jump to navigation

Leap of Faith: Chapters 15-16 September 15, 2006

Posted by Han in Leap of Faith by Queen Noor.

We are discussing chapters 15 and 16 here. Leave and check out comments below.


1. bethany3boys - September 18, 2006

I also thought it was intersting in chapter 15 about how she says that other Arab countries wanted confrontation with Iraq but they wanted America to fight the war for them. Earlier she talkes about how Saddam Hussein’s attack of words against Israel and Washington was seen by most of the Middle East as a bid for regional leadership not a genuine attack. I wonder if what we did stepping in was really the right thing to do or if we were just being used? What do you all think in light of what we are involved in now? Are we being used again?

2. Ashleigh - September 19, 2006

Whether we are being used or not, I personally believe we’ve done good in freeing the people of Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. He was murdering his own people and oppressing them. I think they were too afraid to stand up to them on their own.

Unfortunately, for the most part, the news likes to show us the bad that has resulted instead of the good. Why can’t they show us more of the thanks we’ve received rather than harp on our military and president?

I think in many ways Bush is looking forward and not be short-sighted. He’s fighting a war on terror that has received a lot of criticism because he sees that if it isn’t fought America will be the target of attacks in the future.

3. Karen - September 20, 2006

I agree that in the war on terror Bush is seeing a larger picture than most are interested in seeing. We want quick results. I find it interesting that she talks about the interest in oil as a reason Saddam was irritated. She fails to mention the mass genocide that we are uncovering, still today, on a daily basis. He is on trial for wiping out a village of 300 people. That is his “only crime.” Almost every day in Iraq we are uncovering mass gravesites of his own people form his tyranical regime. She even notes how unsettling it was to visit the area before the war and to hear his retoric about the West and Israel and to hear how he expected other Arab countries to follow his lead. He was hailed as a hero by most of the Arab world simply because he shot Scuds into Israel…well i guess they’ll follow anyone who comes against Israel…dictator, murderer, whatever. It is disheartening when I read how out of touch our government seems to be w/ the plight of innocents during war. I know her account is one sided but I must say that we do not seem to spend too much time trying to understand the point of view of others. We say we won’t negotiate w/ terrorists but is dialog the same as negotiation?

4. Nicole Baird - September 24, 2006

I agree with hearing the other side of the terrorists, or at least their moms, dads, families. Generally they are filled with hate because something has been done to them. What was that something? That is what we don’t get to hear very often. I also thought it was interesting the way she was concerned over Iraq’s brainwashing children, but then play Iraq as the victim of a misunderstanding and “group revenge” once the war begins. It’s a bit of a mismatch I think.

I though this quote was a bit of an eye opener about the Queen,

“This undercutting of King Hussein’s mission to achieve an Iraqi commitment on withdrawl would bring Western troops into the region and sow the seeds of radical Islamist terrorist attacks on the United States more than a decade later.” pg. 307, 3rd paragraph

What is she trying to say here? That we got what we deserved? This paragraph follows how she describes her husband convincing Saddam to recall his troups and how the Arab council wouldn’t listen. I found this comment disturbing in it’s cryptic criticism of the U.S.

5. Nicole Baird - September 24, 2006

I just finished chapter 15, I really found this chapter fascinating. Especially because I vividly remember this time in history and discussing it with my parents and watching the news. The other side is so interesting! ( I know I’ve said that like so many times, we all have, but its true!)

She certainly has a liberal/United Nations approach to war. It seems like in her mind war is never the answer. No matter what, never. And I do understand that she sees a more gory, more real, and more devastating side to what can happen. She’s picking up the pieces of her country with her husband, attemting to get refugees fed and clothed, getting her children out of the country. Wow! I know that I would feel differently if that were my lot as well. I though this quote was interesting:
pg. 322

“geographcally, only an ocean separates America and Europe, but thier attitudes toward the Middle East and the use of force to resolve differernces are hugely disaparate. Many Europeans equate ar with devastation and loss, not gain. This attitude is the natural outcome of two world ars on their soil and the arduous rebuilding after each, and it contrasted quite sharply with the prevailing American and Israeli view that armed confrontation and the civilian deaths and destruction of infrastructure that accompaned it were necessary evils in the exercise of national security aims.”

It seems fairly obvious that her faith is in the method of diplomacy. But does it work with dictators like Saddam Hussein? Isn’t that the question that conservatives and liberal have been debating for many years?

6. bethany3boys - September 24, 2006

I think a conflict with Hussein would have happened no matter what…it was just a matter of time (in terms of both wars we have been involved in…if not us someone else)

I was also thinking in that quote how yes having war on your soil definitly would give you a different perspective on War. I think about how vulnerable and scared I felt just after 9/11. And I wasn’t even in NY…of course I was in Virginia Beach then and the sound of the jets all taking off was pretty scary. But not seeing death on my doorstep makes war not as real to me or American’s in general I think. We don’t weigh the balance as much as someone that has to deal with that horrible reality.

Although her reason for having a diplomatic versus conflict reponse to national security…having war on your own turf and the devistation that causes ie. in Europe doesn’t really hold truth when you apply it everywere. I mean Israel deals with conflict and destruction on their turf all the time and yet normally they resort to conflict in order to protect themselves…kind of a first one that strikes wins attitude and really they would probably be eaten alive if they tried to just be diplomatic all the time. I am not saying I agree with war I just think war is a part of life unfortunately. And if things are really tense and no one is keeping their word after diplomacy it must be frustrating and I can see where countries rely on force to get a point across.

7. Nicole Baird - September 25, 2006

I agree. I think as long as there is sin in the world, war is a necessary use for countries. Especially like you were saying for Israel who would have been eaten alive if they had not a solid army willing to go to battle.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: