BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah

Subject: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 06:45 AM

I've been at loggerheads with a few of y'all and also with myself over the War In Iraq.

I believed the U.S. Administration regarding their confidence in the existence of WMDs. Iraq had been pursuing nuclear weapons in the 80's, so why not now. I believe (and have said elsewhere) that Tony Blair has an eloquence that 'W' lacks in explaining why it was right to be in Iraq anyway.

I like to come up with parallel points in history and see if by studying them I can come up with illumination on the present. I have a couple, one from Roman History, and one from Holy Scripture.

Rome in her Republican years experienced a major contest against an exceptional military leader, Hannibal of Carthage. The chronicles of the African Wars (called "Hannibalic" or "Punic" and mostly told by the Roman historian Livy) are well worth reading. Triggered apparently by trading competition, Rome attempted to levy restrictions on Carthage, and Carthage through Hannibal and his brothers and an amalgam of allies, invaded the Italian Peninsula over the Alps, not once, but twice. Rome came very close to defeat. The ultimate Roman victory came through two main avenues, the first being to recover and adapt militarily, the second being an extensive political campaign to separate Carthage from her allies by pleading the Roman cause. This was masterfully done by Scipio, who devoted as much or more time according to the history in diplomacy as in battle preparation.

My conclusion from this is that even though, in my opinion, the Iraq War was justified, the grounds for the war were inadequately laid and have yet to be shored up by the American Administration. This has contributed in the Allied lack of success in gaining cooperation from Europe as well as a failure to "win hearts and minds" which I think were ready and waiting to be won.

My second source is from Genesis 37, The Rape Of Dinah. Once you hear this story, it is not to be forgotten. There is a recent version "Genesis"(1999) re-telling the story from an African tribal perspective. In this section of Jacob's wanderings, a chieftain's son captures Jacob's daughter Dinah, then later tries to 'make it legal' to preserve the peace. In the guise of cooperation, two of Jacob's sons take a terrible revenge on the entire town. The end of the chapter shows Jacob at odds with his sons: "You have made my name stink in the land" he tells them. They insist that they were in pursuit of the family honor.

I see a similarity between this episode in Scripture and current world events. The United States has a perception of its stake in this drama more similar to its extreme opponents than the rest of the world. Much of the world sees us as to say the least over-reacting, while we see the world as not joining us in a moral no-brainer.

I'm all for Allied victory. I think victory was possible and was worth pursuing. But I'm doubtful if our leadership has the ability to achieve it the way it must be achieved. I think the reason is they have been hampered by their own ideology, and I am NOT placing this on a religious basis, I am referring to a simple unawareness of how the world has been changing and the larger human forces at work in shaping the world today. I think 'W' has been trying to do the right thing as he sees it, and I think he is not actually stupid. But I think he is lacking in perception, and is not well educated, and his advisers are not much better. I think his failure to see around corners has already cost us the good will of much of the world, and is accelerating the decline of American influence.

I did a web search, and I've talked to some of my bible-aware co-workers, and I haven't seen anyone else making the linkage I have above. I'm interested in whether anyone sees what I see in that bit of Scripture.

I'm taking a two day break from Mudcat while I pursue urgent family affairs. I have really learned a lot here, from everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 07:17 AM

Pretty desperate, aren't you. You were lied to. I suspect many people knew they were lied to, but didn't care because the US wanted a war. You're trawling a nutcase book to look for excuses why, even though you were either dishonest or a muggins, you were (and still are) right.

Bush may or may not be stupid, but his stringpullers are not stupid. They are truly evil. Anyone who starts a war without the overriding and immediate necessity of communal self preservation is evil.

I like the idea of a recent version of Genesis, though. I assume it incorporates a 4 billion year stretch to let evolution get us this far.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: GUEST,G
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 09:14 AM

Paul, would it not be okay to offer a fair (I know, you think yours is fair) and an intelligent reply (yours wasn't) to Robomatic be easy to do?
He certainly had enough documented thoughts to be addressed in a dialogue that could be continued to allow new information and opinions to be generated here for the enlightenment of all.

Rather, you read, saw items you either don't agree with with or don't understand and combined with your apparent inability to neither research or to possibly alter preconceieved notions, you elect to say, his opinions are totally incorrect.

Summation: If I were a new person to this place this AM and went to this thread first, I would have two conclusions; The first is half the posters here go to great lengths to substantiate their opinions. The other half are closed minded individuals who automatically denigrate a person whose ideas and thoughts are out of phase with theirs. Robo did substantition, you did not. We don't have to believe any of what he said but simply say he is wrong without offering any evidence to him is probably indicative of one of the things that are affecting this Country.

