Does Islam need a Country?

[PocketRocket]

That's like saying "Beating someone up isn't so bad, because there are guys out there who actually murder people".

Do you think it's OK to beat someone up if that person is threatening to murder you?

Defending yourself from a murderous attack can hardly be described as beating someone up.

The one is self defense, the other is inflicting physical violence upon a helpless victim.

But you inititally pooh-poohed the post about the abuse of prisoners in AbuGharaib and Guantanamo Bay by saying that their treatment was mild compared to torture inflicted by the other side.

For that, I pointed out that you're condoning the one simply because of the severity of the other.

But your comparison above holds no water.

A helpless prisoner can hardly be said to be threatening immediate murder.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Does this mean the workers were kidnapped in Vietnam and forcibly transported to US Samoa?

Ostensibly, yes. As I said, this story is not the original one I read. To the best of my recollection, the workers were led to believe that they were going to 'well-paying' jobs overseas, and then were essentially sold into slavery. From what I recall, the 'slaver' was paid a 'headhunters fee' or bounty, on the number of slaves it imorted.

Many people from 'poorer' countries, especially the Phillipines and Indonesia, work overseas for more money than could be made at home, and send money back to their families. I do believe the Phillipinos are the most prolific overseas workers.

I honestly don't know if there is a minimum wage in Vietnam or what it would be, but I am guessing that these workers were misled, then enslaved.

Thelonious, I don't mean to quibble about specific cases but the world has many idiotic regimes that impoverish ordinary people.

My point was that the USA is one of those regimes, with many of their companies using exploitation to boost profits.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There are indeed a range of ways Canada could take a 'harder line' against any state or regime.  Engagement or disengagement is a careful game, not free of self-interested motivations.  If there's money to be made in Libya, why shouldn't it be us who make it?

There's probably money to be made in the slave trade. Think we should get involved?

In Libya it wouldn't be us who are doing the wrong things. We'd merely be conducting commercial enterprises, not rounding up political prisoners. If the people of Libya want a different government, let them change it. I don't see what that has to do with us trading with them or not.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

If the people of Libya want a different government, let them change it. I don't see what that has to do with us trading with them or not.

Unfortunately trade and politics often go hand in hand. If a regime is 'unsavoury', trade with them implies approval of their methods, and thereby decreases the chances of change.

[August1991]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

If the people of Libya want a different government, let them change it. I don't see what that has to do with us trading with them or not.

Unfortunately trade and politics often go hand in hand. If a regime is 'unsavoury', trade with them implies approval of their methods, and thereby decreases the chances of change.

We don't trade with the government of a country. We trade with the people living in the country. (Think, if Canada were to boycott America, it would mean no longer trading with people who voted for Kerry.)

Now, can you make a convincing argument to show that such a boycott would hurt Bush Jnr?

I can understand a boycott focussed very specifically at the members of a regime.

We imprison criminals. We don't also imprison their spouses, children, parents and cousins.

[PocketRocket]

ARGUS: Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this one, but I havent had the time to do more than check my email and drop in for a couple minutes in the past week or so.

  Yes, it's a very trite expression and not in the least applicable here 

Not applicable here??? How many times has the USA meddled in the internal affairs of other countries, only to have it come around and bite them in the backside a few years later??? They practically created Saddam, along with helping to arm Osama in the 80's, and helping to give him credibility among his throng of followers.

I'm sorry, but history is repeating itself as we speak, and GWB is not remembering history, or if he is, he is certainly not learning anything from it.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the USA should also be learning from the history of others. TThe USSR went bankrupt investing money into an endless war in the middle east. How's the American debt coming along thanks to this mess in Iraq???

How many hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent over there up until now??? How many more yet to be spent???

And Osama comes right out and says his master plan is to lure the USA into an un-ending war that will eventually bankrupt the country.

BWG has learned as much from that statement as he did from the pre-9/11 warnings he received, ie; nothing to speak of.

Not applicable??? Sorry, I cannot agree.

  It seems supremely illogical to compare how America was a generation ago to how China is today. If you want to be fair, why not compare how America was a generation ago to how China was a generation ago, when Mao's cultural revolution was in full swing and people were being executed for being too "intellectual"?   

