Bush was right!!!

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by vernon

He gave money to Palestinian "freedom fighters" , but in the Arab world they are seen as that, freedom fighters. In the pro Israeli world they are seen as terrorists. As is often the case, if one agrees with the cause the man is a freedom fighter, if one disagrees he's a terrorist.

I am very late on this thread but that is an example of moral relativism if I've ever seen. . .

No, Vernon, a terrorist is someone that TARGETS innocent civilians. A terrorist is someone who will kill anyone--men, women, or children--anywhere, anytime to further their political purposes. They do not wear uniforms and are outside the family of humanity. The Geneva convention does not, therefore, apply to them and they give no quarter to anyone they consider their foe.

They do not believe in the term "innocent". They are enveloped in radicalism, extremism, violence, and death.

As an Englishmen, I expect you are aware of the phrase, "Peace in our time". This is the phrase Neville Chamberlain shouted with glee upon his arrival in London after he made his NonAggression Pact with Hitler. History has shown that Chamberlain was absolutely wrong. Why?

Did he want peace? Yes. Did the English people want peace? Yes. Were the Germans willing to give it? No. Chamberlain fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the German threat. That is one of the major reasons why Hitler continued his aggression into Poland after the Czech invasion, and that is why WWII came and almost completely destroyed Europe. Had the democracies stood up to Hitler before Poland, one could make an argument that WWII may not have happened. This is an illustration of the importance of SPINE.

Churchill saved England because he had SPINE. He understood the nature of the threat and the nature of the enemy of his people, and he had the SPINE to lead his people against the enemy. This is exactly the situation we are in today.

Bush has SPINE and is leading our country against our enemies that would destroy us.

How dare you criticize the US in defending itself. You apparently do not read history and you seem unaware of reality.

When this is all over, and England is safe and Europe is safe and these psychopaths are destroyed, and you feel safe walking the streets of London without a concern for nuclear attack on Parliament, you can thank the United States--just like you did in 1945.

If you are unprepared to do so, you might as well be prepared to learn German--oops, I mean Arabic, now.

Let's keep everything in context and accept that difficult decisions must be made, now. That is what history teaches us. You, as a Englishman, ought to know that.

Do you recall from WWI history the rescue of Paris by the BEF? When London is in peril, do you suppose that Jacques Chirac will sail across the Channel and save England? Or, do you suppose that our boys from Chicago, New York, LA, Houston, and Boston will take up arms to defend you--as we have throughout the entire cold war? Read some WWI, WWII, and cold war history. . .

New subject:

The surrender by Libya of their nuclear weapons--which everyone was unaware of--is an indication both of the effectiveness of United States' policy and the desire of Arab countries to acquire WMD.

If you follow the news, you will know that today the murderous scumbags in Iraq singled out and attacked Christian churches and killed Christians. Why would they do this? The term "Jihad" has a REAL deep meaning for these people. The attacks on the churches tears the veil (pardon the pun) off the nature of this cataclysm that we are now involved in.

We in the U.S. and in Europe will continue to deny, until the next attack, that this "war' is a religious war.

 

[vernon]

Kendra the point I'm making is that it's sometimes impossible for a neutral to differentiate between the behaviour of one group labelled "freedom fighters" and one group labelled "terrorists" much of that definition depends on whether one supports their cause or not. Cases in point
1) The Taliban, when fighting the Russians were supported financially, tactically and militarilly by the US and the UK. Then they were freedom fighters. When they were harbouring Al Qaeeda and fighting against the West they have become terrorists. Same people, same actions, different targets different descriptions.
2) Saddam and his Ba'athist party, when fighting Iran (then the scourge of western democracies) they were supported financially, tactically and militarrily by the US and the UK. Then they were valued allies and we turned a blind eye to the murder and repression of their own society and to their funding of Palestinians. Now SH is in our bad books and not laying down infront of George Dubya they are a wicked terrorist and require us to lay waste to their country. WMD "real, imminant and present danger" has now been shown to be bogus ( Hell the only time he had the damn things were when we were giving him the technology !!!) so what are we left with? Murdering his own people ( didn't bother us before) supporting "terrorists" (didn't bother us before). Same people, same actions, shift in support, different discriptions.

The surrender by Libya of their nuclear weapons--which everyone was unaware of--is an indication both of the effectiveness of United States' policy and the desire of Arab countries to acquire WMD.

Discuss Iran's current posturing and move into continuing it's move towards gaining ( or expanding) it's nuclear capability. What this recent action has told the smaller countries is that if you give up your WMD like Saddam did you run the risk that unless you bow down to the West's military might you may be invaded. Whereas if like North Korea you keep them and make show of them you will not. IMHO it's not a salutary lesson for us to be teaching.

If you follow the news, you will know that today the murderous scumbags in Iraq singled out and attacked Christian churches and killed Christians. Why would they do this? The term "Jihad" has a REAL deep meaning for these people. The attacks on the churches tears the veil (pardon the pun) off the nature of this cataclysm that we are now involved in

This will be a bit of a shock to you, but I agree with you. What I don't agree with is your solution to the problem. Unless you're prepared to wipe out every single last Muslim a military solution will not work. Sooner or later we will have to come to a non military solution to the differences between Islam and the West. That is going to be much harder if we act in an illegal and immoral way. An unjustified invasion of Iraq, the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, the treatment of prisoners in Guatanamo bay do nothing to help us close the ground with moderate Muslims, for it is their hearts and minds that we should be working to open. We have to drive a wedge between moderate Islam and the extremeists, at the moment the wedge is being driven between us and moderate Islam.
Military might can be used when justified, as in the case of Afghanistan harbouring Al Qaeeda, but it must be used sparingly, when there is no question of our right to use it.

We in the U.S. and in Europe will continue to deny, until the next attack, that this "war' is a religious war.

I know this is a religious war, but the ignorance that permeates much of America over Islam and Arabic culture means that the response that plays best to the voting public is the one that leads us into a real, longterm and truly bloody Jihad. In the short term, it results in votes, in the long term it results in deaths. It is because I have a decent understanding of Arabic/Islamic mentality that I know we will never dominate Islam through military might. If we are to live side by side harmoniously with Islam ( and unless we are prepared to commit genocide on the Islamic world, a deed I do not think we are seriously prepared to commit) then we have to win over moderate Islam and show them they have a better future working with us as opposed to working with the radicals. It is the fight for the moderates that will decide if we have a peaceful future of an Orwellian like one. Constantly at war, largescale death an everyday occurance with all our time, effort, resourses being poured into a black hole of despair.