If I had just dropped in on the planet Earth, saw this thread, I would certainly be swayed to say that the openminded one (Robo)knows the truth as he had done some homework and was offering debateable proof.
A person is not always wrong just because his beliefs are different than another.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 09:18 AM

The Roman example is interesting; the Biblical one is didactic more than anything else. It is certainly true that Bush's adventurism has left our name, nationally, stinking in the corners of this planet. His version of virtue is inverted.

A

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 09:44 AM

Conquering empires will always find good trumped-up moral excuses for their next adventure. The USA needs oil. It's that simple. So does China. This will eventually lead to problems far bigger than Saddam Hussein could ever have dreamt of orchestrating.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Charmion
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 10:34 AM

Hi, Robo:

My semi-shredded copy of the King James Bible puts the rape of Dinah in Genesis 34.

I'm not sure how you can draw an analogy between that episode and America's Iraqi problem. It was Jacob who suggested making peace by integrating Hamor's people with his own through circumcision followed by intermarriage. If he was hoping the circumcision condition would be a deal-breaker, the scripture writer doesn't say; what he does say is that Hamor, Shechem and their people accepted the deal gladly, and that Simeon and Levi seized Dinah from Shechem's house and sacked Hamor's city without asking for, let alone obtaining, Jacob's consent.

This would provide an analogy for current events only if you are hypothesizing a joint and combined assault on Iraq made without the knowledge or consent of President Bush. I heard him on the radio when he announced the opening of hostilities, and I don't think that could possibly be the case.

When I get home, I'll hunt up Hannibal in my undergrad Livy -- the Penguin Classics edition; I'm no scholar.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: GUEST,clogger
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 12:53 PM

I could be wrong here but......
Didn't robo have GWB cast as (one of) the two sons and the American People as Jacob?
Just for the record I was for the War, if only to stop a mad dictator from killing thousands. I think we should have been building schools, hospitals and the general infrastructure of the country up. Giving the average Iraqui something to value (if removed) would contribute to stability.
Oh yes, whilst I am on my soap-box.... Democracy (in any of it's various forms) should not be a prerequisite to handing power over to a forign government!

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Charmion
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 01:11 PM

Thanks, clogger. I clearly have trouble identifying the players without a program!

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 02:00 PM

What Genesis 34 does not clearly identify is whether the "rape" was a rape or a consensual relationship.

By modern standards, if the former, Jacob was clearly a betrayer of his daughter by giving her as a possession whatever the benefit to him. The wrong was done to her, not to him.

If the latter, then he would seem to be a carpetbagger, siezing the opportunity to make himself a profit by threatening to destroy his daughter and her lover.

In both such models I can see the parallel with Bush. What I do not understand is how the allegory of the "rape" of Dinah can be thought of as an argument to exculpate Bush for what (with hindsight) was a clear breach of international law.

On a separate tack, it is surely axiomatic for the international lawyer that regime change is not a generally legitimate basis for an invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 02:23 PM

What is a legitimate basis for invasion? How does something become legitimate? :) :)

But to the OP, war is the use of force to achieve political objectives. In this case it was the continuation of our policy of protecting the mideast oil.

I think he lied but not about the WMD. No one and I mean no one did not believe that Saddam had WMD. But it wasnt the real reason we went to war just as we didnt goto to Gulf I to liberate Kuwait, as FDR didn't try to keep us out of wwii, as Wilson didn't 'keep us out' of WWI.

Foreign policy is tough business and few want to understand or be persuaded. It's usually just easier to not necessarily lie perhaps but not really say what you are doing.

We went to Gulf I because it was stted US policy to protect mideast oil. We had to leave basis to protect the no fly zones and be a deterrent to saddam. But this angered Al Queda that infidels were on Holy land. They attacked and we had to figure out how to solve this puzzle. Get rid of Saddam. Move basis. End of destabilization.

This also has the benefit of using an agent state to use soft power on an 'ally'. By converting Iraq to a successful democracy, we can hope that they will export libertarian values to the reagion and in particular Saudi Arabia.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 04:07 PM

When my prime minister lies to persuade me to support him in a war of agression, then presents me with TV pictures of wounded children mutilated in my name...I get angry and I stay angry...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 04:22 PM

To imagine that the USA will convert Iraq to "a successful democracy" is ridiculous. The USA does not itself have a successful democracy! It has a totally phony democracy. It is in NO position to go around the World "helping" other people reform their societies.

The USA has a one-party corporate $ySStem masquerading as 2 separate parties and defrauding a largely lobotomized public who mostly wouldn't know real democracy if it bit them on the ass (in my opinion).

