; and Bush is exonerated.

Cute.

In the meantime, young Americans soldiers continue to be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan; taxpayers continue to support the trillion dollars these two wars will cost; another trillion dollars for the deficit our children and their children will have to pay their whole lives.

When you say "these two wars" I guess that means that you supported the Taliban's attack on the world trade center?

That's right YOU did make that statment a few month's ago.

Why don't you show your real colors...Tell us a few things about yourself....Your citizenship for example.

Roadglide… I believe his comment was “I don’t see people flying airplanes into buildings in other countries.”



(Message edited by aldaron on February 02, 2004)

RG... do you always like putting words in other people's mouths? If you notice, most posts here (on either side of the issue) are quite thorough and insightful, trying to prove or at least enlighten the other side of why they have chosen their side of the debate. And here you come with your two guns blazing, putting words in people's mouth and getting personal (with one line [3] paragraphs).

On the other hand, why are you asking for my citizenship? Are you planning to personally attack me from that angle? I want to inform you that from all the travels I have done the past 40some years (in all 5 continents), I have considered myself a citizen of the world. I have concluded to myself that the bounderies of nations are a mere creation of kings and emperors and now piliticians -- to delineate the extend of their political and economic powers. I am sure that quite a few CHers feel the same: that they are true citizens of the world.

Not sure about others, but I'm an American first, not a citizen of some one world utopia dreamed by those that live in fantasy land.

Ditto that Aldaron. The propeller heads can keep smokin' dope and dreaming on one world for all.

Aldaron... so you are an American first; what are you then, second?

Don Marco... if you read history, you must know that back then, there were no Eu, no nations, not even kingdoms. Before all these came about, what people had were clans. Slowly, through integrations, the clans started to unite and became tribes. Then, the tribes themselves begun to unite and became small fifdoms; later on, these in turn became kingdoms. After some hundred more years, these kingdoms became integrated themselves and became nations as we know them now. But it does not stop there; evolution anyway continues and we have European nations uniting into the EU. We also know that nations of the Americas as well as in Asia are themselves trying to unite, even if just economically.

Now, I know that there are some people out there that are still living in the epoch of the tribes, and they just can't comprehend that everything in the universe is in continious evolution; that the next step in this process is the final integration of the planet into one race -- the human race.

RG, damn, you are a real a good example of the 'you are with us or you are against us' mentality. No one wants a repeat of 9/11, but some of us would like to know why someone would commit such an act that happened that day. Can you explain that? Because so far, when anyone wants to engage in an investigation over this, it seems to get curtailed, censored, and blocked every step of the way. And please, get over the asking for citizenship issue. From my perspective the illegal immigrant issue started in 1492. More than likely RG, someone paid for the price (a long time ago or recently) for you to enjoy this land, so don't get too cranky asking other people whether or not they belong here.

I can explain it. They are fucking crazy. No investigation is needed as to why.

Riorules, I'm not engaging you and your fairy tale beliefs. I live in the real world. You live in a world where we can all join hands and sing Kum Bayah around a campfire to solve problems and rejoice in our “citizens of the world” philosophy.

Riorules...another over-simplification. gloablization is so much more about economics than culture. I don't think there's any question that, in the long term, people benefit from global economics. Its happened for centuries. Yes, the pace has quickened, but its been there since african tribes traded with one another. For the life of me, i can't figure out what's so sacred about the US selling wheat of the french selling cheese (i prefer good ol' wisconsin cheddar myself).

What the antiglobalists don't get is that global trade, alliances don't have to mean destruction of culture. Jeez, even the most organized and successful country in the last two centuries (duh, the US) has incredible diversity of culture that outsiders (hello, Francois) don't remotely appreciate. And, last I checked, my friend from Marseille is just as annoyed by Parisians as my milanesan friend is of those commie southern italians (lets not even talk about Spain, Canada, etc.).

Admittedly, some countries "stick" more than others and this often means the "old culture" merges into a new culture. But this is usually due to the circumstances their people started with - my grandparents fled a country and wanted to leave alot of their culture and the problems they had behind. Hence, the US melting pot. I can hardly see that happening between the french and germans except if the french become so unsufferably insecure it alienates their youth. Just like the demonization of sex and pot smoking INCREASES its allure among kids, every anti-McDonalds protest just makes more kids give up their baguette du fromage or shawerma.

i'll of course take all this back if it means american conservatives get countries to crack down on hobbying.