I've thought through the logical conclusions of rash actions. They lead us to

1) We kill all 1 billion or so Muslims in the world. Leaving aside the moral implications of such a choice, the logistics are a nightmare. Plus with many Muslim countries having some nuclear or WMD capability do you think they are going to wait for their time to come? I think not, it may not be Mutually Assured Destruction as in the days of the cold war, but it ain't far from it. The potential loss of life in America could be enormous. As a side interest, what happens to the somewhere between 3 and 7 million American muslims there are living in the USA. Do you round them up and place them in internment camps? Do you gas them like the Nazi's did the Jews? Because if you wipe out all the muslims outside the USA, they are going to know their time is coming. Will they wait peacefully like lambs before the slaughter or try to take down as much of American society as they can before being wiped out? My money's on the second.

2) We wipe out enough Muslims to "teach them a lesson". (It ain't going to work. Look at Isreal/Palestinian problem, if you leave any alive they will bide their time, build their strength and try to avenge the previous genocide)

3) Rebuild our relationship with moderate Muslims and try to build a future alongside of them. If we decide on this option, why make it more difficult by alienating them in the first place?

When this is all over, and England is safe and Europe is safe and these psychopaths are destroyed, and you feel safe walking the streets of London without a concern for nuclear attack on Parliament, you can thank the United States--just like you did in 1945

And this is exactly the point, is the attacking of Islam going to make the world a safer or more dangerous place. If and when it is justified (like Afghanistan) then it may well make it safer, if ( like Iraq) it is at worst unjustified or at best arguable than I believe it makes the world a more dangerous place.

The world has moved on from 1945 ( America only entered the war when it's own territories and forces were attacked, but that's a different debate. you have my undieing gratitude for defending, as ever, your own interests ), it doesn't require a huge army, or multiple weapons to cause huge distruction. A small faction can cause huge problems, but Americas actions will not eradicate those small factions, they will simply drive them underground hidden and protected by former moderate muslims who feel America is too beligerant and that it is America that wants this Jihad to come about. It is only by working within Islam that America can root out those hell bent of it's destruction. It will require some finesse, I accept that's never been a strong point in American foreign policy.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by vernon
(indeed there is no evidence that Iraq has ever been involved in any attack on American soil or interests), did not pose a threat to the USA and did not have WMD. HE was a threat to his neighbours I'll accept, he was not a threat to the USA.

IT WAS NOT SELF DEFENSE, IRAQ POSED NO THREAT TO THE USA.

I agree that in hindsight Iraq did not have WMD nor was he a threat to the US, however before the war everyone believed he did have WMD, and, Russian intelligence was telling the US that he was planning on attacking us by assisting terrorists.

 

[HollyJoy]

Of course he was. But my guess is that a lot of people will never admit they were wrong in doubting him. The debate will never end. I suppose the same people still think Clinton never had an affair with Monica, either.

 

[vernon]

Russian intelligence was telling the US that he was planning on attacking us by assisting terrorists.

Two points
1) Given the amount of money the American intel services spend, do you not have a right to feel you're being short changed? Where does it all go?

2) So our justification of going to war was because of what Russia told us, and they were wrong. Sorry but that doesn't wash, there is no bigger issue than committing the lives of your citizens, you have to be 100% sure you are right and in this case not only did the various administrations not check into their own intel thoroughly enough, they seem to have grasped every single possibility of SH's WMD and pushed it to it's absolute limit in order to find a justification. In the case of the UK govenment when the intel services put up reports that contained too many cautionary words and covenances on the intel they had the reports sent back to them and asked to redraft the reports in order to "toughen them up". These were not the acts of govenments and men that were looking at war reluctantly as the last possible option, it was the acts of people eager to find a reason to fight and when they couldn't get a concrete one, they took what they had and hoped they would get lucky. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they didn't get lucky and now we're scrabbling around desperately trying to justify the indefensable. JMHO.

 

[jrydberg]

I would vehemently disagree with the assertion that they hoped to "get lucky" and didn't. There was very little evidence to support any conclusion other than the one they came to. In hindsight, it's easy to say they were ignoring obvious signs. There were none. And we're talking about some of the most detailed and pored over intelligence in history. The fundamental problem being, there was precious little human intelligence.

Every indication was that Saddam had WMDs. Sure the governments tried to make the language of some reports sound stronger. But let's be clear... no one was arguing that Saddam did not have WMDs. The argument was over what to do about it.

Now if you want to look back and point out where mistakes were made in the hopes of avoiding that in the future, I'm all for it. But looking back now and claiming the US and UK governments were deliberately ignoring obvious clues is revisionist history.

 

[tinkerbeth]

Originally posted by Doug123
If you give a monkey a typewriter, he'll eventually write the great American novel too.

 

[susy]

If he didn't have WMD, he sure did a good job of pretending to ....why all the games?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by vernon
Kendra the point I'm making is that it's sometimes impossible for a neutral to differentiate between the behaviour of one group labelled "freedom fighters" and one group labelled "terrorists" much of that definition depends on whether one supports their cause or not.

No, terrorism is terrorism when it seeks out innocents. Sometimes, we have to make ugly decisions and choose the lesser of two evils. When we chose to support the Taliban, that was to inhibit the spread of communism. The world changes. What we had to support then, we supported to control/stop something believed to be worse. Once that threat ceases to be a threat, and another threat begins, we change our focus. Furthermore, you've said a couple of times, that we focused on our own self-interest. Yes, we did. That is what we expect our government to do.

Discuss Iran's current posturing and move into continuing it's move towards gaining ( or expanding) it's nuclear capability. What this recent action has told the smaller countries is that if you give up your WMD like Saddam did you run the risk that unless you bow down to the West's military might you may be invaded. Whereas if like North Korea you keep them and make show of them you will not. IMHO it's not a salutary lesson for us to be teaching. [/QUOTE]

The lesson of Libya is this: they were caught red-handed as a terrorist nation. You may recall the bombing of Pan Am 103 and Lockerbee trials. You recall the Libyan intelligence agents who did this deed and were convicted and are in jail. You may recall that most of the victims on the plane were Americans. Do you also recall the invasion of Libya, the overthrow of Ghadafi by the United States? No. Why? Because it didn't happen. So, your argument that the response of the United States to overt aggression is always invasion is fundamentally incorrect. The diplomatic victory of the United States--without invasion--over Libya resulted in their giving up nuclear weapons--which nobody knew they had. There is no other term to describe this event other than victory. And what is the result? The dictator remains in power, the people in Tripoli are unmolested by bombings and strafings and tanks, and they have reentered--at their own choice--the Family of Nations. The sanctions have been lifted, the investors have returned, and Libya can have a future again. The only lesson of Libya for the Arab world is: if you want to benefit the population of your country, if you want your economy to grow, if you want investment, if you want international respect, you turn away from militarism and reaction, and towards civilization.