As for a legitimate invasion...well, that's tricky to arrange. It's almost as challenging as arranging a legitimate rape. Stalin legitimized rape of a million or more German women in 1945, by giving the green light to his soldiers to get "revenge" on Germany in that particularly despicable fashion...so there IS some precedent for the notion, if your mind is totally twisted or you're in some state of denial, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 10:48 AM

Guest G, don't be such a prat. The 'rape of Dinah' episode was an atrocity: to avenge the 'dishonour' of their sister, the sons of Jacob pretended to convert the town, then massacred the inhabitants while they were incapacitated through circumcision. Perhaps it IS a good analogy of American action in Iraq, but the opposite of a justification.

As for Cathage, it was a straightforward decision to take out a commercial rival.

What rm said was that, despite there being no patent justification for the war, he still supports it. Turnip. Then drags in his book of spells to find a reason why it might be OK.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:07 AM

"No one and I mean no one did not believe that Saddam had WMD."

Now thats what I call a broad generalization and not very accurate, either. I didn't believe he had WMD's. There was absolutely no proof that he had WMD's. As a matter of fact, it was the Bush administration and Tony Blair that thought he had WMD's. Bush and Blair are not everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:21 AM

The entire United Nations Security Council believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq possesed WMD's, otherwise Resolution 1441 would never have been passed. The information that led them to believe that this was the case came,not from the US or the UK, but from the UN's own inspection teams last report - UNSCOM, January 1999.

On the basis of what was known at the time, no lies were told and on evaluation at the time the US did the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 06:17 AM

Everyone KNEW that Saddam had no WMDs. How did we know? The US dared to invade. They haven't invaded N. Korea. Why was the reolution passed? Arm twisting.

There was in fact proof that he DIDN'T have any serious unconventional capability. Nature of proof? Bloke called Hans Blix told you.

This thread should be retitled "The Rape of Intellect".

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 09:58 AM

LOL! Yes, that would be a good title for it...

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:23 AM

To Paul Burke - in response to his post of 29 Sep 05 - 06:17 AM.

The logic used in your opening paragraph is more than slightly faulty. If memory serves me correctly the US plus others did attack Saddam in 1991 when everybody definitely knew that he did possess WMD. The situation with North Korea is a bit different, the ceasefire brokered in the early 1950's is still in effect - technically The Korean War is not yet over, no peace treaty has been signed.

The resolution (1441) was passed based on UNSCOM's Report and Saddam Hussein's refusal to co-operate with the UN. Perhaps you can tell us how the US twisted the arms of Russia, China, France, Syria and all ten other members of the Security Council, but I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.

Now onto the good Dr. Blix who had a large part in writing that UNSCOM Report. At no time in the lead up to the invasion of IRAQ in March 2003 did the good Doctor ever state clearly that Iraq possessed no WMD. That announcement came much later (about a year) and is not strictly true, it is only supposition based on the fact that none have been found. The objectives of the outstanding UN resolutions that Saddam was ignoring have all been met.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:14 PM

Good grief Teribus! You must be one of the last holdouts.

You cannot accuse someone of having something if in fact you can't prove that it is in their possession.

Remember, possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Since no weapons were found, invasion of Iraq was illegal and widely considered a unilateral decision by the U.S. govt.

In this case, the U.S. govt. was wrong.

When will this realization sink into your thick skull.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:31 PM

UNSC Resolution 1441 clearly stipulates that all parties involved (this includes the US and Britain) were to honor the borders and sovereignty of Iraq, to allow the inspectors to do their job unhindered, and it does not give any nation or nations authority to take any action whatever, other than these two things.

The US and Britain are in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 by virtue of the fact that they did not honor the borders and sovereignty of Iraq, and because they interfered with the inspectors ability to do their job when they invaded Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:41 PM

Dianavan:

20 x 20 hindsight is a terrific vantage point from which to argue. The only problem is that you use that vantage point very selectively.

Point 1 - The whole object of the exercise was to ensure that Iraq had no WMD. Now it was UNSCOM that stated that Iraq had WMD, or had stocks of WMD that were unnaccounted for. The UN Resolutions levelled at Iraq were all geared to establishing that that country did not posses WMD. Saddam Hussein refused to co-operated with the UN to establish this.

Point 2 - Since when has the UN been the arbiter of what and what isn't in any member sovereign state's interest - rhetorical question, the answer to which is NEVER. The decision by the US Government to invade Iraq in March 2003 was correct based upon evaluations made at that time on the intelligence available at that time.

Point 3 - UN resolutions, with respect to Iraq, were not solely based on WMD, they covered a whole raft of topics. But in relation to WMD, the UN resolutions centred on the verified establishment, clear and positive, that Iraq no longer possessed WMD. Subsequent to the US led invasion, I think it can be stated with some degree of certainty that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Party of Iraq now do not posses any WMD. So in actual fact Dianavan the US Government was 100% correct in acting as it did.

