More From Norway
Our Correspondent in Norway writes back:
I obviously tried to hard to make a point, because it seems I have been somewhat misinterpreted here. I don’t mean we should ignore the terroists. By all means, fight them and drag them to justice (such as it is…)! The problem is that a lot of people, and unfortunately a lot of politicians among them, seem to think that that is all we have to do. And the point I tried to make, was that that is only half the job.
Your quote from Hussein Massawi was quite fetching! :) But it isn’t an official Hezbollah statement or opinion. Their charter today clearly states that their goal is to throw out what they call Israeli occupants and then peacefully introduce Islam. Wether this is what they actually do, and if the way the do it is the right one, and wether they are terrorists, is quite frankly another discussion. Hizbollah sees themselves as freedomfighters, and has, like the Israelis, attacked military and civilian targets alike. The Israelis has, after UN and US pressure negotiated with Hizbollah, and made some peace treaties with them. That these have been broken is as much on Israels head as it is on Hizollahs. But to place blame is also another discussion. And a pretty futile one at that.
As for the Iraqi-war being a battle in the war on terror; I’m sure we could argue this till the cows come home… Saddam was a killer on a grand scale, no doubt about that, and he’s hardly missed by anyone. But using his violations of U.N. resolutions as an excuse to attack Iraq is a bit like getting Al Capone for tax-dodging; sure it gets him out of the way, but it’s also streching a technicality for all it is worth. And then some. Also, I’m not sure if I understood you correctly here, but Iraq was hardly a stronghold for fundamental Islamists. Sure, Saddam was Muslim, but hardly fundamentalist. He played the religion-card for what it was worth to get support, but was largely despised by the more fundamental Muslim groups.
I quite agree, an Arabic democracy is a good idea! However, to invade a country used to be ruled by a dictator for 40 years (and for ages before that too) and then force democracy on them in a matter of months seems like a bad idea. As it has become painfully apparent in Iraq, sudden freedom for those not used to it very easily turns to anarchy or chaos.
And there are more obvious countries for democratic attempts than Iraq. Iran, for instance, has both elections and an oposition. True, neither is much more than a joke, but it’s at least a fundation to build on. Not strictly Arabic, but nonetheless important to the Arabic world are countries like Pakistan and Egypt, which both has a fundation on which to base a democracy. Perhaps even without use of force. There are several good alternatives to Iraq, and it’s easy to see alterior motives for going after Saddam...
But enough of this, work is calling!
mvh,
Øyvind
IT-HF
Hmmm -- well-thought out answers like this deserve a considered reply. I'm enjoying this citizen-to-citizen dialogue, isn't the web amazing! Stay tuned....