Unless you're prepared to wipe out every single last Muslim a military solution will not work. Sooner or later we will have to come to a non military solution to the differences between Islam and the West. That is going to be much harder if we act in an illegal and immoral way. An unjustified invasion of Iraq, the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, the treatment of prisoners in Guatanamo bay do nothing to help us close the ground with moderate Muslims, for it is their hearts and minds that we should be working to open. We have to drive a wedge between moderate Islam and the extremeists, at the moment the wedge is being driven between us and moderate Islam.[/QUOTE]

I do not support nor have I ever hinted at genocide, which is what you are describing. History shows us that when political and diplomatic means are exhausted, and especially when attacked, military means become necessary. There is no need for genocide, to eliminate the so-called Arab Culture. There IS such a thing as military victory. Ask the Japanese. Ask the Germans. Ask the Italians. Or, ask the French about 1942.

You and your pals love to throw around the term "Moderate" Muslims. Unfortunately, the fringe element of Islam IS now the moderate component. Now, the extremists in Islam want an end to Jihad and no violence in a culture of compassion and openness. These people are considered fringe in the Arab world. From our perspective, i.e., civilization and the family of nations, the extremists are now the moderates. What is the proof of this? The proof is in the ABSOLUTE GLOBAL SILENCE of the Islamic leaders in the face of 9-11. There were no condemnations but one--long after 9-11. The leadership of Modern Islam is extreme. If they were not extreme, there would have been volumes of condemnation against the killers of 9-11. The silence of the religious leadership of Modern Islam is tacit approval. Nothing more and nothing less.


I know this is a religious war, but the ignorance that permeates much of America over Islam and Arabic culture means that the response that plays best to the voting public is the one that leads us into a real, longterm and truly bloody Jihad. In the short term, it results in votes, in the long term it results in deaths. It is because I have a decent understanding of Arabic/Islamic mentality that I know we will never dominate Islam through military might. If we are to live side by side harmoniously with Islam ( and unless we are prepared to commit genocide on the Islamic world, a deed I do not think we are seriously prepared to commit) then we have to win over moderate Islam and show them they have a better future working with us as opposed to working with the radicals. It is the fight for the moderates that will decide if we have a peaceful future of an Orwellian like one. Constantly at war, largescale death an everyday occurance with all our time, effort, resourses being poured into a black hole of despair.[/QUOTE]

Your slur against the supposed education level of Americans is neither accurate nor appreciated. You are in no position, as an Englishman in Europe, to comment about the education level of Americans. You may see, from this correspondence, that this particular American is fully aware of the issues at hand and the origins thereof.

You clearly do not have a decent understanding. Look to the history of Europe, look to the defeat of the Moorish invasion in the late 15th century as proof. A religious extremist movement can be defeated. Genocide is not an option. It is not on the table, it never has been put on the table. As to your point about working with our enemies, rather than against them militarily, won't you answer this question: How does one make an accord with an individual, a group, or a nation whose sole purpose is your own destruction? Any reasonable person would see and understand that in such cases, just like we are now, diplomacy without might, talk without force, is irrelevant and not respected.

If you are so desirous of avoiding an Orwellian future, consider a Europe overrun by Islam. Consider the Islamic Republic of England. Is this a country that you want to live in?

I've thought through the logical conclusions of rash actions. They lead us to

1) We kill all 1 billion or so Muslims in the world. Leaving aside the moral implications of such a choice, the logistics are a nightmare. Plus with many Muslim countries having some nuclear or WMD capability do you think they are going to wait for their time to come? I think not, it may not be Mutually Assured Destruction as in the days of the cold war, but it ain't far from it. The potential loss of life in America could be enormous. As a side interest, what happens to the somewhere between 3 and 7 million American muslims there are living in the USA. Do you round them up and place them in internment camps? Do you gas them like the Nazi's did the Jews? Because if you wipe out all the muslims outside the USA, they are going to know their time is coming. Will they wait peacefully like lambs before the slaughter or try to take down as much of American society as they can before being wiped out? My money's on the second.

2) We wipe out enough Muslims to "teach them a lesson". (It ain't going to work. Look at Isreal/Palestinian problem, if you leave any alive they will bide their time, build their strength and try to avenge the previous genocide)

3) Rebuild our relationship with moderate Muslims and try to build a future alongside of them. If we decide on this option, why make it more difficult by alienating them in the first place? [/QUOTE]

You have misunderstood the lessons of the Israeli-Palestinian war. The purpose of the Palestinian violence is to undermine Israeli society so that it may crumble. It hasn't. The "Palestinians'' goal (as if there really WERE such a thing as "Palestinians'--but that's another issue, for another time), publicly stated by their leadership, is the destruction of the State of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state from the West Bank to the Sea. Israel will not allow this to happen. You also may recall the Palestinians dancing in the streets, passing out candy, when Saddam fired chemical weapons into Tel Aviv. And, more recently, their celebrations in the West Bank and Gaza as the towers in New York fell. This is not just about the destruction of Israel. The Israeli-Palestinian war is just another theater in this global war that we are now engaging. This is such a profound shift in the way that the world is structured, that many people, including yourself, simply refuse to accept. Your refusal and inability to accept reality does not change that reality.

