as i see it - Pt. III

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, October 30, 2003

*********************************

If at the age of ten someone had spoken to me and said the things that I have been saying here, I would have hated his guts.

At the age of fifteen I would have felt liberated.

At twenty I would have said: "So what else is new?"

Which may suggest that the outrage of some of my readers may well be a direct result of arrested development.

*

The most important factor in our choice of religion is geography, and more precisely the accident of our birthplace.

*

Ideologies, even when established by angels, are inevitably usurped by devils.

*

Fascism is organized hooliganism.

*

We are all believers. Some believe in the existence of God, others in his absence.

*

Writes C.S. Lewis, a celebrated English author and devout Christian: "Often when I pray I wonder if I am not posting letters to a non-existent address."

*

Power doesn't corrupt; it simply allows the already corrupt a medium of expression.

*

Whenever I hear a long-winded sermonizer, I cannot help thinking: Like policemen, cannibals are never around when you need them.

*

"Our leaders are our betters": a popular misconception that history has exposed again and again but failed to shatter.

*

In a civilized world, religions and ideologies will be outlawed if only because sometimes they are used as license to kill.

[Sasun]

Ara's thinking: Oh those evil religious people

[ara baliozian]

[

Ara, where did you get that I am anti-American or pro-Arab? Both are not true. I am simply stating the facts: did or did not America attack Iraq? If your answer is no, then you can say that the US is not the aggressor. If it is yes, then I don't see how it is not the aggressor. I think this is a very important distinction. And I don't buy the WMD argument.

I am not saying Arabs are not corrupt. But pre-war Japan and Germany were way too different than Iraq. They were ingaged in world domination, while Iraq was simply ingaged in small scale power projection and was blamed as a threat to the world which it was not. Yes it did aggress Quwait before and was kicked out, but nothing more than that.

 

I am trying to be objective. Sure, we all generalize or else it would be a cumbersome detailed endless discussion. But in my view your generalizations are too far from reality and contradict basic facts.

 

 

I doubt that they would want to exterminate the West, but sure they would want to dominate. That's the nature of politics. Methods may differ. Look at the US - it has the technical and financial capability to dominate the world (to a degree), and it does try and succed to do so. Of course, this is not done in a brutal way, methods have changed, now it is the economic dominance with less violence compared to the past.

Why has the US been defying UN? Because it is capable of doing it.

Sasun:

 

it is the exceptional armenian who is not anti-american and anti-semitic. i am glad you are one of the exceptions.

 

the u.s. is the aggressor and iraq has no imperial ambitions?

 

about the u.s.:

let's try to understand it -- as opposed to attacking it.

 

the only reason saddam is not another hitler or stalin is that he lacks the power.

i for one don't feel sorry that he is gone and will be buried soon.

 

and speaking of contradictions, i suggest you reread what you have written below....

[ara baliozian]

Ara's thinking: Oh those evil religious people

if we differ on this point it's because

you judge religions by their intentions (propaganda)

and i by their historic record. ..

my judgment is based on facts as opposed to wishful thinking and lies.

you who like to be objective should have no problem following me here....

[Sasun]

if we differ on this point it's because

you judge religions by their intentions (propaganda)

and i by their historic record. ..

my judgment is based on facts as opposed to wishful thinking and lies.

you who like to be objective should have no problem following me here....

Ara, as long as you call all other things religion we are not going to agree. I just can't picture a revolutionary as a religious person (with the exception of Islamic revolutionaries and similar marginal entities). So when you say "historic record" of religions you mean the bad historic record of all humanity. I am unable to accept it even as a wild generalization (but I can understand it coming from an atheist)

 

the u.s. is the aggressor and iraq has no imperial ambitions?

 

about the u.s.:

let's try to understand it -- as opposed to attacking it.