I don't think it's illogical at all. Do you expect every country in the world to change at exactly the same rate, and in exactly the same way??? But that's okay, if you want to play that game, let's look back a little farther, say 5,000 years or so.

No white men on North America. Europe and the western world still scratching at the ground with sticks, and having trouble starting a campfire.

Meanwhile, China had developed a written language, was already beginning to keep a recorded history, had already had several dynastys rise and fall.

China was, for millenia, a major seat of civilization. Fine art, pottery, silk trade, etc etc etc.

Sorry, you can't just point to the past 30 years or so, and use that brief period as a basis to judge how much more civilised than the rest of the world we are. 30 years is barely a heartbeat in a historical timeframe. The entire history of the USA, and Canada for that matter, is a brief footnote in the recorded history of ancient countries like China and Japan. Civilizations rise, and they fall, and to believe that the USA is the be-all-end-all-final-product of the quest for civilization is another example of not learning from history.

  I'm saying American torure, from what I have seen, is a fairly minimal thing in comparison to what the rest of the world is doing.

That would depend on how you define the "rest of the world". I can't recall too many human-rights abuse stories coming out of Denmark. Not very many stories about people being tortured in Holland. Haven't heard much about the Japanese torture chambers lately. Or the Australians. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one

Therefore the hysteria and accusations against Americans seem fairly strange to me if they are based on a concern for human rights. 

Well, I don't consider myself to be in a state of "hysteria" over all this. But I do believe that the USA, who is supposed to be the champion of human rights (at least that's the way they are painting themselves), should be better than those they are crusading against. My stand on this is simply that GWB in particular, and his administration in general, are a bunch of hypocrites. It all comes back to "Well, we're not supposed to torture these guys, but as long as our torture is less severe than their torture, it's alright".

That seems to be the basis for your defense of these acts.

That being said, I would rather be on the receiving end of the American torture, than that being performed by the insurgents in Iraq. But better yet, I'd rather keep myself a good distance from both.

I suspect, however, they are based more on a dislike of the American government than any care or concern for human rights. Else the same people criticising the Americans would be spending far, far more time criticising the Chinese and North Koreans and others.

I make no secret of the fact that I don't like Bush or his cronies. But I have to say that when he decided to go into Afghanistan seeking Osama, I fully supported that move (not that my support means a drop of sparrow-spit to GWB). Iraq, however, was a totally different ballgame for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here.

But Korea, China, Iraq et al, are the "Bad Guys". We expect this kind of behavior from them. We (or at least I) do not condone it, but realize it is there. And I do indeed criticize this behavior whenever the subject arises, be it in forum or conversation. Given the opportunity, I would gladly put a bullets in the heads of each and every one of the a$$es who performed the beheadings we were seeing a few months back. But I strongly doubt I'll ever get such a chance. I will, however, applaud the man who does so succesfully.

But that was not the subject raised here. If Canadians were found guilty of the abuses the Americans committed in AbuGharaib and GuantanamoBay, I would be criticizing them, my own countrymen, as vociferously as I am the Americans who committed the deeds, and the administration who let it happen.

    Don't be silly. Everything in life is a matter of degrees. Would your girlfriend mind if you kissed another woman goodbye? How about if you had sex with her instead? Hey, it's only a matter of degrees! 

And you say I'm being silly??? Okay, I'll give you silly. Assuming you are straight, the next time you shake some guy's hand, remember that it's only a matter of degrees, and you just had sex with him, at least to a small degree

BTW, it's not my girlfriend, it's my wife. And she'd simply tell me to be sure and wear a condom. I married a rather open-minded girl.

  We put people in jail for embezzlement. The Chinese execute them. Hey, it's only a matter of degrees! I give money to the poor, so I'm about the same as Mother Theresa, right? It's ony a matter of degrees! 

Actually, you should check some of the more recent news coming out of China. Penalties are a lot less harsh than they used to be. China has come a long way in the past few years, and it seems the progress is continuing. Yeah, I know, it's still only 20 years since Tianenmen Square, but then again, it's only about 35 years since Kent State University.

As for you being the same a Mother Theresa, that's the best joke I've heard all day.

