Affirmative Action

[theapportioner]

The oral arguments are on the 1st, I think.

Given that what may define our generation is a "clash of civilizations", diversity is more important than ever.

And my friend tells me that one of the designers of Bush's "affirmative access" plan in Texas admitted to him that it failed.

Few, if any, people have made the connection between the present fight against Islamism and affirmative action. The anti-war movement needs to take up this cause.

[El Blanco]

I don't see any connection.

How about a little background.

[theapportioner]

Diversity increases intercultural awareness. That, not a bunch of bombs, is what's going to finally end this "war" on "terror".

[ItalianStereotype]

so...we have to become more accepting of islam? how is that going to end the war, short of all of us converting?

[El Blanco]

Or diversity can encourage people to run off to their own kind.

And there are people out there who bombs us because we want to live together and respect each other's beliefs.

I agree we should reach out and meld with other cultures, hell thats what American culture is. But, not everybody is interested in playig nice. Thats what we need the big bombs for.

[theapportioner]

I agree we should reach out and meld with other cultures, hell thats what American culture is.

Yet in spite of all this, Americans are, on the whole, dreadfully ignorant of the, I will call 'non-traditional' cultural diversity within America. Tulsa ain't New York City.

[The_Rorschach]

There is a cycle of rise decline and fall inherently necessary of all nations.

The decline of a nation begins with the loss of its identity, and multicultural understanding - placing the emphasis on the individual rather than the whole - will expedite the decline of America, and for that reason, I would love to readily embrace it. The people living here today don't deserve the legacy and heritage they recieve as their birthright, and I would love nothing more than to see them stripped of it. Praise Man! Hail the great god Science! Let technology replace our souls and and may our moral compass always fluctuate.

[VinceZeb]

Actually multicultural understanding places emphasis on the whole instead of the individual. That is why people are classifed as being "white", "Black", "asian", "latino", etc. instead of "John Small", "Luther Johnson", "Kim Lee", etc.

Wow, Rorschach, you sound like a Fear Factory CD. But you have bells of truth ringing. I fear for the future where we try to be so... "one".. that we lose our Borders, Language and Culture.

Diversity increases intercultural awareness. That, not a bunch of bombs, is what's going to finally end this "war" on "terror".

theapportioner, I am going to be quite serious with you for a moment. I am not going to say anything smart-eleck or boastful or anything like that. I am being 100% serious with you when I say this: That kind of attitude will lead to your death.

Let me elaborate in the time I have: The people who Western Civilization is against right now, the Muslim Fundmentalist, are interested in understanding us to the point where they can come about unseen and destroy us. They don't have a face or a state or a loyalty to anyone except for their god. They truly do not care if you came up to one living in your hometown right now and said "Yes, I do understand we are from different cultures, and we should talk about learn about each other." If he had the chance to do it without getting caught, you would be dead. Muslim fundementalist do not understand "multiculturalism", "understanding", "Tolerance", any of that. They understand one simple thing, that no matter how you attack it, is always going to be the same: You convert or you die. They do not have a third direction. There is no shades of gray to lead to a black and white here. The whole senario is black and white. Convert or die. You will praise Allah as your god or you die. There is no exceptions, no quarter given. They will kill us if they have the chance.

We are facing an enemy that does not care about your height, weight, eye color, skin tone, nose size, penis length, brest size, hair color, number of teeth, your college, your favorte metal band, your brand of car, your political affiliation. They care about one thing: Muslim or no. Muslim or infidel. Muslim or death.

I'm sorry if this is something that some people don't want to face, but burying your head in the sand will only make it easier for them to depacitate you.

[Jeanette X]

Do you know about the Muslims detained in California? The rhethoric of Christian leaders against Islam?
If we want people to stop joining fundamentalist Muslim groups, maybe we should stop pissing off Muslims in general...

[El Blanco]

What about the anti-Christian sentiment in our culture? Every group that people identify with gets picked on by someone. What makes the Muslims so special?

Of all the groups that have gotten screwed over in or by the US, they have the least to bitch about. Sorry if it is harsh, but its true. And when you look at those countries, they are getting screwed more by their own than by us.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Of all the groups that have gotten screwed over in or by the US, they have the least to bitch about. Sorry if it is harsh, but its true. And when you look at those countries, they are getting screwed more by their own than by us.

Uh...what about the non-military sanctions against Iraq? Or America's favorite deposed puppet ruler, the Shah?

[El Blanco]

And how would those sanctions get lifted? Oh, ya, their leader lets in inspectors. But, he didn't do that.

the Shah was a bad chapter, but again, that was an Arab screwing over his own people. Its not like we gave him orders to be an asshole.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

And how would those sanctions get lifted? Oh, ya, their leader lets in inspectors. But, he didn't do that.

the Shah was a bad chapter, but again, that was an Arab screwing over his own people. Its not like we gave him orders to be an asshole.

So we punish the people because their leader was an asshole?

As for the Shah, did you know that WE destroyed a democratic system in Iran and installed the Shah?

Did you know that Osama Bin Laden used to work for the CIA?

