DP

Umm Maha: The first time he got married, I was angry and very depressed. When he married the third wife, I was happy. The fourth time, I went and asked her hand in marriage for him, and I went and got the furniture and the apartment ready for him. Talk about classical conditioning. Now that's the ideal minwayn.

Originally posted by naden: For example, cutting off a thief's hand is just barbaric and would not address all the types of robbery and theft that exists now: armed, white collar, and so on. I'm sure you didn't mean to describe Allah's decree as barbaric, did you?

^ See my answer to that below. The Southern conflict is too complicated sxb. The diversity of clans, the foreign and shadowy hands which are busy in empowering one warlord while undermining another, the widely available ammunition and armament in the hands of many thugs beholden to none of the actors in Southern theatre, and the animosity between clans is what makes the reconcilliation issue very difficult. This beast is too strong to tame without the sincere cooperation of the neighboring countries. None of the "foreign" interference nonsense impresses me when we practice the Idiotology of clannism. You can blame the West, Ethiopia and even Madagascar all you want. When Somalis abandon this practice is it even worth for me to discuss or entertain any ideas about Somalia or Somaliland for that matter. Until then, I'll play the devil's advocated and ridicule both (or all) sides whenever I get the chance. There's but one solution: abandon clannism. Everything else is just hogwash.

^ Glad I could make you chuckle awoowe. I did say I was playing the devil's advocate, didn't I? It seems as though these secession debates on SOL are getting quite stale and are in dire need of thinking outside the bun, wouldn't you agree old Baashi?

^ Here's the document in that link and it is a good read: Islam's Position on Polygamy Muslims are often accused of being promiscuous because polygamy is legal in Islam. 1. Islam did not introduce polygamy. Unrestricted polygamy was practiced in most human societies throughout the world in every age. Islam regulated polygamy by limiting the number of wives and establishing responsibility in its practice. 2.Monogamy of the West inherited from Greece and Rome where men were restricted by law to one wife but were free to have as many mistresses among the majority slave population as they wished. In the West today, most married men have extramarital relations with mistresses, girlfriends and prostitutes. Consequently the Western claim to monogamy is false. 3. Monogamy illogical. If a man wishes to have a second wife whom he takes care of and whose children carry his name and he provides for he is considered a criminal, bigamist, who may be sentenced to years in jail. However, if he has numerous mistresses and illegitimate children his relation is considered legal. 4. Men created polygamous because of a need in human society. There is normally a surplus of women in most human societies.1 The surplus is a result of men dying in wars, violent crimes and women outliving men.2 The upsurge in homosexuality further increases the problem. If systems do not cater to the need of surplus women it will result in corruption in society. Example, Germany after World War II, when suggestions to legalize polygamy were rejected by the Church. Resulting in the legalization of prostitution. German prostitutes are considered as workers like any other profession. They receive health benefits and pay taxes like any other citizen. Furthermore, the rate of marriage has been steadily declining as each succeeding generation finds the institution of marriage more and more irrelevant. 5. Western anthropologists argue that polygamy is a genetic trait by which the strongest genes of the generation are passed on. Example, the lion king, the strongest of the pack, monopolizes the females thereby insuring that the next generation of lion cubs will be his offspring. 6. Institutional polygamy prevents the spread of diseases like Herpes and AIDS. Such venereal diseases spread in promiscuous societies where extra-marital affairs abound. 7. Polygamy protects the interests of women and children in society. Men, in Western society make the laws. They prefer to keep polygamy illegal because it absolves them of responsibility. Legalized polygamy would require them to spend on their additional wives and their offspring. Monogamy allows them to enjoy extra-marital affairs without economic consequence. 8. Only a minority will practice polygamy in Muslim society. In spite of polygamy being legal in Muslim countries, only 10-15% of Muslims in these countries practice polygamy. Although the majority of men would like to have more than one wife, they cannot afford the expense of maintaining more than one family. Even those who are financially capable of looking after additional families are often reluctant due to the psychological burdens of handling more than one wife. The family problems and marital disputes are multiplied in plural marriages. 9. Conditions have been added for polygamy in many Muslim countries. For example, in Egypt, the permission of the first wife must first be obtained. This and similar conditions are a result of colonial domination. No woman in her right mind will give her husband permission to take a second wife. Such a condition, in fact, negates the permission given by God in the Qur'an. 10. Others have accepted polygamy on condition that it not be for “lustâ€. That is, if the wife is ill, or unable to bear children, or unable to fulfill the husband's sexual needs, etc., taking a second wife is acceptable. Otherwise it becomes “lust†on the husband's part and is consequently not acceptable. The reality is that “lust†was involved in the marriage of the first wife. Why is it acceptable in the case of the first and not the second? As has already been pointed out, men are polygamous by nature. To try to curb it by such conditions will only lead to corruption in society. 11. Feminists may object to this male right by insisting that women should also be able to practice polygamy. However, a woman marrying four husbands would only increase the problem of surplus women. Furthermore, no child would accept his or her mother identifying the father by the “eeny meeny miney mo†method. The question which remains is, “If God is good and wishes good for His creatures, why did he legislate something which would be harmful to most women?†Divine legislation looks at the society as a whole seeking to maximize benefit. If a certain legislation benefits the majority of the society and causes some emotional harm to a minority, the general welfare of society is given precedence. written by Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