Now to quote your own words - "When will this realization sink into your thick skull."

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 12:22 AM

Teribus, we have been over this a million times and you are entitled to your opinion but on this point, you are the minority and so is the U.S. govt.

If you are strictly speaking about, "... a sovereign state's interest...", you might have a point. Doesn't mean, however, that it is right for the world or in the interest of humanity.

..and in hindsight, the people of the U.S. now realize that they were lied to and that this war is not about the good of the nation but about enriching George Bush and his cronies. Something that Canadians have always known.

Bush thought he could, 'Go it alone' and look where its got him.

Is it in your sovereign state's best interest to ruin the nation economically? What has the invasion of Iraq accomplished other than the removal of Saddam? Do the people of the middle east appreciate what the U.S. has done?

As the opening post suggests, "You have made my name stink in the land"

Thats what U.S. foreign policy has done for its citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:02 AM

Terribus doesn't really have to care what effect the war has had on the US. He lives in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:56 AM

Well Dianavan, myself and the US Government may well be in a minority, but that does not mean that we are wrong.

For the US not to have acted, as your 'majority' would have preferred would not have been right for the world or in the best interest of humanity - Saddam Hussein would still have been in power.

What lies were the people of the US told? In what way has George Bush and his cronies profited?

Bush and Blair did 'Go it alone' and it got both re-elected.

There is nothing to suggest that either the US or the UK have been ruined economically, most indicators point to the contrary. As to what has been accomplished by the invasion of Iraq:
- The removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
- The establishment that Iraq does not now possess WMD, or is currently running programmes aimed at acquiring WMD.
- Iraq no longer sponsors international terrorists.
- Iraq no longer poses a threat to its neighbours
- Libya has renounced its aspirations to acquire WMD
- Syria has removed its troops from Lebanon, ending its occupation of that country.
- Brought about movement to reform in the region.

As to whether or not the people of the middle east appreciate what the U.S. has done, I would say some do others have yet to realise exactly what has been done for them, but they will.

As the opening post suggests, "You have made my name stink in the land". If you are talking about the US - no more than it already did in some quarters of opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:00 AM

Well said Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:29 PM

Charmion thanks for your correction, the Rape of Dinah occurs in Genesis 34.

I wasn't meaning to 'cast parts' so much as to reflect on the principle of appropriate response. One family member is either assaulted, kidnapped, or both. Is it just or wise to respond by killing as many male villagers as possible? The translation in which I first read the episode had Jacob telling his sons "You have made my name stink in the land".

After 9/11, I think it is safe to say that most of the world accepted the 'right' of the US in going into Afghanistan where the Islamofascist regime gave aide and comfort to the sponsors of the World Trade Center outrage, not to mention a place to practice.

Going into Iraq was more of a reach, like killing the relatives of the actual perps. And the inefficacy and blundering that may be an inevitable part of war but yet does as no good in the press of the world has enabled us to 'stink' worldwide, despite our feelings that our cause is more or less 'pure'.

By analogy, I am entitled to defend my life against a dangerous neighbor, but if my neighbor is not a threat to my life, but because he lets his dog defecate on my lawn, or even if he beats his wife, it does not entitle me to strap on my A K and shoot him and a couple of his kids down. Or does it?

Subject: RE: BS: America In Iraq - The Rape Of Dinah
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 02:12 PM

Going into Iraq being more of a reach - not if you look at the process that led up to the tabling and adoption of UNSC Resolution 1441.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the US reviewed the overall security situation and conducted what amounted to one of the most widespread and detailed risk assessments ever carried out. The result of this work identified a number of scenarios, what would be required to carry attacks through to completion and who would be likely to to support and assist.

Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea were all identified and ranked. Of all the worlds leaders, Saddam Hussein was the only who openly applauded the attacks of 9/11 - Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks and that was acknowledged by the US Administration within days of the attacks.

From the evaluation Iraq was judged to be the country most likely to provide assistance to an international terrorist group (not necessarily Al-Qaeda), as such the outstanding questions regarding Iraq's unnaccounted for WMD, raised by UNSCOM had to be resolved as a matter of extreme urgency. Newly elected US President G. W. Bush had very little to do with this process, he and his administration acted on advice given by many who had served the previous Clinton Administration. It should also be remembered that it was the Clinton Administration who made it an official foreign policy aim to remove Saddam Hussein from power (That Act was passed in 1998)

Action could be taken through the UN on outstanding resolutions - only thing was Saddam did not co-operate. Not that much of a stretch.