Here is a great web sight for those of you that enjoy Brazil. It gives some insight into the Brazilian politics, and other issues that may affect our hobby. http://www.brazzil.com/

From TIME Magazine headline Story:

---------------------

Can Team Bush Contain the Iraq WMD Fallout?
The administration's strategy has one potentially fatal flaw: the situation in Iraq  
By TONY KARON

Monday, Feb. 02, 2004

No longer able to credibly maintain that weapons of mass destruction may yet be found in Iraq, the Bush administration has moved to insulate the President from any political fallout from the collapse of his case for war. The White House announced Monday that a commission of inquiry will be appointed to probe the apparent failures of prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq, and would likely report back some time next year. Rather than face mounting pressure to explain the discrepancy between Iraq's actual capability and the "grave and gathering danger" warned of by President Bush and his aides, the White House has acted preemptively to quarantine the WMD issue for the election season. Instead of asking the electorate to wait for the weapons inspectors to complete their work, the electorate will now be asked to await the outcome of the commission.

---------------------

"...would likely report back some time next year." Meaning after Mr Bush had been re-elected back to the whitehouse. Cute. Really cute. Another 4 years of wars (next stop, Iran?), trillions spent on these wars, trillion dollars deficit spending, etc.

And not to forget, more bragging rights for "ugly" Americans, shouting to the world: "We won the Grand Slam of Wars; we beat Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran. Aren't we the strongest?! Aren't we the best?! Aren't we the 'land of the brave'?!

Of course, nobody will mention that the combined military spending of these 3 countries is not even 1% of the US military budget. It's like a 35 year-old wrestler bully beating up three skinny 9 year-old boys. Wow, you're so brave...

The title of this thread is War or Peace. So the real question is, do you want war or peace? Are you for war or for peace? Before you answer the question, remember that...

Peace is the absence of war.

Aldaron... you still here???

Guys,

This thread is all of over the board. But I think its been interesting. And I am going to go off on even more tangents.

The first big attack on our individual right began with the war on drugs. The new laws of search and seizure defintely curtail our individual rights( off topic: drugs should be legalized). Lots of provisions for affirmative action, ADA, and other government programs negatively effect our private property rights and individual rights. The Patriot Act probably does contribute to the erosion of our freedoms.

But lets be realistic. I will wager that not a single person on this board or any aquaintance of ours has been negatively impacted by the Patriot Act and never will be. All of the ranting that Ashcroft and Bush are evil Neo-con schemers attempting to rule the world is just a bunch of delusional paranoia.

RioRules, I am still waiting a response to some of my questions? Or are they beneath you?

From your comments, I would understand that you perscribe to the theory that one culture is not better than or superior to another. Is that right? Or am I assuming something that is not?

I have not traveled to all of the continents as you have, but I have travelled Europe, North Africa, and Central America. I have lived in Europe full time for 3 years and in Mexico full time for nearly 6. Therefore, I am not some bible thumping redneck who has never left his county of birth. But in my opinion some cultures are definitely superior to others. The culture of the western democracies is far superior to that of most African and Arabic cultures.

They may have some great things going for them. But only in the west do women have more rights, the western powers broke the back of slavery, the western democracies are more succsesful at integrating and protecting minorities. The western democracies grant more individual rights than most other countries. If that were not so, the massive immigration to western countries, particualrly the US would not exist. People in repressive countries tend to vote with theri feet.

If you want to be a citizen of the world I am happy for you. I will continue to be a proud ciitizen of the US and would love to see our level of freedom and opportunity spread to other countries. I am such a neo-con imperialist.

I have to get back to work. And I have spouted enough garbage for the day.

Batster

"The culture of the western democracies is far superior to that of most African and Arabic cultures." --Babster

What American culture? Super Bowl? Hollywood? Humburger? On the other hand, the following is the culture you are trying to belittle. Of course, you are aware that the numbers you are using to count how many children have been killed by American bombs in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, Nicaragua, etc., is called the Arabic numeral as opposed to the Roman numerals that your so-called "more advanced western cultures" have been using for centuries. Anyway, read on, you might learn something interesting.

---------------------

Medieval Muslims made invaluable contributions to the study of mathematics, and their key role is clear from the many terms derived from Arabic. Perhaps the most famous mathematician was Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (ca. 800-ca. 847), author of several treatises of earth-shattering importance. His book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, written about 825, was principally responsible for the diffusion of the Indian system of numeration (Arabic numerals) in the Islamic lands and the West.