^ Exactly.

^ Don't you just love the Memri site? I love it too. I must have seen 30 clips just yesterday. It's an incredible repository of relevant video clips. I confirm this transcript below (of Amelia's clip) is a very accurate translation: The following are excerpts from a show about polygamy in Egypt, which aired on MBC TV on July 31, 2005. Reporter: Sameh Sayyed Mursi is married to four wives. The first is Umm Maha, the second is Umm Amira, the third is Umm Adham, and the fourth is Madame Hiba. The four women compete among themselves who will treat Sameh the best and try to please him. Let's meet the polygamist, Sameh Sayyed Mursi. Why did Sameh marry a second wife, in addition to his first, Umm Maha? Sameh:Because she was too jealous. Reporter: Why did he marry a third time, after Umm Amira? Sameh: Luck struck again, with Umm Amira. I met her and fell in love with her. She too was jealous, so I was forced to marry Umm Adham. Reporter: And what about your fourth marriage? Sameh: Madame Hiba is my last wife. That's fate. Reporter: Where do the four wives live? Sameh: I married Umm Amira, and, Allah be praised, we lived above my shop. I married Umm Adham, and I put her above the shop too. I married Hiba, and put her above the shop too. Reporter: Can Sameh divide his feelings between his wives equally? Sameh: Today I'm with Umm Maha, so I'm with Umm Maha. Tomorrow I will be with Umm Amira, so I will be with Umm Amira. Every day with one. Reporter: How does Sameh describe his four wives? Sameh: Umm Maha is jealous. Umm Amira is also very jealous. Umm Adham is my beloved, my sister, my wife, my friend, my everything. She is like one of my buddies. The last, Hiba, I also married out of love, of course. Reporter: What about arguments and disputes? Sameh:: When they fight with one another I don't intervene. I only intervene in the serious issues. Reporter: What does the first wife, Umm Maha, say about Sameh's marriages? Umm Maha: The first time he got married, I was angry and very depressed. When he married the third wife, I was happy. The fourth time, I went and asked her hand in marriage for him, and I went and got the furniture and the apartment ready for him. Reporter: How does Umm Amira, the second wife, describe Sameh? Umm Amira: He's a man, a man, a man. Allah be praised, I am proud of him. Reporter: Wife No. 3, Umm Adham, says: Umm Adham: His manliness, his manliness. He does not bend before anyone. Maybe it's his strength that makes one love him. Reporter: We still have to hear the fourth wife, Madame Hiba. Madame Hiba: I found great compassion in him. Everybody wants a little compassion and a kind word, a loving lap, and I found that in Sameh. Reporter: A man who has made jealousy into a reason for serial marriages. Four wives who talk about acceptance and satisfaction from such married lives. Can jealousy be a justification for Sameh's many marriages?

^ I'd pay to see you in a "cabaaya and nice shoes".

