[MD] Hippies (and Humour) in the Middle East

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
What I tried to do was get a simple answer to a simple question. As usual, 
you didn't answer and still haven't answered. Who are the bohemians and 
hippies in the Middle East?

[Arlo]
As I've said in nearly every post since the first one, Platt, there are no 
hippies or bohemians in the Middle East. Our unquestioning support of 
autocracies and mujahideens have helped encourage that.

[Arlo previously]
We see riots against a perceived threat, something very easy for the 
leaders of the country to build up with fear, propaganda and reliance on 
historical knowledge.

[Platt]
As if the people are too stupid to know better, a typical liberal attitude 
toward the common man and grandmothers. .

[Arlo]
This is a historical truism. Fear has been used, with great success, to 
manipulate people, to convince them to sacrifice their will to the state. 
Its not that people are too stupid, its just that, as you always say, our 
schools have failed, failed to teach the necessary historical, ideological 
and societal perspectives necessary to make informed judgements and not be 
so easily manipulated by the fear, fear, fear you are constantly espousing. 
Why, take for instance the only way you know of to respond to the fact that 
it was republicans, interested in profit and oil above all else, that 
provided Iran with nuclear capability, and that is through deception and 
evadance. Common tactics of ideologues with nothing to offer but fear and 
deception.

You see, no one buys the "America is to blame" distortive nonsense you use 
to completely ignore the actual role of our historical involvement in this 
regard. You present only two options "it is all our fault/it is no part our 
fault", when even the simplest of historical inquiries reveals that both 
sides possess enough blame to make the situation more complex than your 
"biological briggands" nonsense.

But, since you can't dispute this, all you can do is try to paint me, or 
anyone else who brings these historical facts to bear as enemies of the 
state, the state you so blindly and obediently follow. Khaled forwarded to 
me a great, albeit sadly short, article that examines in far more Quality 
the complexity of the situation, and presents in greater eloquence what 
I've said are our two choices, armed conflict or reappraisal on BOTH sides. 
Since both sides are heavily populated by ideologues who would rather serve 
their countries blindly and obediently than admit for one moment that they 
bear some of the responsibility, or even recognize their own indisputable 
historical activity, we may be headed on a course with only one realistic 
outcome. War. The article is at: 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm

Blind patriotism and historical ignorance is much easier than 
historical-critical evaluation without prejudice towards one Nation-State. 
As you so strongly demonstrate. It is far easier to ignore the role the 
republicans had, a role driven by profit, in supporting autocracies that 
suppressed liberal values in the region, and in selling nuclear 
capabilities to an autocracy "just to make a buck". While the hippies were 
dancing in the streets, protesting nuclear power, the conservatives were 
selling nuclear materials to Iran, and now suddenly you are The Big Moral 
Man who wants to prevent Iran for going nuclear? While the hippies were 
protesting for peace and freedom, the conservatives were supporting 
autocracies that suppressed free speech and equal rights simply because 
those autocracies supported our oil profits. And now *I'm* supposed to 
share your outrage that there are nothing but hard right-wing governments 
in the region? The irony would be laughable were it not so pathetically sad.

[Platt]
You've done everything but say, "Bush is like Hitler." Why don't you just 
come right out and say it if that's what you believe?

[Arlo]
Because I don't think Bush is "like Hitler". I think blind patriotism is a 
malady, not something to promote. I think "liberty" is formed by a respect 
of diversity and open, critical inquiry, vigilence into the affairs of 
one's government. But I do think there is parallel between the promotion of 
this "blind obedience" throughout all immoral regimes. Forced monocultural 
conformity and blind obedience are the first steps towards enslavement. 
True patriots are those that stand up when their government does wrong, and 
are among the first to address the situation, who are not afraid to admit 
when they've taken wrong steps, and played a role in historical situations. 
What you call a patriot, a blind servant of the state who is incapable of 
seeing anything their country does as immoral or wrong, I call a sheep.

[Platt]
If it comes to armed conflict, whose side will you be on?

[Arlo]
The first side willing to acknowledge their historical involvement, the 
importance of multiculture, and pursue of policy of promoting liberal 
secularism in the region.

[Platt]
What sort of "economic rewards" (bribes) do you have in mind? How would you 
define a "valid, organized and popular base?"  Would a conservative "base" 
qualify?

[Arlo]
And what would conservatives teach them? To value monocultural conformity? 
To purse the dollar above any other concern? To condemn "biological 
quality"? To condemn Mick Jagger? To blindly support their government? To 
discredit their universities because they are run by evil "libs"? I think 
they already know these things, Platt. In fact, if you'd switch the 
religion from Islam to Christianity, it would be a neocon's Fantasy Island, 
monocultural, driven exclusively by oil profits, suppressive of biological 
quality, no Mick Jaggers, university agendas decided by the state, no 
minimum wages or workplace restrictions, government driven exclusively by 
"religious moral codes", a ruler than can act above the law, an army that 
can use "any means necessary" to secure information, Neocon Paradiso...

What they need are civil rights protestors, those who will demand free 
speech, universal suffrage and equal rights for all ethic and cultural 
groups. Those who condemn censorship, and value peace. Those who are firmly 
in favor of the separation of church and state... aka hippies, liberal 
secularists.

As to your other questions (what sort of rewards, and defining a valid 
liberal secular base), I don't have any clear answer for.

[Platt]
Would you favor overthrowing the rulers of Saudi Arabia? What about Cuba?

[Arlo]
Ironic that our biggest buddy is the ruler of a suppressive autocracy, so 
much that the House of Bush and the House of Saud are historically 
intertwined. And yet at the same time puff up our chests in moral 
indignation over ol' Fidel. What I favor in both regards, is allowing trade 
while actively encouraging liberal secularism. With Saud, I find their 
actions towards human rights violations so much greater than Castro's, I'd 
favor an immediate seccession of support and aid for the Saudi rulers, but 
I would not punish the citizenry through embargos or trade restrictions. 
Eventually, with good trade relations and involvement with free societies, 
and a lack of support from us for their King, maybe they'd get the will and 
the ability to revolt and establish their own democracy. I'd pursue the 
same course in Cuba. Free and open trade, but a policy encouraging liberal 
secular freedoms.

[Platt]
How about letting Christianity gain a foothold in the region? Would you 
object to that?

[Arlo]
I'd encourage that as much as I'd encourage Islam getting a foothold in 
America. You know how I feel about any religion that proclaims to be "the 
one true way". Besides, what are suggesting, a Holy Crusade?

[Platt]
Assuming we are totally responsible for Iran's wish to obtain weapons of 
mass destruction, would you be in favor of preventing them from doing so up 
to and including military action or not?

[Arlo]
Well, we are not "totally responsible", I'd first favor a UN Declaration of 
Who Can Have Nuclear Weapons And Why. I mean, Pakistan has them, is that 
much better than Iran? North Korea has them, and we didn't invade them to 
prevent it. So I'd want to see a fully laid out "rubric" for determining 
which countries can have nuclear power, and which countries can not. Then, 
I'd favor acting in strict accordance with this, no matter who the country 
is. For example, if China doesn't pass the test, we should invade them, and 
not just the little countries or the ones whose oil we want.

Assuming we then start with greater threats and work our way down the list, 
I'd assume North Korea, then Pakistan, then Russia and China should be 
invaded before Iran. By the time we get to Iran, if they are still on the 
"no no" rubric, and possess the weapons, then yes, we should use military 
action. But according to Wikipedia, there is the possibility that Saudi 
Arabia procured nuclear weapons from Pakistan. So, I suppose we may have to 
invade them first.

Arlo