Traditional systems had used different letters of the alphabet to represent numbers or cumbersome Roman numerals, and the new system was far superior, for it allowed people to multiply and divide easily and check their work. The merchant Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, who had learned about Arabic numerals in Tunis, wrote a treatise rejecting the abacus in favor of the Arab method of reckoning, and as a result, the system of Hindu-Arabic numeration caught on quickly in Central Italy. By the fourteenth century, Italian merchants and bankers had abandoned the abacus and were doing their calculations using pen and paper, in much the same way we do today.

In addition to his treatise on numerals, al-Khwarizmi also wrote a revolutionary book on resolving quadratic equations. These were given either as geometric demonstrations or as numerical proofs in an entirely new mode of expression. The book was soon translated into Latin, and the word in its title, al-jabr, or transposition, gave the entire process its name in European languages, algebra, understood today as the generalization of arithmetic in which symbols, usually letters of the alphabet such as A, B, and C, represent numbers. Al-Khwarizmi had used the Arabic word for "thing" (shay) to refer to the quantity sought, the unknown. When al-Khwarizmi's work was translated in Spain, the Arabic word shay was transcribed as xay, since the letter x was pronounced as sh in Spain. In time this word was abbreviated as x, the universal algebraic symbol for the unknown.

Robert of Chester's translation of al-Khwarzmi's treatise on algebra opens with the words dixit Algorithmi, "Algorithmi says." In time, the mathematician's epithet of his Central Asian origin, al-Khwarizmi, came in the West to denote first the new process of reckoning with Hindu-Arabic numerals, algorithmus, and then the entire step-by-step process of solving mathematical problems, algorithm.

By the way the above came from the PBS series on History, Islam. And that was from Culture and the chapter, Algebra & Mathematics. Below is from the chapter...

MEDICINE

Medieval Muslims revolutionized the science and practice of medicine, as physicians began to question the medical traditions inherited from both East and West and distinguish one disease from another. For example, Ibn al-Haytham (ca. 965-1039), the so-called "father of optics," explained how human vision takes place by integrating physical, mathematical, experimental, physiological, and psychological considerations. His treatise had an enormous impact on all later writers on optics, both in the Muslim world and through a medieval Latin translation in the West. Similarly, the great Egyptian physician Ibn al-Nafis (d. 1288), discovered the minor, or pulmonary, circulation of the blood. Ibn Sina (980-1037), known in the West as Avicenna, synthesized Aristotelian and later Greek theories with his own original views, and his Canon of Medicine became the most famous medical book in the East or West, translated at least 87 times.

Muslims also expanded the practice of medical schools and hospitals. The Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid used the Sasanian academy of Jundishapur in southwestern Iran as his model when he founded his own hospital in Baghdad (ca. 800). Hospitals were soon established throughout the empire. They were staffed by dozens of specialists, from physiologists, oculists, and surgeons, to bonesetters. They even had special wards for the mentally ill and separate wings for men and women. These hospitals were often incorporated into large charitable foundations and were supported by endowments made by powerful and wealthy individuals. One of the most famous was that founded by the Mamluk sultan Qalawun in Cairo. In addition, traveling clinics and dispensaries provided services to rural areas.

And from...

ENGINEERING

Medieval Muslim scientists often focused on practical matters, particularly hydraulic engineering, as water was always a precious resource in the arid lands where Islam traditionally flourished. Engineers designed various kinds of water-raising machines, some powered by animals, others powered by rivers and streams. The waterwheels along the Orontes River in Syria were used to irrigate until modern times. Watermills were used to grind corn and other grains, though in Iran water power was often supplemented or replaced by wind.

Bridges and dams were needed to channel water. In addition to the standard beam, cantilever and arch bridges, engineers also designed bridges of boats to span rivers. Dams were widely used to divert rivers into irrigation canals. Perhaps the most ingenious hydraulic technologies were the distribution networks of canals and qanats, subterranean aqueducts that sometimes carried water for hundreds of miles. Cisterns and underground ice-houses were used for storage. Various instruments were used to measure water flow, and the Nilometer built in 861-62 still stands on Rawda Island in Cairo.

In addition to these machines and technologies related to water, Muslim engineers also designed several types of siege engines, notably the traction and the counterweight trebuchet. Their ingenuity is clear from the many kinds of fine machines they also perfected, ranging from clocks and automata to fountains. Some were meant for practical purposes but others were designed for amusement or aesthetic enjoyment, and their components and techniques were of great importance for the development of machine technology.

So Bush wants to go back to the moon and has launch the project for men to go to Mars, well, read on.