^ Atheer Nayruusow, can you live in the present and forget the past? Can you deal with issues on the ground as they are and not as you think they ought to be? Suldaanow, Let me play the role of unwanted facilitator (a.k.a. devil's advocate) here. What Xoogsade is alluding to by the "taako taako" statement, is Somaliland will have to answer to Somalia (if or when it can ask questions) how the borders of Somaliland have been decided upon and whether all Somalis within those borders share a common goal that is the unity, sovereignty and independence of Somaliland. What he's further saying is that Somaliland (as it stands now) is on a collision course with the remainder of Somalia if there's any group(s) within Somaliland who decide, for one reason or the other, to rejoin Somalia when it is rid of warlords and graduates into the third world status. Xoogsade, correct me if I'm wrong. On a side note, why doesn't Somaliland (who seems to have understood the whole democratic process) provide consulting and guidance to the TFG? Does Somaliland have an honorary delegation at the TFG coming out party in Baydhaba?

“What Ahmadinejad said about the Holocaust was in our bosoms â€, the former German chancellor was quoted as saying. “For years we wanted to say this, but we did not have the courage to speak outâ€.

^ Just online (friendly) harassment atheer. It only works too if you get warmed up about it. Originally posted by Rahima: Hence unlike Xiin who is no longer a boy :eek:

^ Written by non other than Noam Chomsky. My wish is to see some change in my lifetime but that change probably ain't coming from Africa.

Bush's Fantasy of Progress in Iraq by Robert Scheer What is he thinking? On a day when Shiite vigilantes conducted hangings in Sadr City in reprisal for the killing of scores of their co-religionists in a market bombing, President Bush continued to insist that progress in Iraq justified staying the course. "By their response over the past two weeks, Iraqis have shown the world that they want a future of freedom and peace," he said Monday. "We're helping Iraqis build a strong democracy so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency marginalized." Contrast that fantasy with the same day's harsh news: "In Sadr City, the Shiite section in Baghdad where the terrorist suspects were executed, government forces vanished," reported the New York Times. "The streets are ruled by aggressive teenagers with shiny soccer jerseys and machine guns. They set up roadblocks and poke their heads into cars and detain whomever they want. Mosques blare warnings on loudspeakers for American troops to stay out. Increasingly, the Americans have been doing just that." The next day, 87 corpses, all male, were found scattered throughout the city, shot or strangled after being bound and blindfolded. This, in turn, was in apparent reprisal for a series of bombings on Sunday targeting Shiite civilians which killed 58 and wounded 300, according to Iraq's Health Ministry. Of course, the drip-drip of American troop deaths continues, as Lance Cpl. Bunny Long, 22, of Modesto, Calif., will be coming home in a flag-draped casket after being killed Friday by a suicide, vehicle-borne, IED. If such constant mayhem is taken as a sign of progress, three years after the U.S. invasion, then Bush surely will be thrilled by what the future holds. The British, on the other hand, have seen the handwriting on the wall and once again have begun to flee an imperial disappointment in Mesopotamia, announcing they are reducing their forces by 10 percent. Clearly, London has grasped what Bush cannot: The three-year occupation by Western armies is an incitement to guerrilla violence, not an impediment. Of course, Bush would have us believe this expanding civil war is the work of insidious foreigners rather than of competing agendas arising from within an Iraq society long stunted by colonialism and dictatorship. It does not occur to him that he is the foreigner who the majority of Iraqis hold responsible for the country's despair, and whose occupation immeasurably strengthens the hand of extremists on all sides. Bush's neoconservative Svengalis apparently failed to alert him to the possibility that religious, ethnic and nationalist sentiments might trump his plans for a Western-imposed "democracy," subservient to U.S. interests. Or that U.S.-engineered elections would be won by allies and disciples of the radical Shiite government in the "evil axis" capital of Tehran. Such bright contradictions were on display in Bush's latest strategically bankrupt "plan" for victory: Spending $3.3 billion to fight the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) Bush now claims Iran is smuggling into Iraq -- to the very Shiite forces that won the U.S.-engineered election and are positioned to form the first real post-Hussein government. The IEDs, mentioned a whopping 26 times in the speech, have obviously come to replace that nonexistent WMD threat as the centerpiece of Bush's Iraq policy. We will stop them, he says, by bumping anti-IED-related spending by a factor of 22, from $150 million in 2004 to $3.3 billion. "We're putting the best minds in America to work on this effort," Bush said. Why not put a few of them to work on figuring how to extract the U.S. military from Iraq instead? After all, that is where all the IEDs happen to be exploding. But, of course, this alternative, to stop making U.S. troops targets in the midst of a raging civil war in a Muslim country that the United States has no business occupying, was summarily dismissed by our president. "[M]y decisions on troop levels will be made based upon the conditions on the ground and on the recommendations of our military commanders, not artificial timetables set by politicians here in Washington, D.C.," he said. Has the president never read our Constitution, which mandates civilian control over the military? Does he not grasp that he is himself a Washington politician? How can you effectively sell democracy to the world when you mock it so contemptuously at home? You can't. Not until the public and its representatives force this administration to change its disastrous course can we begin to restore international respect for the American political system that Bush has so masterfully subverted. Source