Let me shake your hand

  I'm reminded of an old joke. A man asked a woman if she'd have sex with him for a million dollars. She agreed. Then he asked her if she'd do it for ten dollars. What kind of a woman do you think I am, she demanded. We've already established that, he said. Now we're just dickering over the price. 

Shaw, as was pointed out earlier. I always liked that one.

But my favorite is Winston Churchill. Upon being told by a woman "You Sir, are drunk". He replied, "And you, Madam, are ugly, however, tomorrow morning I shall be sober".

Which begs the Question, is Bush drunk, or ugly???

[Argus]

On those who forget history

Not applicable here??? How many times has the USA meddled in the internal affairs of other countries, only to have it come around and bite them in the backside a few years later??? They practically created Saddam, along with helping to arm Osama in the 80's, and helping to give him credibility among his throng of followers.

This is purely speculative. They did not create Sadaam. They helped to overthrow a bloody dictator, and, eventually, decades later, the Baath party had its own infighting and Sadaam took power. Nor did they ever "arm" Osama. In fact, bin laden was never a fighter. He was more of a money man, and a minor one at that, helping the guerrilas fight the Soviets. The US has many interests in the world to protect. Sometimes friends become enemies and enemies become friends. That's the way the world works and it should really surprise no one.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the USA should also be learning from the history of others. TThe USSR went bankrupt investing money into an endless war in the middle east. How's the American debt coming along thanks to this mess in Iraq???

To economies the size of the US and USSR, a little war is no big deal. The Soviets went bankrupt because of their screwed up "planned" economy, and socialism, which meant no one bothered to work hard. The US is in some economic trouble because of an idiotic fiscal policy which oversaw huge tax cuts and tax breaks while at the same time increasing all kinds of spending. Iraq is really no big deal. Remember they had 500,000 troops in Vietnam for many years and it didn't stress their economy too much. And they are much larger and richer now than they were in the sixties.

Sorry, you can't just point to the past 30 years or so, and use that brief period as a basis to judge how much more civilised than the rest of the world we are. 30 years is barely a heartbeat in a historical timeframe.

This is basically what I meant about that history quote being irrelevent. Because we were discussing the present, and Chinese brutality vs American violence. Thirty years is plenty of time to assess which is the more violent, the more brutal. It might be only a short time period in historical terms but it is where those cultures and their values are today. And really, you can't find any time in China's history where they weren't ruled by brutal killers who cared nothing about anyone but their own power and wealth. Nor is there any sign that is changing.

The entire history of the USA, and Canada for that matter, is a brief footnote in the recorded history of ancient countries like China and Japan. Civilizations rise, and they fall, and to believe that the USA is the be-all-end-all-final-product of the quest for civilization is another example of not learning from history.

I don't think anyone suggested the US is the peak of civilization. I certainly hope it's not! There are more civilized countries, particularly the Nordic countries. And hopefully, the US will grow out of its fixation with guns, abortion and God. But the US and Canada are certainly far, far, far, far more civilized and socially advanced than places like China.

  I'm saying American torure, from what I have seen, is a fairly minimal thing in comparison to what the rest of the world is doing.

That would depend on how you define the "rest of the world". I can't recall too many human-rights abuse stories coming out of Denmark. Not very many stories about people being tortured in Holland. Haven't heard much about the Japanese torture chambers lately. Or the Australians. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one

Uhm, actually, from what I understand, the Japanese police routinely use torture, and always have. Just a quirk of their culture. There aren't many criminal trials in Japan because, for the most part, people "confess". It is a milder type of torture, but similar to the Americans'. The British were known to have employed such harsh methods in their war against the IRA, and the French, of course, did a lot of nasty things in Algeria. Nations at war inevitably do nasty things against those perceived as their enemies.

And, of course, even nations not at war, if they are not free, do horrific things. Just check out the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians, or Iranians.

Therefore the hysteria and accusations against Americans seem fairly strange to me if they are based on a concern for human rights. 

Well, I don't consider myself to be in a state of "hysteria" over all this. But I do believe that the USA, who is supposed to be the champion of human rights (at least that's the way they are painting themselves), should be better than those they are crusading against. My stand on this is simply that GWB in particular, and his administration in general, are a bunch of hypocrites.