The world has moved on from 1945 ( America only entered the war when it's own territories and forces were attacked, but that's a different debate. you have my undieing gratitude for defending, as ever, your own interests ), it doesn't require a huge army, or multiple weapons to cause huge distruction. A small faction can cause huge problems, but Americas actions will not eradicate those small factions, they will simply drive them underground hidden and protected by former moderate muslims who feel America is too beligerant and that it is America that wants this Jihad to come about. It is only by working within Islam that America can root out those hell bent of it's destruction. It will require some finesse, I accept that's never been a strong point in American foreign policy.[/QUOTE]

Your statement about the world moving on since 1945 makes a very important point. The world moved on because the United States defeated Japan and Germany. there would be no England, no Western Europe, without the United States. The only way that the world could "move on" was because the U.S. fought against communist Russia in the cold war. Why do you suppose there are missile batteries, military bases, and naval forces all across Europe flying the American flag? It seems so vogue in Europe now to forget the sacrifice and contributions made by Americans to secure the freedom and continued existence of the democracies in Europe. You need to put what is happening now in context just as the cold war has a context, and the victory of England over Naziism has a context. The core of this context, despite your ambivilence, resentment,and inability to accept, is the sacrifice of American treasure and blood. You may resent us. But, if you know the truth, you know that your country exists NOW because of us. You ought not to be so fast in judging us, as we secure our own continued existence.

(indeed there is no evidence that Iraq has ever been involved in any attack on American soil or interests), did not pose a threat to the USA and did not have WMD. HE was a threat to his neighbours I'll accept, he was not a threat to the USA.

IT WAS NOT SELF DEFENSE, IRAQ POSED NO THREAT TO THE USA.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you put your argument against the United States led invasion of Iraq in a United Nations context, rather than an American context? Consider the multiple UN resolutions that Saddam defied. Consider his noncompliance with the UN arms inspectors. Consider the APPEARANCE of deception and if you wish, consider the brutal vicious nature of his rule. These are United Nations resolutions being discussed here, and they are the foundation of the war. The United States as the leading nation in the Security Council was the sword of the United Nations. And don't forget--the United States wasn't alone. There were approximately 25 other nations in the coalition which you liberal folks are so quick to forget. It's not just American blood which has been spilt in Iraq. Unless you want a one-world government led by the United Nations that has military power to enforce all of its edicts and resolutions--and, I don't think you do-- you should thank the United states military for freeing 50 million Iraqis.

One could also make a perfectly valid argument that the current war in Iraq is nothing more than a continuation of the first Gulf War in 1991. You may recall that that war did not end with a Peace Treaty. It only ended with a Cessation of Hostilities agreement. That agreement was predicated on certain conditions that were to be met by the Iraqi government. Many of those conditions were not met. The violation of just ONE of those agreements, on the part of the Iraqi government, as signed by them, would be grounds for the United States to renew hostilities against the government of Iraq. Everything I have said here is true. If you don't like it, it's simply too bad. Your criticism of our response to being attacked on 9-11 is forged in a prism of a leftist political view and is not based upon reality. Your agenda is clear. I'm just trying to tell you how things really are. You may choose to disagree or ignore what I have said as most of your compatriots in the EU have done.

 

[vernon]

But looking back now and claiming the US and UK governments were deliberately ignoring obvious clues is revisionist history.

I said so at the time , that wasn't being revisionist then and my argument is still that I can see no circumstance where a government would, should or could commit it's troops against an enemy it knows has WMD but doesn't know where EXACTLY where they are. The only circumstances you can commit against an enemy with WMD is if you can take out all/most of their WMD in a preemptive strike, but we did not have a clue about location ( because we know know they weren't there).

It leaves/left me with the conclusion our governments MUST have been sure there were no WMD, any other conclusion would require believing our governments were willing to have the lives of tens of thousands of our troops on their hands and I don't think anyone believes the situatuation warrented that type of heavy price.

Because of the increadably high price that would/could have been paid by our troops on the ground if Iraq had been able to deploy WMD either we knew where they were ( hindsight says that's a no) or we knew they didn't have them. I see no other acceptable conclusion other than Bush and Blair were prepared to potentially have slaughtered thousands of our troops. Those tactics went out in 1914-18 War ( I hope)

Susy Said

If he didn't have WMD, he sure did a good job of pretending to ....why all the games?

In order for Saddam to be "the big dog" in Middle East politics he needed his neighbours to believe he might have WMD. He was hoping to tread the tightrope of having the West be unsure enough that he didn't have them not to invade, and his neighbours to be unsure enough that it allowed him to use the bluff in local negotiations.
He fell off the tightrope.

 

[vernon]

Kendra said

No, terrorism is terrorism when it seeks out innocents. Sometimes, we have to make ugly decisions and choose the lesser of two evils. When we chose to support the Taliban, that was to inhibit the spread of communism. The world changes. What we had to support then, we supported to control/stop something believed to be worse. Once that threat ceases to be a threat, and another threat begins, we change our focus. Furthermore, you've said a couple of times, that we focused on our own self-interest. Yes, we did. That is what we expect our government to do.

So if terrorism seeks out innocents that you don't like, then that is acceptable to you, as long as it's in your own interests. I'm glad you've cleared that up for me. America has a long history of supporting, aiding and abetting terrorism both in terms of those opposing a government and also governemnts using terrorist tactics on their own people. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, the Taliban and the lack of motivation to cease the work of Noraid when it was funding the terrorist workings of the IRA. What was the political gain to the USA in allowing the American people to support terrorism in Ireland? Was it keeping Communism or Islam at bay? No it was about votes. It's a bit rich to wage war on Iraq for supporting Palestinians in their war with Israel when America has been such a big supporter and exporter of terrorism itself.

I do not support nor have I ever hinted at genocide, which is what you are describing. History shows us that when political and diplomatic means are exhausted, and especially when attacked, military means become necessary. There is no need for genocide, to eliminate the so-called Arab Culture. There IS such a thing as military victory. Ask the Japanese. Ask the Germans. Ask the Italians. Or, ask the French about 1942.

Japan, Germany and Italy were all involved in an expansionist policy, they were defeated and placed back in their own countries. They did wrong, they knew they did wrong and accepted their defeats. The difference is that the Arab world do not think they are the aggressors in this act, they believe America has invaded their lands and is involved in an expansionist, imperialistic drive to dominate Muslim lands. Whether I agree or not with their view point ( I do not) doesn't make it any less a strong feeling among Muslims. The invasion of Afghanistan would have been accepted, an invasion of Iraq after it's move into Kuwait would have been accepted, by invading Iraq when we did, trotting out a whole list of "reasons" that were later disproved does nothing to persuade people our interests in Iraq are pure and honest.
Japan, Germany and Italy did not feel their lands, lifestlye or religions were under threat. Muslims do. And unless you can understand that concept you will not be able to find a common ground with those you wish to negotiate with.