Lessons of Iraq War Start With US History by Howard Zinn On the third anniversary of President Bush's Iraq debacle, it's important to consider why the administration so easily fooled so many people into supporting the war. I believe there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture. One is an absence of historical perspective. The other is an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. But if we know some history, if we know how many times presidents have lied to us, we will not be fooled again. President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn't that Mexico "shed American blood upon the American soil" but that Polk, and the slave-owning aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico. President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control, but the truth is that he really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations. He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to "civilize" the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that. President Wilson lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to "make the world safe for democracy," when it was really a war to make the world safe for the rising American power. President Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was "a military target." And everyone lied about Vietnam -- President Kennedy about the extent of our involvement, President Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin and President Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia. They all claimed the war was to keep South Vietnam free of communism, but really wanted to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent. President Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a threat to the United States. The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of thousands of ordinary citizens in that country. And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991 -- hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait, rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East. There is an even bigger lie: the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior. If our starting point for evaluating the world around us is the firm belief that this nation is somehow endowed by Providence with unique qualities that make it morally superior to every other nation on Earth, then we are not likely to question the president when he says we are sending our troops here or there, or bombing this or that, in order to spread our values -- democracy, liberty, and let's not forget free enterprise -- to some God-forsaken (literally) place in the world. But we must face some facts that disturb the idea of a uniquely virtuous nation. We must face our long history of ethnic cleansing, in which the U.S. government drove millions of Indians off their land by means of massacres and forced evacuations. We must face our long history, still not behind us, of slavery, segregation and racism. And we must face the lingering memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not a history of which we can be proud. Our leaders have taken it for granted, and planted the belief in the minds of many people that we are entitled, because of our moral superiority, to dominate the world. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have embraced this notion. But what is the idea of our moral superiority based on? A more honest estimate of ourselves as a nation would prepare us all for the next barrage of lies that will accompany the next proposal to inflict our power on some other part of the world. It might also inspire us to create a different history for ourselves, by taking our country away from the liars who govern it, and by rejecting nationalist arrogance, so that we can join people around the world in the common cause of peace and justice. Howard Zinn, who served as a bombardier in the Air Force in World War II, is the author of "A People's History of the United States" (HarperCollins, 1995). He is also the co-author, with Anthony Arnove, of "Voices of a People's History of the United States" (Seven Stories Press, 2004). Source