I can't believe they allowed those pictures to get out. I think it shows just how disorganized and idiotic those people were. I'm afraid it has poisoned views on Americans for years. If you could see the kinds of sights you'd find in an Egyptian prison, or a Mexican prison, I'm sure you'd gag. To say nothing of the torture chambers in China or North Korea or Iran or Syria.

I think the Americans do, generally champion human rights. They do, generally champion freedom. But the Americans, like many nations, have more than one camp at work. There are idealists and there are cynics. There are those who would want absolute freedom and the rule of law and those who would not do anything they think might damage America's economic or fiscal interests. On the whole, for a nation with enormous worldwide interests and many enemies, the US performs admirably. I don't think you'll ever see them performing the kinds of horrific torture on people like so many countries do, but they aren't choir boys either. They can't be choir boys and still rule the world.

That seems to be the basis for your defense of these acts.

I'm not defending the acts. I'm defending the country, and trying to put the acts into perspective. To a certain extent I understand the young service men and women who performed those acts. I would not punish most of them. In my opinion the tone was set from up high, and if any punishment is to be handed it should start with Rumsfeld.

Actually, you should check some of the more recent news coming out of China. Penalties are a lot less harsh than they used to be.

I have seen no sign of this, nor have any of the human rights monitoring groups found any letup in executions or the persecution of muslims, christians and followers of falun gong. And I think I posted an example earlier, a simple man who wanted to protest against expropriations, asking permission to hold a demonstration, and being arrested and sentenced to four and a half years in prison.

Not even I am ever going to hold out the current administration as a beacon for freedom and democracy, but as bad as the Bush people are I think we need to keep things in perspective when we look around the world and see the kinds of people who mostly hold power out there.

[caesar]

Shaw, as was pointed out earlier. I always liked that one.

But my favorite is Winston Churchill. Upon being told by a woman "You Sir, are drunk". He replied, "And you, Madam, are ugly, however, tomorrow morning I shall be sober".

Which begs the Question, is Bush drunk, or ugly???

He is an extremely ugly drunk"

[PocketRocket]

ARGUS: It seems we agree more than not.

We've reached the point where we are arguing semantics, but on the core issues, we seem to be in accord.

I agree, punishment for AbuGharaib should be doled out from Rummy on down.

About not defending the acts (torture), but defending the country (USA), again, I agree.

The acts were despicable. Admittedly not as bad as many committed by others, but still despicable.

But again, I agree that the USA is a far more civilised country than many.

As for "them" allowing the AbuGharaib pictures to "get out", they were idiots for letting the pics be taken in the first place. The existence of a picture implies pride taken in the actions, and the wish to display those actions.

It's like kids who steal cars to go joyriding and videotape themselves doing it, then get convicted, with the videotape being used against them as evidence. How many times have we seen that scenarion play out on those true-crime TV shows??? More than a few.

We seem to disagree on the lesons of history and how they are playing out today. Nothing wrong with that.

The other point of contention lies in the level of civilization.

I simply believe that "civilization" as a word is simply a veneer. It's like a nice fresh layer of paint which covers our baser instincts. Given the proper circumstances, I believe the larger portion of our population could easily revert to the kind of behaviour we're seeing elsewhere.

On this, we also seem to disagree.

That's okay, it makes for some intelligent discourse, but I don't believe we'll reach an accord on those points, so I'm going to simply let it lie rather than either of us flogging a dead horse.

BTW, I appreciated your closing with a line about "as bad as Bush and company is...." or something of the sort.

And yeah, I agree he's bad, I also agree that, bad as he is, I'd rather have him for a neighbour than Saddam.

So, I think we've come as far as we can on the points we've exchanged. Thanks for the intelligent and insightful replies on the points we've discussed.

[Guest eureka]

I am afraid that you are closing on a weak note.

That the US is "far more civilised than many" is no defense of that country's policies or behaviour. In the state of the present world, there is no reason for the US not to be as civilised as any. That it is a long way from being both internally and externally.

Punishment for the torture of prisoners should be for Bush on down: it was Bush who signed the executive order authorizing torture. Indeed it is Bush who is responsible for this most uncivilised "New Century" of the United States. He did not author the "vision," he does not have the intelligence for that. He is, however, the front man for all the evil the US is currently projectong on the world.