Did you know that Saddam was once our ally, and when he gassed the Kurds, all we did was mildly censure him?

[El Blanco]

A) We are going after Saddam to protect ourselves and to liberate those people and he is bringing his forces into the urban centers. War is ugly, welcome to the world.

B)It was far from democratic

C)bin Laden never, repeat NEVER, worked for the CIA. What he did was reactivate the intelligence network we laid out when we assisted the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. Besides, even if we had directly helped him, it makes him the backstabbing asshole, not us.

D) We were backing Iraq against what we though were a greater threat to us.

[Jeanette X]

A) We are going after Saddam to protect ourselves and to liberate those people and he is bringing his forces into the urban centers. War is ugly, welcome to the world.

What about my point about the sanctions?

B)It was far from democratic
What was it then?
The Shah wasn't democratic either. Why did we set him up instead of a democracy?

C)bin Laden never, repeat NEVER, worked for the CIA. What he did was reactivate the intelligence network we laid out when we assisted the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. Besides, even if we had directly helped him, it makes him the backstabbing asshole, not us.

"He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm)


D) We were backing Iraq against what we though were a greater threat to us.

And that makes it acceptable that we did nothing to help the Kurds?

We also urged the Kurds and the Shiites of Iraq to rise up against Saddam during the first Persian Gulf war, and then we did not back them up as we promised.

[theapportioner]

Let me elaborate in the time I have: The people who Western Civilization is against right now, the Muslim Fundmentalist, are interested in understanding us to the point where they can come about unseen and destroy us. etc.

How do you know this? Do you speak Arabic? Studied the Koran and the Sharia extensively? Versed in the history of British and Ottoman colonialism? The pan-Arabist movement of the 20th century? The history of Islamist terrorism? The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Are you well-read on the various ethnic relations within "the Muslim world"? Have you talked to many Muslims? Do you know any?

Now, "Western culture". What is it? Is it unified? Would you say that it is diverse? Look at the diversity within I-Mockery. Now, how can you make the generalizations you are making about a meta-culture that you know next to nothing about, when our own culture is not at all unified?

I rest my case.

[The_Rorschach]

"What about my point about the sanctions?"

Really, the wholes in your limited knowledge could consume worlds. Why were the sanctions imposed? August 6, 1990, just four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, sanctions were imposed by the UN as the first multilateral act of war against Iraq. A year after the coalition rebuffed Saddam imperialistic endeavours, the sanctions were kept in place as to pressure him into releasing captured prisoners of war - which he did, hesitantly. They've been in place ever since simply to keep Iraq more maleable to the UN's ministrations over his country.

Thats the official explanation. The real reason is because of twits like you who refused to see Bush the First carry the war to the conclusion it should have rightly come to; Removing Hussein from power. Domestic pressure, and unfavourable regard for what the public saw as a personal war between Bush and Saddam, kept the US from pursuing a regime change in Iraq, so instead, we were persuaded to continue sanctions rather than wage a war against the nation of Iraq which was the direction we were heading in. Really, what was your point?

"Why did we set him up instead of a democracy?"

Christ, now you're championing the misinformation of Michael Moore. The operation against Iran's premier in 1953, code-named TP-AJAX, was the blueprint for a succession of CIA plots to foment coups and destabilize governments during the cold war - including the agency's successful coup in Guatemala in 1954 and the disastrous Cuban intervention known as the Bay of Pigs in 1961. But back to Iran; the Truman administration rejected the plan, but President Eisenhower approved it shortly after taking office in 1953, because of fears about oil and Communism. You see, its hard for you to imagine anything but the fat happy life you lead now (thanks, by the way, to men like Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson), but the cold war was not only very real then, but the stakes were so high it wasn't about winner take all, it was about preventing mutually assured destruction. The Soviets had Mosaddeq in their pocket, and were planning on using him for purposes of economical sabotage. It was of critical importance, not just to the United States, but to the non-social world, that such a thing did not come to pass.


"He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian."

Christ, you lack the reading comprehension most of us had by third grade. We trained him, along with untold numbers of others, so they could defend their worthless homeland against the very much imperialist actions of the Russians. That does not make him an employee of the CIA.

"And that makes it acceptable that we did nothing to help the Kurds?"

Actually, we censured him and then reported his actions to the UN, who made a full examination of the affair and eventually took action against him. Did the UN move with blinding speed? No. Did more Kurds die in the interim? Yes. Did we, in the end, help the Kurds? Yes.

[Jeanette X]

They've been in place ever since simply to keep Iraq more maleable to the UN's ministrations over his country.

So that makes it just fine to allow civilians to suffer and die?

The Soviets had Mosaddeq in their pocket, and were planning on using him for purposes of economical sabotage. It was of critical importance, not just to the United States, but to the non-social world, that such a thing did not come to pass.

That still doesn't explain why we set up the Shah instead of a democracy.

Actually, we censured him and then reported his actions to the UN, who made a full examination of the affair and eventually took action against him. Did the UN move with blinding speed? No. Did more Kurds die in the interim? Yes. Did we, in the end, help the Kurds? Yes.