 

I was trying to make the point that international politics is mostly about power, influence, domination. Countries are driven by their own interests. Basically, I believe in realipolitik (not that I like it). In that light, of course Saddam had ambitions and maybe still has, and he had proved to be a ruthless dictator (atheist by the way). If he had the chance he would most likely create Stalin-style world power.

On the other hand, (in an attempt to understand the US) why is it that only the US and UK thought Saddam was a danger to the world? Was the rest of the world stupid not to understand if that was the case? So there is no WMD found. How is Saddam a danger to the world? My understanding is that the US and Saddam were simply antagonized due to their interests, there is very little morality involved. The US is trying to install a friendly regime in Iraq. That is called "democracy". If they succeed it maybe a better regime than Saddam but not a real democracy. I am not trying to make any predictions just trying to understand.

 

it is the exceptional armenian who is not anti-american and anti-semitic. i am glad you are one of the exceptions.

Thanks, but I think most Armenians are not anti-American or anti-Semitic. As a sample take this forum.

 

and speaking of contradictions, i suggest you reread what you have written below....

 

I am not sure what you mean

[Sasun]

Ara, just to make things clear, I live in the US and I quite appreciate it. It is a great country to live in and has many opportunities to make money

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, November 01, 2003

********************************

If only serial killers were more considerate

and men of faith more tolerant!

*

There are those who demand that I solve problems

whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge.

*

Others may speak of la crème de la crème;

we can only speak of la crème de la scum.

*

I gave up reading our pundits on the day I realized that their true aim is not to enlighten but to flatter the vanity of our wheeler-dealers by ascribing all our problems to outside agencies.

*

When I think that today's children will be tomorrow's adults, my fondness for them is immediately modified by a touch of hostility. After all, who is an adult if not someone who has done in the child within himself.

*

It is not negative to say a small no for the sake of a big yes.

*

If God is an open book to our men of faith,

why is it that they cannot read the writing on the wall?

*

Experience suggests that if you confront liars with the truth

you succeed only in making them bigger liars.

*

To the reader who accused me of being ashamed of my identity, I say: "I am not ashamed of being Armenian, no! But neither am I proud that you are."

*

It is not always easy to convince ourselves that those who are against us may have a remotely plausible reason.

*

When an American politician mentions Armenians to a Turkish diplomat, the Turk mentions Indians and Negroes, after which they change the subject.

*

Perhaps once in a while I should remind my hostile readers that I don't make policy. I may challenge our policy-makers, I may question their competence and integrity, but I am in no position to change things. You may therefore relax and enjoy life in the knowledge that the future will be a repetition of the past.

*

As an Armenian writer who has more critics than readers, sometimes I feel like that celebrated medieval Arab poet who had a thousand friends and one enemy, but his friends were nowhere and his enemy everywhere.

*

Our multimillionaires donate millions to charities and other worthy causes, make headlines in our weeklies, and project the image of generous and compassionate benefactors of the nation.

How did they make their millions?

This question is never asked.

An honest man working at an honest job cannot be a multimillionaire. The only way to amass a fortune is to overprice your product or your services.

Or as Plato put it:

An honest man can never be as wealthy as a dishonest man because an honest man will employ only honest means, whereas a dishonest man will employ honest as well as dishonest means.

*

Two plus two makes four to everyone except accountants.

*

There is one thing about me that even my worst enemies love - the fact that I am a failure.

*

Every authentic writer has his favorite word and forever after that word bears his stamp and an added meaning.

*

To silence those who try to silence you is not censorship but justice - an eye for an eye.

*

The Holy Ghost is the Gray Eminence of the Trinity.

*

When I find a penny I take it as a good omen, but when a black cat crosses my path, I say it's meaningless superstition.

*

The older I grow, the less I understand my younger self.

*

There are those who brag about the fact that they are fluent in East-Armenian or West-Armenian or both. But I say, what if your words are Armenian but your sentiments Ottoman or Soviet?