ASTRONOMY

As in the other sciences, astronomers in the Muslim lands built upon and greatly expanded earlier traditions. At the House of Knowledge founded in Baghdad by the Abbasid caliph Mamun, scientists translated many texts from Sanskrit, Pahlavi or Old Persian, Greek and Syriac into Arabic, notably the great Sanskrit astronomical tables and Ptolemy's astronomical treatise, the Almagest. Muslim astronomers accepted the geometrical structure of the universe expounded by Ptolemy, in which the earth rests motionless near the center of a series of eight spheres, which encompass it, but then faced the problem of reconciling the theoretical model with Aristotelian physics and physical realities derived from observation.

Some of the most impressive efforts to modify Ptolemaic theory were made at the observatory founded by Nasir al-Din Tusi in 1257 at Maragha in northwestern Iran and continued by his successors at Tabriz and Damascus. With the assistance of Chinese colleagues, Muslim astronomers worked out planetary models that depended solely on combinations of uniform circular motions. The astronomical tables compiled at Maragha served as a model for later Muslim astronomical efforts. The most famous imitator was the observatory founded in 1420 by the Timurid prince Ulughbeg at Samarkand in Central Asia, where the astronomer Ghiyath al-Din Jamshid al-Kashi worked out his own set of astronomical tables, with sections on diverse computations and eras, the knowledge of time, the course of the stars, and the position of the fixed stars. Essentially Ptolemaic, these tables have improved parameters and structure as well as additional material on the Chinese Uighur-calendar. They were widely admired and translated even as far away as England, where John Greaves, professor at Oxford, called attention to them in 1665.

Where did the so-called "advance western culture got the idea of using paper?

Everytime you pay something with paper money from now on, remember that the concept came from the "inferior" societies. And everytime you pay something by signing a check, remember that the word "check" came from the Persian word; "sakk".

PAPER & PUBLISHING

Muslims were responsible for the transfer of papermaking from China, where it had been invented in the centuries before Christ, to Europe, where it fueled the print revolution in the late fifteenth century. Muslims encountered paper when they conquered Central Asia in the eighth century. Paper quickly supplanted papyrus (which was made only in Egypt) and parchment (which was made from animal skins), for it could be made virtually anywhere from rags and waste fibers. Although it was not cheap, paper had the great advantage of being difficult to erase, an important consideration when documents and records had to be secure from forgery. The use of paper soon spread from government offices to all segments of society. By the middle of the ninth century the Papersellers' Street in Baghdad had more than one hundred shops in which paper and books were sold.

Medieval Islamic society had a paper economy, where both wholesale and retail merchants conducted commerce on credit. Orders of payment, the equivalent of modern checks (the Persian word sakk is the origin of our word "check"), were drawn in amounts upwards from one dinar (a gold coin roughly equivalent to half a month's salary). By the ninth century paper was used for copying scientific and other types of utilitarian texts, although it took longer for Muslims to accept the use of paper as a fitting support for God's word. The first paper manuscript of the Koran to survive dates from 972, but from this date paper soon became standard for all books. Medieval Islamic libraries had hundreds of thousands of volumes far outstripping the relatively small monastic and university libraries in the West.

So you see, Babster, the so-called inferior societies are not so inferior afterall. All you have to do is look at the other side with both eyes opened not half-closed.

Riorules... you need a hobby. How about whore mongering? Why don't you take your ass back to the Philipines and vacation on some of those southern islands. When you get kidnapped by Islamic crazy fucks who threaten to cut your head off if they don't get their ransom, I bet you will be wishing for American commandos then. Or maybe you will be able to reason with them and tell them that we are all citizens of the world. I'm sure that will resonate. You live in a dream world.

Aldaron... looks to me, you are more of a war-monger than a whore-monger. I am not even talking to you. I do not talk to cretins, okay? So, stop butting in and let others discuss politics in-depth and if do not know how or just plain do not know, just go back to your little room and go play with yourself. That I am sure, you are a master of.

I'm a cretin now? You cut me to the bone. Seems I got to you finally but even when you seemingly get pissed off, you still sound like a pussy.

I assure you that I could rebutt all of your liberal, naive, child-like reasoning, but I choose not to waste my time because nothing is solved and it's a waste of time. In the end, nobody cares what you or I think. Other than that........

Did you look up the meaning of the word cretin? At least, that's another new word in your vocubulary. See, even you can learn something from this thread (that you abhor so much but just can't help yourself from butting-in). If you don't like to discuss politics then, as they say, just butt out.