Your slur against the supposed education level of Americans is neither accurate nor appreciated. You are in no position, as an Englishman in Europe, to comment about the education level of Americans. You may see, from this correspondence, that this particular American is fully aware of the issues at hand and the origins thereof

I beg to differ, your posts show you have very little understanding of the problem .
It's not the education level of Americans that I have issue with, it's the huge slant on domestic history, geography, politics and religion that results in American students being very well versed on their domestic issues and know very little about the rest of the world. This domestic bias is also reflected in the newspapers and TV media. The combined effect of this education and media bias is that, through no fault of their own, most Americans are seriously lacking in their knowledge of the rest of the world.The low level of American passport holders and the lack of international travel would be another cause to that lack of knowledge. It's not a critisism, it's just the reality of the situation.

I know this because I would estimate I've visited America probably 30 times in the last 10 years. What do you base your knowledge of world events, education, populations,peoples and medias on?


With all your rantings on moderate and extremeist Islam have you ever lived in an Islamic country? Have you even visited one? Do you have any knowledge of them as people as opposed to reading about them as a shadowy group of dangerous madmen?
I have, I lived in Kuwait for 3 years and Bahrain for 6, having lived among the arab world has taught me a lot about their mentality, the strong points of their society and their weaknesses (of which there are many). What it has taught me more than anything is that they are very similar to us. They have hopes and desires for their families and that they want a better life for their children. We have more in common with them than we have differences, but what people like you don't see is that by example and education we can show the people on the street ( or in the suq ) that our way can be adapted to their unique situation to strengthen the weaknesses in their society without undermining their strengths.

Their extremists and zealots point to the areas where we undermine what's important to them and with ignorance and arrogance those in financial and political power in our society ignore those sensibilities and plough forward in an attempt to Westernise Islam. There are great possibilities to bring Islam and the west closer together, but not by confrontation, not by dictating and not by force. We have to show how our "way" can be adapted to comply with Islamic sensibilities and how it will benefit them. It hasn't been done in the past, and it isn't being done now. It's why there is so much lack of understanding in both directions.

As to your point about working with our enemies, rather than against them militarily, won't you answer this question: How does one make an accord with an individual, a group, or a nation whose sole purpose is your own destruction? Any reasonable person would see and understand that in such cases, just like we are now, diplomacy without might, talk without force, is irrelevant and not respected

There is a glaring ommission in your comment here. You miss out right or rightful, you make no mention of justice, of fairness. Yours is the argument of whose got the biggest stick, that doesn't create a lasting order, it just lasts until the guy you hit finds a knife or a gun.

Force without right, is not respected, it is despised, hated and remembered.
Might without Justice will not win people over to your point of view, they will just lie low until they have a might that can rival yours. Once they attain that might they will follow your lead and use it against you.

What is relevent if one is to work with another is justice, fairness and an ability to explain your actions, we have shown none of those qualities in our attack on Iraq, our treatment of their people, our actions in Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib and our "hearings" that find mistakes were made, but that no one was ultimately responsible.

As I've posted often, I had no problem with force in Afghanistan, it was justified. I had no problem with kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, we had right on our side. But with this current situation that right is not plain and easy to see. Our own societies are divided as to the rightiousness of our cause, we struggle to justify our actions and if we struggle to see the justice in our actions how do you think it looks to the other side?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by vernon
Kendra said So if terrorism seeks out innocents that you don't like, then that is acceptable to you, as long as it's in your own interests. I'm glad you've cleared that up for me. America has a long history of supporting, aiding and abetting terrorism both in terms of those opposing a government and also governemnts using terrorist tactics on their own people. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, the Taliban and the lack of motivation to cease the work of Noraid when it was funding the terrorist workings of the IRA. What was the political gain to the USA in allowing the American people to support terrorism in Ireland? Was it keeping Communism or Islam at bay? No it was about votes. It's a bit rich to wage war on Iraq for supporting Palestinians in their war with Israel when America has been such a big supporter and exporter of terrorism itself.
Japan, Germany and Italy were all involved in an expansionist policy, they were defeated and placed back in their own countries. They did wrong, they knew they did wrong and accepted their defeats. The difference is that the Arab world do not think they are the aggressors in this act, they believe America has invaded their lands and is involved in an expansionist, imperialistic drive to dominate Muslim lands. Whether I agree or not with their view point ( I do not) doesn't make it any less a strong feeling among Muslims. The invasion of Afghanistan would have been accepted, an invasion of Iraq after it's move into Kuwait would have been accepted, by invading Iraq when we did, trotting out a whole list of "reasons" that were later disproved does nothing to persuade people our interests in Iraq are pure and honest.
Japan, Germany and Italy did not feel their lands, lifestlye or religions were under threat. Muslims do. And unless you can understand that concept you will not be able to find a common ground with those you wish to negotiate with. I beg to differ, your posts show you have very little understanding of the problem .
It's not the education level of Americans that I have issue with, it's the huge slant on domestic history, geography, politics and religion that results in American students being very well versed on their domestic issues and know very little about the rest of the world. This domestic bias is also reflected in the newspapers and TV media. The combined effect of this education and media bias is that, through no fault of their own, most Americans are seriously lacking in their knowledge of the rest of the world.The low level of American passport holders and the lack of international travel would be another cause to that lack of knowledge. It's not a critisism, it's just the reality of the situation.

I know this because I would estimate I've visited America probably 30 times in the last 10 years. What do you base your knowledge of world events, education, populations,peoples and medias on?


With all your rantings on moderate and extremeist Islam have you ever lived in an Islamic country? Have you even visited one? Do you have any knowledge of them as people as opposed to reading about them as a shadowy group of dangerous madmen?
I have, I lived in Kuwait for 3 years and Bahrain for 6, having lived among the arab world has taught me a lot about their mentality, the strong points of their society and their weaknesses (of which there are many). What it has taught me more than anything is that they are very similar to us. They have hopes and desires for their families and that they want a better life for their children. We have more in common with them than we have differences, but what people like you don't see is that by example and education we can show the people on the street ( or in the suq ) that our way can be adapted to their unique situation to strengthen the weaknesses in their society without undermining their strengths.