[ara baliozian]

Ara, as long as you call all other things religion we are not going to agree. I just can't picture a revolutionary as a religious person (with the exception of Islamic revolutionaries and similar marginal entities). So when you say "historic record" of religions you mean the bad historic record of all humanity. I am unable to accept it even as a wild generalization (but I can understand it coming from an atheist)

a closed system of thought

is a closed system

and a closed system has all the answers.

which means no dialogue;

which means reliance on authority and power.

it makes no difference if it's a religion or an ideology.

if we cannot agree on this then i am afraid we are using deifferent dictionaries and alphabets....

but i can understand it coming from a man of faith...which means one who subscribes to a closed system of thought...

[ara baliozian]

why is it that only the US and UK thought Saddam was a danger to the world? Was the rest of the world stupid not to understand if that was the case?

perhaps because the u.s. was the only one that experienced 9/11.

you could also ask:

why is it that the entire world did nothing in the balkans?

why is it that half of the world believed in stalin?

 

 

more questions: why is it that europe fought 2 world wars in a single century? -- two wars that they (the allies) could not win without the support of the u.s.?

so that the very countries that opposed the u.s. (on iraq) would have been nazified or stalinized now [if it weren't for america].....

 

and speaking of stupidity:

why is it that armenian revolutionaries tried to terrorise the ottoman empire when they could have watched it disintegrate on its own?

tentative answers: they thought god was on their side and with such a mighty ally they couldn't lose....

they were men of faith who believed in their cause and were willing to sacrifice the nation to realize their dream...

they were men of vision who saw a glorious future for armenia....

or: they were damn fools.........

[Sasun]

Religion is not necessarily a system of thought. Therefore it cannot be a closed system of thought. You may call Jesus's teaching and teachings of other religions propaganda, and you may think that you are a genius who has all answers but the people are damn fools who don't understand you. I only see that you are making a few incorrect generalizations, like the world consists of men of faith (bad guys), bossess, bishops, benefactors(other bad guys), and other such cliches - and smart atheist people who crticize them (the good guys) and that those foolish bad guys don't read and follow the good guys. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

 

You think that our bunch of revolutionaries are to blame for our genocide. How are you different from those who blame outside agencies? Why is it so hard to see the obvious - that we were killed by the Ottoman Turks? Well I guess I am a man of faith and in my closed system of thought can't see what you can see.

 

I will try to answer your questions.

perhaps because the u.s. was the only one that experienced 9/11.

What does that have to do with Saddam? There was propaganda based on the false assumption that Saddam was linked to bin Laden. Now even the US backed off from that claim. You still believe that?

 

why is it that the entire world did nothing in the balkans?

Because they had no interest.

 

why is it that half of the world believed in stalin?

 

Not half of the world, much less. A lot of them were forced to show that they believed, and those few who did believe were misinformed by the regime, few others were simply deceived, and few others did share Stalin's ideology.

 

more questions: why is it that europe fought 2 world wars in a single century? -- two wars that they (the allies) could not win without the support of the u.s.?

so that the very countries that opposed the u.s. (on iraq) would have been nazified or stalinized now [if it weren't for america].....

 

I can't possibly give a short answer and a correct one at the same time. But I believe wars have to do interests, aggressive desires, power, domination, etc. One important factor why the US took part in the world was that there was the danger of German victory.

 

and speaking of stupidity:

why is it that armenian revolutionaries tried to terrorise the ottoman empire when they could have watched it disintegrate on its own?

tentative answers: they thought god was on their side and with such a mighty ally they couldn't lose....

they were men of faith who believed in their cause and were willing to sacrifice the nation to realize their dream...

they were men of vision who saw a glorious future for armenia....

or: they were damn fools.........

 

I don't think your answer has factual evidence that they indeed thought that God would help them win the Ottomans. And it is so easy to see now that the empire has disintegrated...

[Sip]

What does that have to do with Saddam? There was propaganda based on the false assumption that Saddam was linked to bin Laden. Now even the US backed off from that claim. You still believe that?