Superior Culture & the Ugly American

By Raff Ellis
Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – There is much to commend America for its ingenuity and innovations. Its developments have led many fields for many years and for this we are justly proud. There is no need to recount our space conquests, medical innovations, and the numerous Nobel awards in science for they have been given ample publicity. But there is a dark side to the American ethos, one that we are neither prone to admit nor expose, that bears exploration.

One need not have much international experience to see what citizens of other countries resent most about us -- it's our perceived swaggering arrogance. The Ugly American, first published in 1958, became a runaway national bestseller for its slashing exposé of just such arrogance. Without a great deal of introspection, it is easy to conclude that much of our American bravado is badly misplaced. Although we are unsurpassed in many endeavors, we aren't superior at everything, and that includes diplomacy, nation building and even manufacturing.
Take the auto industry as an example, an industry that has had as much to do with the growth of the United States into an international behemoth as any. Despite our past pioneering dominance in producing automobiles, it is well-known and accepted that Italians now design them better, Germans engineer them better and the Japanese build them better. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that goods marked "Made in Japan" were laughed at and considered but cheap imitations of well-made American products. The Japanese persevered and learned how to build in quality and thus earned the reputation they hold today as first-rate manufacturers. The historical lesson to note is that those who were on the bottom can rise to the top and, horror of horrors, vice versa.

One industry where the USA does lead the world is in entertainment. Our films and music do more to export an impression of America and its culture than any other product. Movie stars and singers are known and recognized the world over and their utterances are mimicked by impressionable youth around the globe. Phrases such as "Make my day!" and "Hasta la vista, baby!" not unsurprisingly have been heard in many a foreign city.

Lost, however, in the overwhelming plethora of action flicks, special effects, gross language, bawdy lyrics and writhing nudity is the fact that every so often, Hollywood comes out with a picture that deftly probes the American ethos. One such picture is The White Dawn, a film that was released nearly 30 years ago. The story, based on an actual event as taken from a novel by James Huston, takes place in 1896 when three whalers, who were stranded in Arctic North Canada's Baffin Bay, sought refuge with an Eskimo tribe. It wasn't long before they looked down on the people that had rescued them, viewing their society as primitive, inferior and easily dominatable. Gradually, the whalers gain control of the Inuit village of their benefactors and introduce gambling, booze, theft and their special variation of sex. In the beginning, the Eskimos accepted this acultural intrusion but, slowly and inexorably, the two societies that had been thrust together by an act of fate end up in a conflict that results in the death of the whalers.

Without belaboring the allegory, suffice it to say that in this example, the culture of the Inuit, which is based on mutual cooperation and living in harmony with their environment, is contrasted with that of the interlopers who come from a capitalistic society which believes that the game of life is about the exploitation of nature and people for personal gain. One can't help walking away from the movie wondering, "Who were the real savages here?"

Although the foregoing tale chronicles a century-old American outlook, our society's cultural attitudes don't appear to have evolved much in the ensuing hundred years. Let's face it; America's innate sense of self is that its culture is superior to all others on the face of the Earth. This attitude affects our interactions with each other as well as other societies. Believing that our form of government is the best ever devised, bar none, governs our national attitudes and foreign policy. Why else would so many Americans have cheered the invasion of Iraq with self-righteous vigor, feeling that we have a right, if not a duty, to export our values to the rest of the world, even if those perceived values are not that well practiced at home.

Our professed cultural superiority becomes most obvious when our soldiers employ the age-old practice of using demeaning sobriquets to label their enemies. In our short history, America's armies have fought savages, Red Devils, Boche, Hun, Kraut, Japs, Nips, Slant Eyes, Gooks, and now Ragheads. It seems this policy is necessary to get our armed forces to feel culturally, if not racially, superior to the enemy so they can humiliate and kill without remorse.

These tactics lead the conquerors to behave ruthlessly against the "liberated" population, resulting in the many atrocities we hear about, usually long after the fighting is done. It is no secret, for example, that the Israelis believe that their culture is far superior to that of the Palestinians. Their leaders have no reservations when publicly demeaning their "enemy" with a torrent of derogatory names. Our occupation of Iraq has taken an analogous turn with our troops employing the self-same tactics that are well known in the West Bank. These include mass punishments, arrest and detention without charge, shooting into unarmed crowds, targeted assassinations of suspected insurgents, blowing up of houses and the intimidation and humiliation of the populace at checkpoints and in house-to-house searches.