Latin America and Asia Are at Last Breaking Free of Washington's Grip The US-dominated world order is being challenged by a new spirit of independence in the global south by Noam Chomsky The prospect that Europe and Asia might move towards greater independence has troubled US planners since the second world war. The concerns have only risen as the "tripolar order" - Europe, North America and Asia - has continued to evolve. Every day Latin America, too, is becoming more independent. Now Asia and the Americas are strengthening their ties while the reigning superpower, the odd man out, consumes itself in misadventures in the Middle East. Regional integration in Asia and Latin America is a crucial and increasingly important issue that, from Washington's perspective, betokens a defiant world gone out of control. Energy, of course, remains a defining factor - the object of contention - everywhere. China, unlike Europe, refuses to be intimidated by Washington, a primary reason for the fear of China by US planners, which presents a dilemma: steps toward confrontation are inhibited by US corporate reliance on China as an export platform and growing market, as well as by China's financial reserves - reported to be approaching Japan's in scale. In January, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah visited Beijing, which is expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas and investment", the Wall Street Journal reports. Already much of Iran's oil goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons that both states presumably regard as deterrent to US designs. India also has options. India may choose to be a US client, or it may prefer to join the more independent Asian bloc that is taking shape, with ever more ties to Middle East oil producers. Siddharth Varadarjan, the deputy editor of the Hindu, observes that "if the 21st century is to be an 'Asian century,' Asia's passivity in the energy sector has to end." The key is India-China cooperation. In January, an agreement signed in Beijing "cleared the way for India and China to collaborate not only in technology but also in hydrocarbon exploration and production, a partnership that could eventually alter fundamental equations in the world's oil and natural gas sector," Varadarjan points out. An additional step, already being contemplated, is an Asian oil market trading in euros. The impact on the international financial system and the balance of global power could be significant. It should be no surprise that President Bush paid a recent visit to try to keep India in the fold, offering nuclear cooperation and other inducements as a lure. Meanwhile, in Latin America left-center governments prevail from Venezuela to Argentina. The indigenous populations have become much more active and influential, particularly in Bolivia and Ecuador, where they either want oil and gas to be domestically controlled or, in some cases, oppose production altogether. Many indigenous people apparently do not see any reason why their lives, societies and cultures should be disrupted or destroyed so that New Yorkers can sit in their SUVs in traffic gridlock. Venezuela, the leading oil exporter in the hemisphere, has forged probably the closest relations with China of any Latin American country, and is planning to sell increasing amounts of oil to China as part of its effort to reduce dependence on the openly hostile US government. Venezuela has joined Mercosur, the South American customs union - a move described by Nestor Kirchner, the Argentinian president, as "a milestone" in the development of this trading bloc, and welcomed as a "new chapter in our integration" by Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president. Venezuela, apart from supplying Argentina with fuel oil, bought almost a third of Argentinian debt issued in 2005, one element of a region-wide effort to free the countries from the controls of the IMF after two decades of disastrous conformity to the rules imposed by the US-dominated international financial institutions. Steps toward Southern Cone [the southern states of South America] integration advanced further in December with the election in Bolivia of Evo Morales, the country's first indigenous president. Morales moved quickly to reach a series of energy accords with Venezuela. The Financial Times reported that these "are expected to underpin forthcoming radical reforms to Bolivia's economy and energy sector" with its huge gas reserves, second only to Venezuela's in South America. Cuba-Venezuela relations are becoming ever closer, each relying on its comparative advantage. Venezuela is providing low-cost oil, while in return Cuba organizes literacy and health programs, sending thousands of highly skilled professionals, teachers, and doctors, who work in the poorest and most neglected areas, as they do elsewhere in the third world. Cuban medical assistance is also being welcomed elsewhere. One of the most horrendous tragedies of recent years was the earthquake in Pakistan last October. Besides the huge death toll, unknown numbers of survivors have to face brutal winter weather with little shelter, food, or medical assistance. "Cuba has provided the largest contingent of doctors and paramedics to Pakistan," paying all the costs (perhaps with Venezuelan funding), writes John Cherian in India's Frontline magazine, citing Dawn, a leading Pakistan daily. President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan expressed his "deep gratitude" to Fidel Castro for the "spirit and compassion" of the Cuban medical teams - reported to comprise more than 1,000 trained personnel, 44% of them women, who remained to work in remote mountain villages, "living in tents in freezing weather and in an alien culture," after western aid teams had been withdrawn. Growing popular movements, primarily in the south but with increasing participation in the rich industrial countries, are serving as the bases for many of these developments towards more independence and concern for the needs of the great majority of the population. Noam Chomsky, the author, most recently, of "Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World," is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Source

^ Waryaa ina Badne, let us stick to one motif here. We're talking on too many fronts: Muslims and (being prone to) violence, US global hegemony, the Iraq war and finally oil prices and what drives them. Pick one and we'll go down that path. My choice is the first one since that's what the topic is about. I like all four equally so I leave it to you lest you use this as an excuse later. I don't want to chase your stubborn head down four paths, atheer. Each paragraph of yours above is dealing with one. Pick your strongest argument and we'll reconvene tomorrow. But before I go, how on earth did you come up with this: So in the grand scheme of things total cost of the war so far outweights the projected price of Iraq's proven oil reserves. Did I not go out of my way to hold your hand through all the 12 digit math? Was it all for naught? How could you still say that $1 (or even $2) trillion is the same as $5.5 trillion? It's not even half atheer? And the first numbers do include reconstruction of Iraq's oil fields so that rehabilitation of the industry is not any extra cost. Alas, they don't teach any math in that Mickey Mouse University.