I would disagree with you that civilization is merely a veneer. That is a convenient and oft used excuse for human actions. The inner compulsions to compassion, altruism and cooperation - all marks of civilization - are universal. Man is capable of being "civilized" and the evidence for that has been growing in the opposition to uncivilized behaviour that is aroused whenever it appears.

The Bush regime is an anomaly.

The unfortunate thing about Bush is that he appears at a time in history when his regime is a new threat to world peace. It becomes more likely each day that a new major war is on the horizon.

He is also guilty of knowingly encouraging the greatest threat to the continued existence of the human race that it has ever faced: that is implicit in the current state of Global Warming. Mankind faces the possibility of extinction or, at least, dramatic reduction from the consequences of that. Yet Bush does not consider that as important as the state of his bank account.

Would I rather have Bush next door than Saddam? Not really. Bush is the most thoroughly evil leader that the world has seen. Hitler and others were not very nice but they did not knowingly contribute to the conditions for the destruction of humanity.

[Argus]

The other point of contention lies in the level of civilization.

I simply believe that "civilization" as a word is simply a veneer. It's like a nice fresh layer of paint which covers our baser instincts. Given the proper circumstances, I believe the larger portion of our population could easily revert to the kind of behaviour we're seeing elsewhere.

On this, we also seem to disagree.

Actually, I do agree. Remove all the cops and prisons from society and see how long it takes to degenerate into violence. Not very. The thing is that the veneer gets stronger the longer it's in place. Most people here would at least try to do the right thing in any circumstances. Violence is, to most of us, anathema. I think the veneer is far lighter and fresher in much of the world, where hating those who disagree with you or your religious beliefs is far more acceptable to their cultures, and where such hatred and even violence is often actively encouraged by government, community and religious leaders. Education ads something to the veneer, too, and much of the world is painfully unsophisticated and uneducated. I mean, they still burn witches in some places. And how can you consider people who would hang a 13 year old girl for having sex - against her will - to be sophisticated?

There is much about our culture which could stand improvement, of course, and our form of government is painfully imperfect, given it appears to weed out most men of honesty, intelligence and integrity and funnel all the dispicable weasels to the top. But we do, generally speaking, observe a cultural respect for others which, if also imperfect, goes well above the "How dare he say that! Kill him!" style of political and religious discussion in most of the rest of the world, and certainly the Muslim world.

[Argus]

That the US is "far more civilised than many" is no defense of that country's policies or behaviour. In the state of the present world, there is no reason for the US not to be as civilised as any. That it is a long way from being both internally and externally.

There was a CBC interview I saw a month or so back and I wish I remembered the name of the individual or the exact quote. But basically, he was saying that sometimes doing the "honourable" thing isn't doing the "right" thing. Sometimes, doing something nasty is required in the name of "right". When you run the world and you have to deal with the likes of some of the scum out there you don't always have the leisure to be Mr. Clean, Mr. Pure, Mr. Noble. Fighting terrorism is not always about quiet and civilized processes of law and legal mechanisms. I think it's naive to believe it could be. Tracking down, arresting and prosecuting a bank robber in New York is not the same as tracking down terrorists placing huge explosives all over the place and killing people daily. To say nothing of terrorists who want to blow up cities or get their hands on biological and chemical agents.

And so, as the US shades the line, sometimes they cross over a bit, sometimes more than a bit, in individual instances. Humans make mistakes and misjudge actions. The situation in Iraq, where basically weekend warriors, poorly trained, mostly rural civilians of the national guard, were overwhelmed with massive numbers of prisoners was a case in point, and an accident waiting to happen. In fact, you have to be very careful what messages you give to young, earnest, enthusiastic people told to "defend" their country. The messages from above were unfortunately not very clear, and supervision was lax, not just for the NG people, but the intelligence people. Saying a degree of mental and physical discomfort could be caused is way too foggy for such people. What degree? What kind? Under what circumstances? I blame the big shots for not being clearer, for being lazy with their decrees and statements more than the lower level types who stripped prisoners naked and mocked them for it.

I would disagree with you that civilization is merely a veneer. That is a convenient and oft used excuse for human actions. The inner compulsions to compassion, altruism and cooperation - all marks of civilization - are universal.