Their extremists and zealots point to the areas where we undermine what's important to them and with ignorance and arrogance those in financial and political power in our society ignore those sensibilities and plough forward in an attempt to Westernise Islam. There are great possibilities to bring Islam and the west closer together, but not by confrontation, not by dictating and not by force. We have to show how our "way" can be adapted to comply with Islamic sensibilities and how it will benefit them. It hasn't been done in the past, and it isn't being done now. It's why there is so much lack of understanding in both directions. There is a glaring ommission in your comment here. You miss out right or rightful, you make no mention of justice, of fairness. Yours is the argument of whose got the biggest stick, that doesn't create a lasting order, it just lasts until the guy you hit finds a knife or a gun.

Force without right, is not respected, it is despised, hated and remembered.
Might without Justice will not win people over to your point of view, they will just lie low until they have a might that can rival yours. Once they attain that might they will follow your lead and use it against you.

What is relevent if one is to work with another is justice, fairness and an ability to explain your actions, we have shown none of those qualities in our attack on Iraq, our treatment of their people, our actions in Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib and our "hearings" that find mistakes were made, but that no one was ultimately responsible.

As I've posted often, I had no problem with force in Afghanistan, it was justified. I had no problem with kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, we had right on our side. But with this current situation that right is not plain and easy to see. Our own societies are divided as to the rightiousness of our cause, we struggle to justify our actions and if we struggle to see the justice in our actions how do you think it looks to the other side?

There is an incredibly high, high standard that people who don't like the United States hold the United States to. They expect no other country to meet these high impossible standards, except the United States. When the U.S. does not meet these standards, the criticism that is heaped upon it is endless/neverending. Some of the points you have made are accurate. But, despite your erudition, these points are not relevant to our discussion.

Your points about Germany, Italy, and Japan--and their defeat--are absurd and utterly inaccurate! The United States, on your behalf, destroyed ultraviolent, genocidal, vicious and cruel dictatorships in WWII. These dysfunctional societies, for our own safety, had to be destroyed. Only after WWII did the relativist criticism of the dropping of the atomic bomb begin in earnest. There was a context for that event, in which, the deaths of thousands of innocent Japanese were understandable, justifiable, and necessary. If you go to Japan, speak to the Japanese people; they will generally admit the same thing. The environment that led to the dropping of the bomb is similar in a very disturbing way to the environment in which we now live. Facing chemical and nuclear attacks at anytime in our country requires us to do whatever we have to do. If this offends the sensibilities of the European intelligensia or the Arab street, or the folks shopping in the suq, I care not a whit. Your opinion and theirs are absolutely irrelevant. For you to suggest that we base our national security policy on the opinions of our enemies, or the confused sensibilities of our so-called friends is essentially asking us to sign our own death-warrant.

We will not do it. And, you can continue to defend the murderers in the suq by characterizing them as rational, thoughtful players in an International game of Power Politics.

You have failed to see that the paradigm of WWII and Pan-European politics and the world stage as it was set before 9am EST on 9-11 are gone. Half the people on this board seem not to understand this truth. Our leadership is bound by constitutional oath to protect and preserve this nation. That is exactly what we are doing. And the opinion of our enemy is absolutely irrelevant. Do you actually think that the Arab world will "like" us "better" if we DON'T defend ourselves? And, if that is so--if you're correct--why is that even a valid point when their essential purpose in life is our death?

If you have actually lived in these Arab countries, you would know that a visit there by a Western woman traveling alone would most likely not result in happy crowds gleefully greeting me, but rather something a lot more unpleasant. As a woman, and as someone who understands Arab culture and politics, I have absolutely no desire or intention to visit an Arab country, because I know the kind of greeting I would recieve. Gee, if I were to have the opportunity to visit Saudi Arabia, for example, it would be a wonderful thing to drive about town to see the sights in my car. OOPS!! That won't happen because women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. And, if I make the silly mistake of leaving my hotel wearing my western clothing, the religious police with their truncheon, might have a lesson to give me on Saudi clothing ettiquette. So, while your suggestion to me to visit an Arab country appears reasonable, it is neither reasonable nor practical for me to do so.

I follow the Arab press very closely on the internet, I follow the silence from American mosques--only interrupted by announcements of terrorist arrests in those very same mosques--and I am far more aware of the current situation than you care to give me credit for. I have read Arab history, politics, religious commentary, etc. When their words are completely in opposition to what they do, it is time to stop listening and take action. That is what is happening now.

Apparently, your many visits to the States were wasted.

 

[vernon]

The United States, on your behalf, destroyed ultraviolent, genocidal, vicious and cruel dictatorships in WWII. These dysfunctional societies, for our own safety, had to be destroyed. Only after WWII did the relativist criticism of the dropping of the atomic bomb begin in earnest

I think you'll find Britain, Australia, India, France (well a few of them ) , Poland, Russia and quite a few other countries played a part as well. Or don't their dead count in your miopic history?
I fully support the use of the atomic bomb in Japan, it brought what would have been a bloody and protracted war to a very swift end. As previously stated I have no problem with force or might when it can be argued as justifiable, logical and warranted.

The environment that led to the dropping of the bomb is similar in a very disturbing way to the environment in which we now live.

Japan attacked you, Iraq did not. There is no similarity what so ever.

Facing chemical and nuclear attacks at anytime in our country requires us to do whatever we have to do

You do not and did not face chemical or nuclear attacks from Iraq.

Your opinion and theirs are absolutely irrelevant.

Not if you want to live alongside one another peacefully they are not. Your arrogance is truly staggering, your tunnel vision frightening. Take off your blinkers and realise the world doesn't stop and start at the American borders. What happens inside the USA effects the rest of the world. What happens outside the USA effects what happens inside it.

For you to suggest that we base our national security policy on the opinions of our enemies, or the confused sensibilities of our so-called friends is essentially asking us to sign our own death-warrant.

You don't base your NSP on their opinions, but you do listen to what it is you're doing that makes them frightened of you and why they are your enemies. If it is possible to allay their fears without compromising your defence or society is it not sensible to do so. If not turning them into friends and allies at least to take each of a war footing. Much of Arab resentment to the USA is due to ignorance on their behalf, but America and many Americans (as you have amply demonstrated) do little to consider their actions and how that impacts on another society.

I'll try to put it simply, you frighten them, you do things that they feel threaten their culture,they tell you so, you make it obvious you don't care that you frighten them and carry on with the same behaviour. When the do something (or threaten to do something) you're shocked and suprised. A little bit of understanding from both sides would go a long way, both are arrogant people unwilling to make the first move. Well someone's gotta make that step or we're going to end up a smoldering mess. The question is are you big enough to make the first move?