Whatever the official reasons, that does not mean what was not done wasn't justified. Sasun my entire childhood was spent growing up in an environment with daily 9/11's ... and Sadam and those feeding him were the ones responsible (as far as I can see).

 

So you know what? I hope they find that SOB and the cut him up into tiney little pieces and feed him to cute little fuzzy dogs. So at least some creatures can become happy due to him having existed.

 

... and as far as Religion not being a closed system of thought ... COME ON! There is this thing called fantasy religions and then there is real life. How can you say religion is not a "system of thought" (let alone the whole open/close thing).

[Sasun]

Whatever the official reasons, that does not mean what was not done wasn't justified. Sasun my entire childhood was spent growing up in an environment with daily 9/11's ... and Sadam and those feeding him were the ones responsible (as far as I can see).

 

So you know what? I hope they find that SOB and the cut him up into tiney little pieces and feed him to cute little fuzzy dogs. So at least some creatures can become happy due to him having existed.

Sip, do you mean Iran-Iraq war? I think we all agree that Saddam is a despickable criminal. That's out of question. But to put the whole country in a mess because of Saddam with a false pretext doesn't seem the right thing to do. As if all criminals of the world had been caught and Saddam was the one left. I have a problem buying the "moral" justification of the Iraq war.

 

... and as far as Religion not being a closed system of thought ... COME ON!  There is this thing called fantasy religions and then there is real life. How can you say religion is not a "system of thought" (let alone the whole open/close thing).

 

What I mean is religion is belief. You can call it a belief system but not a system of thought. To be religious doesn't mean to put restraints on your thinking. I think Domino was recently talking about a survey among scientists that showed mathematicians are most likely to be believing in God. Can we call them people with closed system of thinking?

Besides that, let's take Christianity. A Christian typically worships Christ. There is not much thinking involved in worship, it is just faith and worship, and I know it makes no sense to a non-beliver but notetheless... Communist ideology is a system of thought. Capitalist ideology is a system of thought. Terrorist ideology is a system of thougth. I would never put them next to religions. They are fundamentally different. Ideologies have practical, earthly goals, religions have goals such as going to heaven and other things that are not practical and earthly (what you call not real).

 

A typical religious person is an ordinary person leading an ordinary life much like typical non-religious people, only he/she is religious. Ara is branding such people as potential killers, and suggesting to shut down religions (and ideologies), and calling such a society a civilized society. Whatever happened to free speach and freedom of conscience? (Mind you, this type of society was already tried and failed in the Soviet Union where religion was banned and among ideologies only communist one was allowed.)

[ara baliozian]

Monday, November 03, 2003

******************************

When you live in a world of lies and illusions and you hear someone whispering the truth, forever after you condemn yourself to hear it again and again as loud as thunder.

*

Insults can teach us only one thing: to avoid hooligans.

*

One reason why my anti-boss, anti-bishop, and anti-benefactor views are thought of as unpatriotic is that the contents of our textbooks and school anthologies have been carefully selected and edited by political partisans and monks who have been and continue to be financially dependent on our capitalists.

*

Nothing would give me more pleasure than to learn from my critics. But what can one possibly learn from recycled propaganda?

*

The aim of propaganda is not to enlighten but to brainwash in order to promote the narrow self-interests of a power structure whose aim is to perpetuate itself and whenever possible to increase its hold over the people.

*

God or nature or the incomprehensible forces of the universe have combined to endow us with a unique gift - our brain. By saying there are people out there somewhere who know better - be they bosses, bishops or benefactors, or, for that matter, prophets and messiahs - we abdicate our most important responsibility as human beings, namely, to think for ourselves.

*

A nation that surrenders its mind to its leaders might as well be brain dead. If such a nation continues to live it is on the same level as cattle.