What will be the long-term result of this type of behavior both at home and abroad? Has our citizenry become so hardened to cultural demeaning that we will accept that sort of behavior at home? Will our students, as they do in Israel, write to our troops imploring them to kill as many Arabs as possible?*

Perhaps we should revisit the lesson of The White Dawn. Just as the whalers found out they weren't superior in that clash of cultures over a hundred years ago, we may also find that our lifestyle isn't really superior to all others, just different. In fact, it may not be exportable to all people in all other parts of the world. One day the worm may turn and it could be we who are taught the lesson after all.


[Raff Ellis lives in the United States and is a retired former strategic planner and computer industry executive. He has had an abiding and active interest in the Middle East since early adulthood and has traveled to the region many times over the last 30 years.]

"You still did not answer the question w(h)ether Iraqui's are better off without Saddam?" --Babster

This is not the point. The question is not whether the iraquis are better-off without Sadam; but rather, whether the US or any other nation has the right to think and act for the people of Iraq (or for the Afghans, for that matter).

The only reason that can justify one nation's going to war is the presence of imminent danger; if let's say Sadam has already produced WMDs and we have definite and concrete evidence that he is planning to use these on America, then and only then, is it justified. Other than that, without evidence, this is plain and simple act of aggression on another equal sovereign nation and people.

Riorules, normally I jump head first into a productive debate. You however are so far out in left field and I think I'll let you stew there for a bit.

While your out there, here's some food for thought:

The USA is the only game in town amigo. Your towel heads should of figured out self rule and democracy (after all, your for self-determination) if they don't want the big dog taking over the reins. They are so far incapable of anything except selling oil to us and producing a few whores. Fuck em.

I love exploiting the economic disparity of the world--after all that's why I get FS LT for 20 bucks overseas... Don't like it? Smoke a joint and dream of lala land. The ugly american? In this hobby, no-one is ugly with cash. Too bad. Over n' out.

-dm

Riorules; I think you have some real anger issues with Americans.

Perhaps one day you will move on and forget about the time you heard your mom or daughter saying "sucky fucky I luv u long time sailor" to a brother on the street outside of a bar in Olongapo city.

As for the Muslim culture, in medieval times it was the advance society. But not in the modern era.

I lived in Cairo for two years, so I speak from real experiance not from reading some book or downloading something from the net.

The mideast in general is a fucked up place, run by two bit dictators and religious extremists that are unwilling to give their people any taste of freedom.

Did you know that under the Taliban children could not fly kites.

How many contries are their that will not let their citizens use the internet to surf websites that do not agree with their governments way of thinking?

Iran? No.

Cuba? No.

North Korea? No.

Afganistan? YES. Now that the Taliban have been chased into their caves.

Iraq? YES. Now that Saddam and his Bath party are no longer free to rape, torture, and murder.

By the way dumbass where do you think all those mass graves in Iraq came from?

I think that the world is a safer and better place without the Taliban and Saddam.

Do you really think Kadafi would have given up his WMD program if America had not gone to war?

What difference does it make whether they allow internet use in Afganistan. I'm sure every kid's got a laptop there.

Don Marco, not sure what you mean by USA is the only game in town.

Arabics, I had a Lebanese friend before. But they can a be a pain to do business with.

The reason I keep monitoring this thread is because you keep showing up in it multiple times and I just like telling you you are full of shit. I'm not involved in this thread to try to convince anyone of anything. You can think you are smarter than me with your condescending attitude, but you have only made yourself look like a fool on here.

Dick, "only game" refers to economic and military might.

I'm curious where Rio hails from??

-mp

War - Who care about justification? Only loser get put on trial for War Crime! When you win, you don't need a justification. The reasons why countries or people has attacked others in the past are for additional territory, economics, or idialogy. In general, the wars that U.S. has gotten involved in were to keep dictators from taking over their own or other countries. Or fight communism. Some people said that the U.S. go to war for oil. Then why do we continue to pay for oil from Kuwait and Saudi now? Let's face the fact - there are people out there that need killing now and then! And U.S. do the killing sometimes because it in in our best interest.

Every country do what's in the best interest. No country in the world do things for any country's best interest - unless it is the same as their own. The U.S. would like to see the world similar to the U.S. and the Muslim would like the world to be all Muslim. Go figure!

I see that Riorules is still making friends!

I say we need to put Porker, Riorules and KidCisco in a room together and videotape the conversation for posterity, the shit they would ramble on about would be hilarious.

"Yankee imperial dog!!" "Hey, I'm a SEAL, 8 feet tall and will squash you" "Man, the hooker wanted five bucks, why are they so expensive here? What a ripoff"

I was waiting for you to chime in.