We have basic instincts for survival which are far more powerful than any altruistic or compassionate instincts. Take away their food and see just what people will be willing to do to feed themselves, not to mention their kids. Take away the law and order and see what fear does to create lynch mobs, neighborhood possees and a shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude. And bring in religious fanatacism and all bets are off. People caught up in religious fervour will do anything to anyone if the think God wills it. Doing God's work absolves them of all guilt.

Civilization is nothing but a cultural tradition of cooperation and mutual respect. Raise kids in the woods alone and they can become cannibals pretty easily.

The unfortunate thing about Bush is that he appears at a time in history when his regime is a new threat to world peace. It

Would I rather have Bush next door than Saddam? Not really. Bush is the most thoroughly evil leader that the world has seen. Hitler and others were not very nice but they did not knowingly contribute to the conditions for the destruction of humanity.

Childish, sputtering drivel. There are many who don't believe in the theory of Global Warming, and many who do, but who don't think the Kyoto Accord will do anything to stop it anyway. Dismissing them all as the legions of Satan is the very kind of uncivilized thinking which is, thankfully, mostly foreign to this country.

[Guest eureka]

I saw the same interview - I suppose it was the same one. I am not so impressed as you. The right thing and the honourable thing cannot be different and I do not easily fall for the apologists of agression.

There are not many who do not believe in the theory of Global Warming, either. There seem to be none at all outside of the energy industry and its bought researchers. It is complete nonsense to suggest otherwise. Global Warming is with us and the catastrophic effects are being shown to be closer with every study that is done. Bush, himself, had a report from his own National Academy of Sciences that said as much. He commissioned the study but stuck it under the blotter on his desk since it did not tell him what he wanted to hear.

Imagine that! A respected and authoritative body in the US that did not tell him what he wanted to hear! Very different than the intelligence services and the sycophants who people his narrow world of Washington.

It is said that Bush is not a moron; therefore he is a villain. My favourite political adage is: " In politics a fool is more dnagerous than a villain and must be treated as a villain."

What do do with someone who is both fool and villain?

[Argus]

I saw the same interview - I suppose it was the same one. I am not so impressed as you. The right thing and the honourable thing cannot be different and I do not easily fall for the apologists of agression

Perhaps I can simply imagine more cases where one would have to be ruthless in order to achieve the right ends. To use a stark case. If someone had planted a large bomb somewhere and you knew many, many people would die when it went off, would you be willing to torture an individual in your custody if they knew where it was and wouldn't tell you? I would.

There are not many who do not believe in the theory of Global Warming, either. There seem to be none at all outside of the energy industry and its bought researchers. It is complete nonsense to suggest otherwise. Global Warming is with us and the catastrophic effects are being shown to be closer with every study that is done.

The world is getting warmer. The question is whether that is due to fossil fuel emissions and such or whether it is a natural phenomena. The world gets colder and the world gets warmer over time. There are a lot of people who are unconvinced that the warming trend is due to fuel emissions. Furthermore, even those who say it is, even those who aredently support the Kyoto Accord, admit that the cuts called for under its auspices will be negligible in their effect. I am a practical person. If it is fossil fuels, well, the problem will eventually solve itself when fossil fuels run out in thirty or forty years.

In the meantime we should be putting money into researching new ways of providing energy.

[PocketRocket]

  I am afraid that you are closing on a weak note. 

Perhaps, but unlike many, I do not see forums as a place wherein I "win" or "lose" in debate.

I view forums as a tool wherein people can discuss matters, hopefully in a rational manner, and so come to see viewpoints other than their own. Sometimes it becomes obvious that two people will NOT come to full agreement on a particular point. When that occurs, I choose to not drag it out, but rather to wrap it up gracefully, hopefully after coming to some sort of middle-ground compromise in principles. I see this in itself as an accomplishment as it leads to some understanding between the participants, even if that understanding is little more than a realization that you're speaking to someone who is reasonable.

That the US is "far more civilised than many" is no defense of that country's policies or behaviour. In the state of the present world, there is no reason for the US not to be as civilised as any. That it is a long way from being both internally and externally.

It was not meant as a defense. It was an acknowledgement of, and response to, an earlier statement made by another member in this thread. It was carefully worded to acknowledge that the USA is indeed one of the more "civilised" countries, but not the paragon of all that is virtuous that some take it to be.