*

When I express views critical of our turn-of-the-century revolutionaries, I am not relying on hindsight. Our revolutionaries had their critics even when they were alive. These critics were not phony, dime-a-dozen pundits (a familiar species among us), or editors of Istanbul newspapers, or kibitzers in coffee houses, but important Armenian administrators within the Ottoman bureaucracy knowledgeable in the ways of the Empire, unlike our hot-headed revolutionaries, most of whom were outsiders drunk with the wine of future glory and power.

*

Were our revolutionaries men of faith who believed God was on their side? They believed truth to be on their side, and truth, according to Mahatma Gandhi, is the best definition of God.

*

Instead of asking "What makes you think you know better than the Pope and his college of cardinals and legion of bishops?" you should ask: "What makes the Pope and his army of underlings think they know better than the majority of mankind that rejects his claim of infallibility, doctrinal paraphernalia, bureaucratic hierarchy and ritual mumbo jumbo?

*

The Western intellectual tradition has been essentially skeptical and anti-clerical. This is true not only of philosophers like Voltaire and Sartre but also of devout Christians like Tolstoy who was excommunicated by the Orthodox Church.

*

To identify Christ with a church, any church, is as misleading as identifying Marx with Stalinism. There are even those (like Dostoevsky and Kazantzakis) who have advanced the theory that if Christ were to appear again among us, he would be re-crucified by members of the Church hierarchy.

*

Christ was not dogmatic, authoritarian, despotic and intolerant, all of which are integral features of all organized religions and established churches.

*

People are not stupid, but they become stupid when they allow others to do their thinking for them.

*

My views are unorthodox only to the brainwashed, the brainless and the brain-dead. What I have been saying has been said before by our most prominent writers most of whom were shaped by French, German and Russian intellectual traditions.

*

Whenever a religious or political faction chooses to ignore its critics or its opposition and to act without developing a consensus, it acquires the vestments of tyranny.

*

Khorenatsi and Yeghishe predicted our decline as a nation in the 5th century as surely as anti-fascist, anti-Nazi and anti-Stalinist dissidents predicted the downfall of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in our own days.

*

He who subscribes to the law of the jungle should not complain if he is bitten in half by a crocodile or set upon and torn to shreds by a pack of hyenas.

[ara baliozian]

Sip, do you mean Iran-Iraq war? I think we all agree that Saddam is a despickable criminal. That's out of question. But to put the whole country in a mess because of Saddam with a false pretext doesn't seem the right thing to do. As if all criminals of the world had been caught and Saddam was the one left. I have a problem buying the "moral" justification of the Iraq war.

surely, to allow a criminal a free hand is also criminal.

especially when you have a means to stop him.

[ara baliozian]

What I mean is religion is belief. You can call it a belief system but not a system of thought. To be religious doesn't mean to put restraints on your thinking. I think Domino was recently talking about a survey among scientists that showed mathematicians are most likely to be believing in God. Can we call them people with closed system of thinking?

sometimes when asked if i am an atheist i say

"I don't believe in the god of our priests,"

or for that matter, in the allah of mullahs and ayatollahs...

when scientists are believers, i assure you, my friend, their faith has nothing to do with the faith of bishops and child-molesting rascals parading as priests and men of god.

a belief, a belief system, and faith might as well be synonymous. If you have any doubts as to christianity not being a belief system, i suggest you read st. thomas aquinas and countless theologians whose system is based on aristotle.

[ara baliozian]

A typical religious person is an ordinary person leading an ordinary life much like typical non-religious people, only he/she is religious. Ara is branding such people as potential killers, and suggesting to shut down religions (and ideologies), and calling such a society a civilized society. Whatever happened to free speach and freedom of conscience? (Mind you, this type of society was already tried and failed in the Soviet Union where religion was banned and among ideologies only communist one was allowed.)

what utter nonsense!

i am not branding anyone.

if there is any branding, it's history's doing.

you want us to ignore the past and deal with platonic abstractions.

sorry, friend. can't be done. every idea has a historic baggage.