What about the first Gulf war, when we urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, and then did nothing to help them as they were slaughtered

[VinceZeb]

How do you know this? Do you speak Arabic? Studied the Koran and the Sharia extensively? Versed in the history of British and Ottoman colonialism? The pan-Arabist movement of the 20th century? The history of Islamist terrorism? The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Are you well-read on the various ethnic relations within "the Muslim world"? Have you talked to many Muslims? Do you know any?

Now, "Western culture". What is it? Is it unified? Would you say that it is diverse? Look at the diversity within I-Mockery. Now, how can you make the generalizations you are making about a meta-culture that you know next to nothing about, when our own culture is not at all unified?

I will answer the questions: I do. Doesn't mater. Yes, had to in divinity school when was training for priesthood. Know enought about it. Since 9/11, have studied it extensively; you should pick up a book called "Tea With Terrorists." I know a deal about it, yes. Yes, I am, as per the holy books of Islam, a peaceful muslim is a bad muslim, and the most holy ones praticpate in Jihad. Yes, I have talked with Muslims, both good and bad. I don't have any on speed dial, no.

Man, we piss these people off because we are not Muslim and/or we are not under their Muslim theocracy govt. It's that simple, dude.

[Jeanette X]

I have found that most of the things which Muslims are accused of (usually truthfully) have also been done by Christians at one point or another in history.

[VinceZeb]

Jeanette, moral equivelence will get you with a burka over your body. Sorry, but its a truth.

Christians DID do evil things, but the New Testament does not command people to murder non-followers of the Messiah. Before you get into the crusades; the crusades happened because Muslim invaders were pushing themselves to conquer the world, so we decided that wanst going to happen, and fought them back. The Christians won the first Crusade. The Muslims fought back a bit in the second, and then the third and fourth ones which were not sponsored by the Vatican saw the Muslims winning back Jeruslem.

The Koran and the collection of holy text that the Muslims use tell them about conquering non-muslims in battle. There is a difference between religous text influencing people to do something by a misinterpitation and when the text itself says what Allah commands.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Jeanette, moral equivelence will get you with a burka over your body. Sorry, but its a truth.

Christians DID do evil things, but the New Testament does not command people to murder non-followers of the Messiah. Before you get into the crusades; the crusades happened because Muslim invaders were pushing themselves to conquer the world, so we decided that wanst going to happen, and fought them back. The Christians won the first Crusade. The Muslims fought back a bit in the second, and then the third and fourth ones which were not sponsored by the Vatican saw the Muslims winning back Jeruslem.

The Koran and the collection of holy text that the Muslims use tell them about conquering non-muslims in battle. There is a difference between religous text influencing people to do something by a misinterpitation and when the text itself says what Allah commands.

Examine the violence in the Old Testament and see how closely it compares to the Koran.
And by the way, nowhere in the Koran does it state that a woman must wear a burka.

[VinceZeb]

It may not say it in the Quran, but guess what, you would be wearing one.


Old Testament. Doesn't apply to Christians except for Commandments. When Christ was shown as the Messiah, it was transformed into Christianity, at least that is most theologists teachings on the subject. Except if you are Messiahic Jew, which means you believe Jesus was the Son of God and the First Coming, but you keep with Jewish regulations and laws, which if you want to get real technical, Christians should to.

[The_Rorschach]

"So that makes it just fine to allow civilians to suffer and die?"

I realize my answers are dismissed by you almost as quickly as I give them, so I will keep this brief. Those sanctions could have been lifted at any time had Hussein realized staying in power in Iraq was more harmful to his people than beneficial. I dare say, he gives not one iota for the safety and well being of those he governs. Fault lies on both sides, but responsibility lies solely with him. He was too weak to choose the right course of action.


"That still doesn't explain why we set up the Shah instead of a democracy."

History, while one part truth to two parts fabrication, is not a fairy tale. The Shah himself was not even involved in his own coup. Read up on what you're citing, or else don't bother. He was the man who had the most inherent support already, he was the only viable option for overthrowing the rightfully placed government of Iran.

"What about the first Gulf war, when we urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, and then did nothing to help them as they were slaughtered."

Let me use my capslock. Maybe you'll catch it this time: PRESIDENT BUSH HAD NO DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR CONTINUED HOSTILITIES AGAINST IRAQ.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

It may not say it in the Quran, but guess what, you would be wearing one.
Old Testament. Doesn't apply to Christians except for Commandments.

Whether or not I would be wearing one is beside the point. You are attacking the doctrine of Islam, not Muslims.

As for the Old Testament, you say that Christians technically should follow the rules in it, but that they do not. If the Old Testament is sacred to Christians and a good Christian should follow it, then one could easily make the same arguements you make against Islam based on the Koran.

Furthermore, Jews follow the Old Testament very closely. Again, because of this, one could make the same arguements against Judaism that you make against Islam because of what is written in the Koran.

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

PRESIDENT BUSH HAD NO DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR CONTINUED HOSTILITIES AGAINST IRAQ.

Why did he make that promise in the first place, if he was not certain of being able to keep it?