^ Though she was rattled in the second clip, she's still more dangerous than the non-Arabic speaking ones out there (Manji, Hirsi and Rushdie). Baashi found a very good site with lots of interesting clips. The most chilling I've seen is "Fatima's fiancee" and this one by Al-Qaradhawi.

^ Thanks for that. The 7 year old (God bless her) knows more than many adults. And with home-schooling by a dad called Ashante, what else could you expect but a prodigy? Bravo.

^ Saaxib, for those of us who have grown up elsewhere, it is easy to see through the propaganda specifically designed for the North American consumption. Much of the world has elementary understanding of hegemony and power for they have either witnessed it or their parents have. But nowadays with the ubiquitous access to (real) information via the internet, it behooves us to question the "official" line given by US corporate media or the State department. At any rate, I suspect SB knew all of this and he was just playing the devil's advocate. He's had good practice with that lately. On the (hijacked) topic, this little exchange I didn't like at all. The least the sheikh could have done is go past the ad hominem nonsense and attacked the seemingly open Sultan. Judge for yourself: Wafa Sultan: I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it. Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic? Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural... Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran... Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you. And I'm afraid she's right. The good sheikh shouldn't care what she is but what she says. It's as if she's more credible and hence deserving a response if she were a believer. But she's not and that's exactly why she says what she says.

^ LOL. Well first she would have to know the freezing temperature of water and normal human body temperature. And since she obviously doesn't, just about anything baa gali kara. Don't forget language as a barrier and the basic xishood we're raised with. For us, walking into an exam room and getting naked is a near-death experience. Not to mention being poked and prodded in all the wrong places. That last one may be why some decide to forgo treatment and instead suffer silently (or loudly) in pain. For those who are uncomfortable speaking the language of the land can't begin to explain barafka galay halkuu ka galay. If they finally muster enough courage and do see a doctor, with the liguistic misunderstanding alone they risk misdiagnosis and potentially dangerous prescriptions. All in all it is understandable that many (specially the elderly) would be reluctant to seek medical help. If you happen to live in a town with a large Somali population, please volunteer your time and help with doctor visits. You can give your phone number to a community center who would contact you when people are in need of a companion to the doctor's office. You will not believe how good you will feel.

May Allah forgive his sins and grant him Jannah. Amin.

^ And a bright girl at that. You raise excellent points that are really not in contradiction with the quest for hegemony over resources. The invasion and occupation of Iraq (and who knows how many more countries) is a multi-benefit endeavor. The issues you alluded to are clearly some long term goals for this quest but the immediate needs are oil.