The crimes of organized religions make headlines even in our own days.

the massacres of mulsims and hindus in india,

the suicidal terrorists killing innocent civilians in the middle east because the mullahs promise them 73 virgins in a fictional afterlife...

the pope getting involved in the bedrooms of mankind....

religion should be a private matter between a person and his god or vision of reality.

[Sasun]

sometimes when asked if i am an atheist i say

"I don't believe in the god of our priests,"

or for that matter, in the allah of mullahs and ayatollahs...

when scientists are believers, i assure you, my friend, their faith has nothing to do with the faith of bishops and child-molesting rascals parading as priests and men of god.

a belief, a belief system, and faith might as well be synonymous. If you have any doubts as to christianity not being a belief system, i suggest you read st. thomas aquinas and countless theologians whose system is based on aristotle.

Well, I never said that religion is perfect and pure as God. In fact, we agreed to separate religion and God (not that God should not be in religion, simply that religion is not perfect). But you are talking about the dark parts of religion ONLY. I never heard you saying how religion can change the individual and humanity and uplift their consciousness, nurture love, compassion, tolerance and good qualities, bring man closer to God, etc. Nothing like that. All you say is how religions are bad.

If we have to generalize then we have to take the most prevailing features. And what you are mentioning are in no way majority cases but minority perversions. With this logic I gave you a list of the crimes against humanity were religion had no role.

As to theology, it is not really religion. One could know theology very well by reading books but have zero faith. A typical Christian doesn't read theology and philosophy. He/she simply does the rites and rituals and has a perzonalized faith which is not thinking or philosophizing. Some religious people also read theology, but those are the minority. Therefore, in my view, when we have to generalize the minority should not be taken.

[Sasun]

what utter nonsense!

i am not branding anyone.

if there is any branding, it's history's doing.

you want us to ignore the past and deal with platonic abstractions.

sorry, friend. can't be done. every idea has a historic baggage.

The crimes of organized religions make headlines even in our own days.

the massacres of mulsims and hindus in india,

the suicidal terrorists killing innocent civilians in the middle east because the mullahs promise them 73 virgins in a fictional afterlife...

the pope getting involved in the bedrooms of mankind....

religion should be a private matter between a person and his god or vision of reality.

Like I said, the crimes of organized religions are ony a tiny little part of the overall crime of humanity. There were bad popes, there were/are also good popes. There are bad people, and also there are good people. What is the point?

[Sasun]

surely, to allow a criminal a free hand is also criminal.

especially when you have a means to stop him.

My thinking is Iraq war didn't start because Bush administration was concerned about Iraqi people or catching criminals. Let's see, more than 10000 people have died in Iraq, Saddam is yet to be caught. Have all criminals been caught in the US and UK? No. Have all criminals been caught in the world? No, some of the criminals are freinds of the US. So what is the deal? The deal is realpolitik, as simple as that.

 

A sticky murderer is holding civilian hostages and there is no way to catch him. He is killing the hostages one by one. What to do? Well, not stopping a criminal is crime also. Let's blow up the criminal with the hostages. That is the "moral" paradigm in Iraq as far as I can see.

[Sasun]

To identify Christ with a church, any church, is as misleading as identifying Marx with Stalinism. There are even those (like Dostoevsky and Kazantzakis) who have advanced the theory that if Christ were to appear again among us, he would be re-crucified by members of the Church hierarchy.

Sometimes I also think that way when I meet occassional fanatics. That is why I am a supporter of complete separation of religion and state (including all kinds of earthly powers and tax and other privileges of religions). Power is capable of currupting anything, including religious leadership. Had the church not had the power, the curruptable leaders would go away and be perhaps secular currupted people.

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, November 04, 2003

****************************

Sooner or later all wars come to an end

except the war against ignorance and stupidity.

*

Criticism makes invisible contradictions visible,

except of course to the blind leading the blind.