If you have actually lived in these Arab countries, you would know that a visit there by a Western woman traveling alone would most likely not result in happy crowds gleefully greeting me, but rather something a lot more unpleasant. As a woman, and as someone who understands Arab culture and politics, I have absolutely no desire or intention to visit an Arab country, because I know the kind of greeting I would recieve. Gee, if I were to have the opportunity to visit Saudi Arabia, for example, it would be a wonderful thing to drive about town to see the sights in my car. OOPS!! That won't happen because women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. And, if I make the silly mistake of leaving my hotel wearing my western clothing, the religious police with their truncheon, might have a lesson to give me on Saudi clothing ettiquette. So, while your suggestion to me to visit an Arab country appears reasonable, it is neither reasonable nor practical for me to do so.

As expected you've never even visited one of these countries.

While Saudi is well known in it's hostility towards foreigners, there are many Muslim countries where that is not the case. As you're so keen on researching muslim countries I'm suprised you're not better aquainted with Dubai in the UAE or Bahrain, considering how much time you claim to spend "following the Arab press". I would recommend either of these as an ideal place to explore an Islamic Arabian gulf country. Here's a couple of links (not that I expect you to bother learning about either country). http://www.dubaicityguide.com/essguides/tourist_info.asp
http://www.bahraintourism.com/subpage1.htm

Your comments on clothing underline your arrogant attitude of expecting a local population to bend to your sensibilities. If you're in their country, you abide by their traditions and dress codes, is the concept THAT hard? Topless bathing is a regular habit in Europe, but if a European were to make a silly mistake and let it all hang out on an American "family" beach the would run the risk of being arrested. Granted you wouldn't get a beating from a cane as you would in Saudi, but their country, their laws.

I have read Arab history, politics, religious commentary, etc.

Can I suggest you put your books down, get out into the world and experience it for yourself. Making up your own mind on situations, peoples and cultures. The opinions that you espouse are not your own making you are simply filtering and rehashing the opinions of others. Many of whom, like you, never bothered to get up off their butts to see what is really happening out there. Go and apply for a passport ( because I'm certain you don't own one) and see for yourself, stop relying on other people to tell you what to think. Travel with an open mind and have an honest original thought.

Apparently, your many visits to the States were wasted

Again I disagree, I have learned a lot about America and it's society. It's strong points ( of which there are many) and it's weaknesses. IMHO it's biggest weaknesses are it's collective inability to consider the results of it's actions on other people and it's blind faith that the other guy will chicken out first. If you're playing chicken with someone it's a good idea to know how much they have to lose. Because if it's very little to nothing, the chances are they ain't backing down. I think America and it's people have a whole lot to lose, it would be a shame if a major catastrophe were to befall it simply because you are not happy with being the dominant power in the world, but you want all other societies to get on their bended knee towards you.

There is an incredibly high, high standard that people who don't like the United States hold the United States to. They expect no other country to meet these high impossible standards, except the United States. When the U.S. does not meet these standards, the criticism that is heaped upon it is endless/neverending

You don't think that the people of America and those who like it (as I do) should hold the USA to a high standard? Do you think the government of the USA should be expected to behave in the same manner as tin pot dictators who bully and murder their way to power? You don't thik the governemnt of the USA should take into consideration how the USA was brought into existance, and that it should try to continue to work towards the hopes and ambitions of it's founding fathers?

America, with it's wealth, power and influence SHOULD be the country that leads the way, it SHOULD be the the benchmark by which all other countries aspire to reach. It SHOULD be the goal of all other populations to match it's ethics and political governance. It SHOULD show the world that a country that is built on freedom, democracy and justice can produce a population that is affluent, educated, contented and satisfied with it's lot.

YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I EXPECT A LOT OF THE USA, IMHO America should be the blueprint to our society of the future. Where we build a global society that, one day, will leave this planet and hopefully continue the growth of our species. America has that ability, but it also has the ability to turn into a malevolent bully. One that turns the rest of the world against it, building resentment and fostering a desire to destroy it.
A malevolent and bullying dominant power has ALWAYS been overthrown in history. America has the power, money and intellect to be a benevolent dominant power. The question is does it have the confidence in itself and the courage to do so? I hope so, even after this current debacle, I don't think it is too late for America to bring this around, but each repeated error will make it harder and harder to build a future where a symbiosis between West and East is achieved with a minimal bloodshed.

 

[Kendra17]

Vernon:
Thank you very much for your well-considered reply. Clearly we disagree on some core issues.

Your travel and wide experience in the Arab world notwithstanding, the truth of the matter is that the United States has been attacked by Islamic Fundamentalist murderers. Part of the policy of the United States government is to respond to those who attack us and make known our displeasure to those who harbor them. There is no question-- and debate is irrelevant-- that Iraq had, at one time, WMD. He used them in Iran, he used them on the Kurds, and he used low-tech weapons, bullets, on his own people as demonstrated in the mass graves. He defied UN resolutions. He shot at our planes in the no-fly zones. There also is strong evidence that Iraq and Al Quaeda are linked (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200407211107.asp). Iraq's harboring of Abu Nidal, who has done the world a great favor by dying, is more evidence Iraq supported anti-American terrorism.

For you, as a civilized person, to criticize the United States for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, a tyrant, and a killer, is indefensible and absurd. And, yes, we appreciate the assistance of the British military.

Your obvious education and articulate outline of your argument has, unfortunately for you, not completely masked your complete moral relativism. For you to say that Saudi religious goons assaulting a Western woman in western garb with truncheons is simply a matter of "their culture" and their business is an utterly morally bankrupt position.

The horror, apparently for you, my educated English friend, is the creeping suspicion, the horrible terror of knowing that some things in the world actually ARE black and white. The world is not just made up of shades of gray. Our enemies feel completely justified, according to their understanding of their God and the very specific and clear instructions of their holy book that killing the unbeliever is the best possible thing they can be doing. Guess what? The English are included in the unbeliever group! And why do you suppose there was a huge arrest in London just the other day of a vicious Islamic terrorist cell whose goal is YOUR destruction? We are in the same boat; the only difference is, I see it and you don't.

Your assertion that I ought to respect the belief system of my enemy because its so firmly held and such a core part of their culture is unacceptable because to accept that assertion is to accept my own country's demise.