Socod_badne, here's my shot in the dark atheer. Buckle up. Originally posted by Socod_badne: Castro, muslims in general are prone to violence. Evidence for that is plentiful, refuting that charge is futile in this light. As well as be active participants in many ensuing conflicts. However, the reason is not just because they're muslim or Islam, that is pure unadultrated bigotry. Deprivation, illiteracy, gross underdevelopment, inequities and many other pernicious social ills are the causes, NOT Islam. Any time you hear someone blame a race, religion or culture for percieved or real social ills, note to yourself that such characterizations has very little support from supportable arguements. So which is it, are they "prone" to violence because they're Muslim or because they're deprived, illiterate and grossly underdeveloped? If it's the former, then you and I agree bigotry is the reason this (undeserved) reputation is bestowed upon Muslims. But your stated reasons have no basis in facts. If poverty, deprivation, illiteracy and underdevelopment were what makes Muslims prone to violence, then black Africans should visibly have been the most violent people on earth. So in fact, it's not the reasons you mentioned but the fact that they're Muslim. But that's exactly the main argument. I contend Muslims are being given a disproportionately negative reputation of violence that the numbers (in comparison to followers of other faiths) just do not support. So what is the reason they're getting this reputation? Well I tried to answer that in my response above to Makalajabti. Here I disagree. It is cheaper for the US to buy ALL of Iraq's proven oil reserves than it was to invade and stay in the country afterwards. Considerably less cheaper both the human toll and cost after invasion stay over. This is the classic right-wing talk radio argument. It's also a bloody ruse for anyone who cares to look any deeper. Why does the US need to invade when it can just buy the bloody (and bloody it is) oil? It's a very clever question on the surface and one most people don't bother to think about its implications. Saaxib do you know that Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world? In fact, these reserves are to the tune of 115 billion barrels. I don't know if they teach math at Mickey Mouse University but let me break it down for you like this. The US is spending almost $1 billion a week in Iraq. The war has been going on three years this week and the total cost so far is close to $500 billion. If this occupation lasts a decade (including the previous three years) it is estimated it will cost close to $1.5 trillion. With me so far? Now, forget the incalculable value in having full control of the largest and second largest proven sources of oil in the entire world, but imagine having uninterrupted flow of such oil. Not to mention buying it for decades to come from friendly (read: installed) regimes at "negotiated" (read: dirt cheap) prices. Still with me? Here comes the astonishing part no one ever thinks about when the talk radio hosts ask the same question you asked. The US consumes about 20 millions barrels per day (4 times the second closest consumer, Japan). So yearly, that comes out to about 7.3 billion a year. At that rate, Iraqi proven oil reserves will have been exhausted by the US alone in less than two decades. So, if they were to buy it at market rate and have to compete with other nations such as China , as you and Oreily claim, they would have to spend $5.5 trillion to purchase it (at a modest and unrealistic $50 a barrel). Now tell me, which is cheaper, to invade for a $1.5 trillion, have full control, keep the US dollar the purchasing currency, and buy it for negotiated prices OR not invade and buy it at market prices while competing with every Chinese and Indian out there and in Euros no less. On the matter of human toll, well to whom is what I ask you. If it's for the Muslims, who cares? The US publicly stated that it "does not do body counts" so what remains, is their own soldiers. Having already come from disenfranchised backgrounds and being, per capita and in the lower ranks, predominantly non-white, the relatively (to Vietnam and WW2) low cost in lives and injuries to the US is a very small price to pay for its elites and corporations. Hegemony, my friend, is not perpetrated by the average American, who himself is a victim of US power, but by a powerful cabal of corporations and individuals at the upper echelons of power. And if the need for oil determined whether to invade other countries or not, why hasn't the US invaded: Canada, Russia, Britian, Venuzuala (spelling), Nigeria, Iran, Kuwait... all major oil producers. Why invade Iraq only; why even stop there! Nigeria and Kuwait need not be attacked for they're in with the program. The latter has completely succumbed to US hegemony and the former is putting up little (and futile) resistance via the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). Canada's oil is in the sands. Expensive to extract for now but when Iraq and Saudi Arabia run out, watch out atheer. Your nice comfy couch in Ottawa might receive a nice package delivered on a cruise missile from Uncle Sam. Don't even start with Venezuela. The war on Hugo Chavez began with his inauguration. Already overthrown once and in due time will be killed and the control of Venezuelan oil will return to Exxon. He's only a nuisance so far. Russia is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Try fcuking with that. Iraq invasion was a shot across the bows to the US's foes. Namely China and Bin Laden's people. It was demonstration, a tour de force , of US power and resolve. There is no better, more effective way to show what you're capable of then actual demostrate it. Everyone NOW knows what the US is capable of if tested. And no one will dare cross it's path. This I agree with you on. The outcome of Iraq war was predictable -- US victory. The rout of Iraqi army and subsequent smashing into smithreens of remanant units was foreclosed fact. The only disappointment was how the promised awe and shock tranmuted into aw shuked ... a cauldron of madness, heartwrenching mess. I agree with this for the most part except to mention Iraq proved to be a bigger mess than the US expected. Instead of a show of force, the "tour de force" you mention along with talk-radio, it has shown how vulnerable the US is when stretched like it is. Even worse, the occupation has shown that the US is ill-equipped and lacks the stamina and the moral fortitude to fight long term protracted guerilla warfare. It is really going to suck (not to mention be extremely costly) having to steal all that oil while the insurgency is alive and well. This "insurgency", that clearly shows no signs of being pacified, could spell disaster in the long term for the US which may have to withdraw and still buy Iraqi oil on the market (at market rate) after having forked up the cost to invade and occupy. It's a biaj spot (and indeed a humbling experience) to be in where the US is now and for you to argue otherwise tells me you're either misinformed, misled or just not too bright. But I do know you're bright so you're simply misinformed. I await your response atheer.

^ I suppose you and I were destined to lock horns at some point and what better topic to choose than this. So I'll leave this post here as a place-holder for a later rebuttal (nay annihilation) of your flimsy arguments atheer. And don't you dare editing the post now to make them tighter. I've already got it saved.