*

Christianity produced many saints and many more heretics

and some of the saints were burned at the stake as heretics.

*

Did Christianity play a positive role in our history?

No, according to Raffi. Christianity, he writes, has taught us subservience to tyranny.

But the same applies to Christians everywhere.

Hence Napoleon's celebrated dictum: "If it weren't for religion, the poor would butcher the rich."

*

Religion and hatred should be strangers to each other

and not Siamese twins.

*

On his own, a decent man will not kill another. Give him a religion or an ideology and he will consider killing his duty.

*

Any power structure or belief system that legitimizes the murder

of innocent civilians is evil.

*

All organized religions are minorities that divide mankind into factions, and anything that divides mankind is evil and the source of all conflict, war and massacre.

*

As a Catholic I was brought up to believe all non-Catholics were misguided fools at best and heretics destined to burn in eternal hellfire at worst.

*

Has religion improved mankind in any way? There is no evidence to suggest that people in AD are morally superior to people in BC.

*

Islam transformed an obscure desert tribe into warlike imperialists that conquered with fire and sword North Africa, part of Europe, the Middle East, and an important fraction of Asia -- from Armenia to India and Indonesia.

*

Organized religions are against individual freedom, hence their support of even the most tyrannical and bloodthirsty regimes in the history of mankind.

*

Christianity ushered in the Middle Ages, also known as the Dark Ages - a thousand years of intellectual and scientific paralysis. (For more on this subject, see Edward Gibbon's THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, and Arthur Koestler's THE SLEEPWALKERS).

*

By promoting a BIG LIE (my God is the only true God) organized religions legitimize intolerance and a false sense of moral superiority.

*

If others repeat their nonsense, why shouldn't I repeat my sense?

*

Why is it that to some Armenians Armenianism consists in knowing how to hate like a Turk?

*

To re-Ottomanize or to re-Stalinize is easier than to re-Armenianize perhaps because Armenianism is a distant memory, unlike Ottomanism and Stalinisn which are recent experiences.

*

When some of my readers want to insult me they call me a genius. If I have any genius it is in attracting false friends and faithful enemies.

*

The need to make friends sometimes blinds our judgment as surely as the need to fornicate.

[ara baliozian]

My thinking is Iraq war didn't start because Bush administration was concerned about Iraqi people or catching criminals. Let's see, more than 10000 people have died in Iraq, Saddam is yet to be caught. Have all criminals been caught in the US and UK? No. Have all criminals been caught in the world? No, some of the criminals are freinds of the US. So what is the deal? The deal is realpolitik, as simple as that.

it is obvious that you make more demands on politicians than religious leaders...i wonder why.....

[Sasun]

it is obvious that you make more demands on politicians than religious leaders...i wonder why.....

You are right. The reason is politicians affect our immediate lives, religious leaders generally do not affect our lives unless we choose. If a religious leader is corrupt that doesn't affect my life at all (or very little). If illegal activity is involved then it s matter of civilian justice. They have a moral responsibility to God and to their believers. It depends on the person, we are always free to leave a certain religion and choose another one or none.

 

In case of politicians, we elect them and should hold them responsible as they have promised (implicitly or explicitly). Their decisions immediately affect our lives. It is more than a moral responsibility, and certainly it is also a moral responsibility to not lie and deceive. And unlike religion we cannot leave them at will and choose another government. More so in a non-democracy.

[ara baliozian]

more than 10000 people have died in Iraq, Saddam is yet to be caught.

i have noticed that anti-americans count arab victims (those killed by americans) but they ignore arab victims killed by arabs themselves...and the fact that under a tyrannical regime everyone lives in terror....

 

i once read that even anastas mikoyan slept with a revolver under his pillow -- just in case they came to arrest him: he had decided to kill himself before they laid hands on him.....

[Sasun]

Let's also not forget that the same Saddam who butchered his own Arabs was supported by the US against Iran.