Punishment for the torture of prisoners should be for Bush on down: it was Bush who signed the executive order authorizing torture. Indeed it is Bush who is responsible for this most uncivilised "New Century" of the United States. He did not author the "vision," he does not have the intelligence for that. He is, however, the front man for all the evil the US is currently projectong on the world.

Again, I choose not to deal in absolutes. I don't think Bush is evil. Misguided, in a really BIG way, but not evil.

In the same way, I do not believe that North Korea is evil. Nor is Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

No, neither Bush nor any of his cabinet are "evil".

However, I would not dispute the use of the word "idiots", in that they probably really, truly, believe that what they are doing is "the right thing". "Morons" would also be acceptable, IMHO.

I would disagree with you that civilization is merely a veneer. That is a convenient and oft used excuse for human actions. The inner compulsions to compassion, altruism and cooperation - all marks of civilization - are universal. Man is capable of being "civilized" and the evidence for that has been growing in the opposition to uncivilized behaviour that is aroused whenever it appears.

Man as an individual is capable of wonderful acts of altruism.

Man as a group is capable of the most horrendous acts of violence.

The Bush regime is an anomaly.

Boy oh boy, you got that right. You hit that one right out of the park.

The unfortunate thing about Bush is that he appears at a time in history when his regime is a new threat to world peace. It becomes more likely each day that a new major war is on the horizon.

I cannot disagree with this, either.

He is also guilty of knowingly encouraging the greatest threat to the continued existence of the human race that it has ever faced: that is implicit in the current state of Global Warming. Mankind faces the possibility of extinction or, at least, dramatic reduction from the consequences of that. Yet Bush does not consider that as important as the state of his bank account.

I will not enter into a debate on global warming in this thread. There is already another thread discussing this issue.

But if we stipulate your point as being valid, then we can hardly say Bush is alone in this complicity.

Would I rather have Bush next door than Saddam? Not really. Bush is the most thoroughly evil leader that the world has seen. Hitler and others were not very nice but they did not knowingly contribute to the conditions for the destruction of humanity. 

If you were a citizen of Kuwait in 1990, I am sure your opinion on this would be different.

[Guest eureka]

By "weak", I am not suggesting that there are winners and losers. I meant only that you are allowing this one to fizzle out when it has not really been explored.

I, too, do not believe in the concept of evil. I use it in the accepted general use of the word. That means, for me, that this regime is thoroughly evil. I bring Global Warming as an example since that brings the possibility of human suffering on a scale that has never been known.

Yet, Bush et al continue and enhance the destructive practises. This in spite of the firm advice of America's own scientific community.

I talk of the Vision for a New American Century that had the declared intent of establishment of America hegemony over the Middle East (carrying on Kissinger's declared object of some thirty years ago) and forcibly gaining control of the oil producing areas. This at a cost of whatever number of non-American lives it takes.

I think of the abandonment of democracy in the United States where "Big Brother" is now closer than even in the McCarthy era. The Patriot Act; the contempt for Due Process; the Official endorsement of torture: manipulation of information as a routine instrument of policy; vote fraud and the elimination of methods of control of election fraud: this is Bush's democracy and the list could go on much further.

Given America's physical power, this is evil on an unprecedented scale ( it no longer has mral power because of these). With a smaller, less powerful country such as Iraq was, this would be a sad matter. Given America's ability to try to enact its "dreams," it is evil.

[Argus]

Punishment for the torture of prisoners should be for Bush on down: it was Bush who signed the executive order authorizing torture. Indeed it is Bush who is responsible for this most uncivilised "New Century" of the United States. He did not author the "vision," he does not have the intelligence for that. He is, however, the front man for all the evil the US is currently projectong on the world.

Again, I choose not to deal in absolutes. I don't think Bush is evil. Misguided, in a really BIG way, but not evil.

