I must admit I haven't yet read Keith's stuff but am going through a book
by my old College Advisor, Caesar Farah, called Islam and a bunch of
stuff is coming back.
The thing that Sunni's get Shia'as for is multiple gods which is the same
thing they get Christians for [believing that Jesus is God]. There has been a
tendency for thousands of years to create specific gods to fit our needs.
Polytheism has been the norm.
A lot of Shia'as see Ali, Muhammad's son in law, as God. What was
interesting about the move from Zoroastrianism to Judaism to Christianity to
Islam was the monotheistic, all powerful God or Allah. Sunnis feel that
Christians and Shia'as [the name means to break away] have deviated from the
straight path.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:48:29 -0500 "Lawrence DeBivort" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Good morning, Keith,
>
> I have tried several
times to point out to you that you exaggerate
> --
> greatly --
the significance of shi'i and sunni in Iraq. I know that
>
the
> popular press makes a lot of it, but this is because the
journalists
> are
> largely ignorant folk and they have latched
onto this (and several
> other
> factoids) to give the impression
that they are actually
> knowledgeable.
>
> Sunnis and
shi'i distinctions are more akin to contemporary
> differences
in
> the US between Catholics and Protestants. Some particular issues do
> raise
> the distinction to some level of importance, but for
most purposes,
> such as
> national defense, they are
irrelevant.
>
> You are right in pointing out that the shi'is are
pretty well
> organized, and
> that if they 'lose patience' they
will become a force to be reckoned
> with --
> but not with
regard to a civil war with the sunni, but with regard
> to a
>
concerted initiative to push the US out. And then hell will break
> out --
> for US troops.
>
> The US is now the
single largest threat to security in Iraq. If the
> US
> really
wants to make Iraq 'secure', all we have to do is leave.
> Now.
>
Unconditionally. Now there are those on this list who think that
>
given what
> we have done to the Iraqis we have to stay further -- we
'owe' it to
> them.
> (When something doesn't work, it is a human
tendency to go and do it
> harder,
> thus our sorry record in
Viet Nam.)
>
> The only thing we owe the Iraqis is to get out.
Getting rid of
> Saddam
> Hussein was not bad (though thoroughly
illegal and a precedent that
> we set
> and are likely to rue
someday). It would be nice if we left a pile
> of money
> behind
for them to use to rebuild, but I can assure you the Iraqis
> would
be
> happy for us to leave without giving them any money, if the
> alternative is
> for us to stay and pay for rebuilding.
>
> Westerners tend to underestimate the capabilities of 3rd world
> countries to
> manage their own affairs. Of course, Westerners
also tend to
> overestimate
> how fine their own societies
are.
>
> I must admit I marvel at the effrontery of the US in
asserting that
> it can
> teach democracy to others, given the
2000 election, wherein the
> 'winner' was
> the one who received
fewer votes. And given the ease with which
> corporations
>
purchase policies through campaign and other donations. And given
>
the
> ignorance with which Americans function. (Remember that back in
> Periclean
> times learning and participation was REQUIRED of
the voters of
> Athens, and
> viewed as a sine qua non of
democracy. Americans are flat out to
> lazy to
> sustain a true
democracy.) And given the massive abandonment of
> civil
>
rights that the Congress accepted with the Patriot Act.
>
> Never
mind that we are thinking we can 'bring them democracy' at the
>
point
> of a gun; the worse delusion is that the US has much to offer
anyone
> in
> terms of a political model.
>
> So let
us worry less about Iraqi internal conditions, and worry more
>
about
> the deleterious effects of our policies there and
elsewhere. There
> is no
> longer any doubt in my mind that
it is our very own past policies
> of
> intervention in the
affairs of others that brought Sept 11 down on
> our
> heads, as
well as numerous other similar attacks. This is the dirty
>
little
> secret of American politics, the 'why' of Sept 11 that
Americans
> have so
> been so loath to consider. Of course,
there are some other dirty
> little
> secrets that toxify US
policies, but Americans could begin with this
> one.
>
>
Cheers,
> Lawry
>
>
>
> > -----Original
Message-----
> > From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Keith
> Hudson
> > Sent: Tue, December 09, 2003 2:47
AM
> > To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Futurework] No NATO in Iraq
> >
> >
>
> I hear from this morning's news that Lord Robertson,
>
Secretary-General of
> > NATO, has ruled out the help of NATO forces
in Iraq "until we
> > have done our
> > job in Afghanistan".
(There are only 55,000 NATO troops available
> at any
> > one
time anyway for use everywhere -- and Iraq needs at least
>
250,000
> > troops to make the place really secure.) So that's a snub
for
> Powell. (He
> > must be feeling very weary and lonely
now.) But, of course,
> > Afghanistan is
> > falling back
into its old ways -- Kharzei will be assassinated
> > soon I
guess
> > -- it'll be either warlordism all over again now or the
success of
> a
> > resurgent Taliban. America (and NATO) will
be kicked out in due
> > course and
> > as ignominiously as
the Russians were.
> >
> > Bush is now in an impossible
situation in Iraq. There is no way he
> can
> > bring about a
democratic (thus, Shia-dominated) government. The
> explosion
>
> hurting 30 American soldiers this morning is further pressure that
> he'll
> > have to evacuate soon or else a civil war will
start whether the
> American
> > troops remain or go. What a
catastrophe! What stupidity! And the
> > Shia have
> >
remained relatively quiet and patient so far! When their
>
(Sistani's)
> > patience is exhausted there'll be a civil war against
the Sunni.
> >
> > In this country, Blair is heading for a
parliamentary defeat on a
> > students'-loans-at-university matter. I
think he's contrived this
> > in order
> > to be able to
resign 'with honour' (!) before the Hutton Report
> is
> >
published in January/February and fingers him for lying (twice)
> >
over the Dr
> > Kelly matter. (I think Hutton will only soften his
report if Blair
> goes
> > beforehand.) This won't help Bush's
attempts at internationalising
> the
> > occupation of Iraq
(though not inviting the UN, of course,
> > because it will
>
> insist on organising democratic elections).
> >
> >
Surely, surely, there'll be moves to oust Bush in the next few
> >
months? I'll
> > be very disappointed if Americans (intelligentsia-,
CIA-, State
> > Department-, Republican Congress-inspired) haven't
the nous to do
> > this well
> > before the electoral
campaign starts in earnest. The Chinese must
> be
> > feeling
increasing contempt for the American (democratic?)
> > political
system
> > and the sort of people it throws up. (Come to think of it,
it's
> > interesting
> > that Blair, despite his attempts in
recent years to adopt an
> > international
> > statesman's
role, has never been invited to China! I think they
> > must
regard
> > him as a shallow person -- which he is -- and with
great
> > amusement, if not
> > derision.)
>
>
> > I wonder what impression Rumsfeld took back with him from
Iraq?
> > My opinion
> > is that this visit was a clear sign
of extreme desparation --
> > which must be
> > close to its
peak now. The impossibility of any sort of peaceful
> >
transition
> > to government in Iraq must be dawning even on him. I
think
> there'll be
> > signs of great ructions in the Bush
team quite soon -- voluntary
> > resignation of Powell and Condee
perhaps, followed by an ousting
> of Bush
> > and Cheney by
various plotters as suggested above?
> >
> > Keith
Hudson
> > Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <
www.evolutionary-economics.org>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
Futurework mailing list
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework
mailing list
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rk
>
>