In the same way, I do not believe that North Korea is evil. Nor is Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

What is evil? Unless we choose to use the word merely with respect to imaginary ghouls, goblins, demons and other products of fiction we will have to admit that human beings do evil. I suggest you look into North Korea, for example. It is difficult to reconcile the use of any other term with respect to what is and has been done there. It may well emerge that the government and military of North Korea has been the most evil in modern history, that their practices and barbarity are worse than the Nazis, if not on so great a scale. I realize people often use the Nazis as a yardstick in measurement of evil, and almost inevitably wild exagerations are the order of the day. Israel has been compared to the Nazis, for example, as has Bush, as has Stockwell Day, for Gods sakes. But North Korea may be the one place where the comparison is justified.

The things I have seen come out of that closed country, the labour (death) camps, the murders and rapes and tortures, the wholesale abuse of children through beating, intimidation and brainwashing, the starvation, the kidnapping of foreigners, the attacks on neighbours - when you put it all together its almost beyond the imaginings of a bad fiction writer. I have heard it said by journalists in the know that when NK collapses, as inevitably it shall, the world will be stunned by the horror the people of North Korea endured during the last half century and counting.

I respectfully suggest you reconsider the use of the term "evil". This is a regime which certainly deserves absolutes in terms of condemnation.

[caesar]

Well if what I have heard of the North Korean regime is even close to truth; I certainly would consider the leader of that country as being evil. Bush I consider arrogant and ignorant.

[Guest eureka]

I think the same could be said of Rwanda; of the Congo; of Sudan. It has ben said of China; of the USSR; of the Mongols in the past and of others.

That leads me to think that it is just one side of human nature and not a evil in any absolute sense. Might it not be considered an evil that we turn a blind eye to the millions that are dying from preventable cause; fron disease and genocides every year. The Asian Tsunami is piddling in comparison to what is happening in the world and we "pass on the other side of the road."

We spend more on war and preparations for war than we do on aiding the survival of rens of millions. What we spend on hamburgers in North America would be enough to save millions of lives. NK has no monopoly on that kind of evil. It is just that suffering is somewhere else and we can afford to be condescending to less fortunate places.

That goes for much of the Islamic world that some of us feel so superior to. Perhaps we could address their concerns also without the pure self interest that motivates our relations.

[Argus]

I think the same could be said of Rwanda; of the Congo; of Sudan. It has ben said of China; of the USSR; of the Mongols in the past and of others.

That leads me to think that it is just one side of human nature and not a evil in any absolute sense. Might it not be considered an evil that we turn a blind eye to the millions that are dying from preventable cause; fron disease and genocides every year. The Asian Tsunami is piddling in comparison to what is happening in the world and we "pass on the other side of the road."

Passing on the other side of the road might be selfish, might be thoughtless, depending on the reasons, might be done partly out of ignorance, partly out of fear. Who knows, perhaps it could be termed evil in some sense. But doing nothing can't be considered in the same realm of evil as deliberately causing that misery, starvation and death.

It is said North Korea has the most extensive series of prisons and slave labour camps in the world, with millions of men, women and even children interrned, and that some 20% of the population of the camps dies each year from malnutrition, beatings, exposure, execution and disease.

Think of that happening over a =50 year= period.

That is evil by almost any measure.

[Guest LLL]

Think of that happening over a =50 year= period.

That is evil by almost any measure.

I'm full of cheap liquor, but I can clearly see how outnumbered we'd be in 50 years without our Evel Knievel, GWB.

[caesar]

I read about people in North Korea resorting to cannabalism and that really is beyond understanding.

Cannibalism is increasing in North Korea following another poor harvest and a big cut in international food aid, according to refugees who have fled the stricken country.

Aid agencies are alarmed by refugees' reports that children have been killed and corpses cut up by people desperate for food. Requests by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) to be allowed access to "farmers' markets", where human meat is said to be traded, have been turned down by Pyongyang, citing "security reasons".

This is from the UK Telegraph

[caesar]

This is the web page for anyone wishing to judge the whole story>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...6/08/wkor08.xml

[pioneer]

whites were just trying to protect themselves with segregation!theres nothing wrong with trying to protect your community!canada should look after it s own first too!

[willy]

pioneer, give your head a shake.

whites is not a community it is a skin colour. For Canada to look after itself we need to be a compassionate country that is also concerned for others. If we can not practice compassion and grace outside our boarders we will not do it in our boarders, our provinces, our towns or in our family. It will not be part of our culture. We are all people regardless of sex, race, geographic birth or even political bent and that fact alone should unite along some common interests.