You know history, you've read history. . .but, you haven't learned history. I mean no offense by this. The lessons of history clearly show that we are in the beginnings of a conflict of civilization. I can see it; you choose not to. I'll ask you again: How can one discuss anything with someone whose stated desire--backed up by actions, murders, and violence--is the death of my way of life and all that that means? This is the core subject. Look at the recent past. The Clinton administration took your approach, and we now see how bankrupt that was. Fanatics, reactionaries, and terrorists don't comprehend, nor care for, discussions. They only understand the way of the sword. They have characterized this discussion in this way. We will conclude it.

In closing, I very much appreciate your strongly held belief and replies to my posts with such care and clarity. Clearly, we disagree on almost every point. These matters at hand can sometimes result in the discussion passing the point of civility. Let's take this opportunity to agree to disagree while, at the same time, understanding the gravity of the current situation. I happen to support the current administration in choosing to defeat those who would like my death, rather than offering them a hookah, a coffee, and a chat.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you have well stated it. I appreciated the opportunity to have had this discussion with you.

Best regards,
Kendra

 

[AccidentalRepublican]

Some good points Vernon, but (in a close match) Kendra wins. Well worth staying up to read you two! Why can't everyone do this well?

I hope there are some over there who'll see this folly (after all, we are a lot more ubiquitous in the Islamic world post 9-11) and just leave it alone. Heck, if they give it half a chance, Iraq will work out. But Kendra's right, we have no choice but to succeed.

But of course, these Islamists are going to try to pull an attack right before our election so that we'll pull a Spain and withdraw. I just hope we have the guts to stick with it!!!!

Some further points: As far as I can tell, there is no 100% certainty with intel, unless the man you've got on the inside is making all the decisions. The farther your man is from the center of power, the more your intelligence assessment is speculative in nature. If you don't have someone close, your forced to go with something that's less than ideal. Hence our present situation. As far as I can tell, Bush would've been impeached (or voted out) by some of the same people who are damning him now if he hadn't taken the action he did, using the very same evidence. Your assertion of 100% intelligence accuracy is...naive at best, and less than intellectually honest at worst.

America is the ideal the rest of the world looks up to, as it should be. But we're fighting for our survival here. Read the above para again and give us a break!!! And keeping our ideals in mind, how do you propose we defend ourselves? Lock down, like a prison? Soviet-style internal passports? Don't venture outside, period? Forget the passports, the world's too dangerous anyway? Ain't gonna happen! The best defense is the world's best offense! And it may not be a traditional war, but I can still see the value in taking the initiative and bringing the fight to your enemy. If someone's going to die in this war, let it be our soldiers & mercenaries, their "martyrs" and their civilians in their land, rather than our civilians in our land. I am optimistic we can out-attrite anyone in this slugfest--but we don't have a choice, we have to.

Finally, a little perspective. We lost something like FIVE THOUSAND MARINES in a single day on Iwo Jima in WWII. One is too many in any war. Heck, one is too many in peace. For that matter, think of all the people who'll die at the hands of a drunk behind the wheel this coming Labor Day, or even this weekend! Talk about senseless! But like all the others, this war for survival was not one we chose to initiate (and don't talk to me who started what America-haters, because we all know you can 'chicken vs. egg' to death in geopolitics and world history). If anything else, think of all the freedoms you'd lose if we don't succeed. That's all that matters.

 

[vernon]

the truth of the matter is that the United States has been attacked by Islamic Fundamentalist murderers

Yes it was, it reacted correctly in invading Afghanistan that was harbouring Al Qaeeda. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, the government were not harbouring Al Qaeeda, although it is likely Al Qaeeda members were operating with ANTI Saddam forces in Nothern Iraq (against SH). You can't fight a billion people, if you're going to take pot shots at parts of their society you must make sure they are guilty of crimes against you.

For you to say that Saudi religious goons assaulting a Western woman in western garb with truncheons is simply a matter of "their culture" and their business is an utterly morally bankrupt position.

I can imagine the reaction of the American law enforcement services should a foreign body decide to air hard core porn onto a bandwidth picked up by any American child's TV. America wouldn't stand for another culture trying to dictate it's own morals on American society, so why should the Saudis? While their punishments are harsh to our eyes, they have right to defend their laws and customs in the way they deem fit. Everyone entering Saudi is aware of that situation and enters the country knowing that. By tacit agreement they are accepting the laws, customs and punishments of the society they enter at their own free will. Ignorance of those laws is not a defence, it is WELL publicised and all foreign workers entering Saudi know these facts. Forgetfulness... Well I'd love to see how far that defence gets you in an American courtroom. I'm sorry I killed that family you're honour, I forgot it was a crime in the USA to drink a bottle of vodka and drive home. Yeah right .


Kenda some time ago you said that you didn't support a genocidal answer to this coming confrontation. So I'm asuming that you agree at some stage Islam and the West will have to make peace with one another. Is it your contention that this peace must be completely on the terms laid down by the USA and that "they" must see things our way? Because I can assure you, that is never going to happen.
We may have temporary military victories, but that will only harden the resolve of those we leave alive. For each person we kill in combat, we will likely leave brothers, sisters,sons,daughters, wives and cousins. The Arab/Islamic mentality is not to "forgive and forget" it is revenge, feud and a gateway to paradise. Force when ABSOLUTELY necessary would be accepted (grudgingly granted) Indiscriminate use of force will not and will only make it harder to find a common ground in the future. UNLESS you are prepared to go down the genocide route, an option that you have already disposed of, at some stage we have to make a peace, the more Muslim deaths we cause, the harder that peace will be to achieve.

You know history, you've read history. . .but, you haven't learned history. I mean no offense by this. The lessons of history clearly show that we are in the beginnings of a conflict of civilization. I can see it; you choose not to

I can see it, the difference is that I'd rather avoid Armageddon than embrace it. You've read your history, name once when a race or religion has been militarily dominated and bullied by a overwhelming force (and not had it's population reduced to zero) when that population hasn't eventually risen up and defeated it's oppressors. Ancient Rome tried it on the Christians, Christianity now has it's focal point in Rome. Britain trying dominate the it's colony America. Britain in South Africa, Apartheid in South Africa and Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. The continual fighting between India and Pakistan, Hutu's and Tutsi's in Rwanda and Burundi. The animosity between Japan and Korea, Between Japan and China. All these teach us that military might will not break the resistance of a weaker militarily society.
People do not back down for ever just because you have a bigger stick than they do. They just keep quiet and make a trip to the forest to find a better stick for themselves.

How can one discuss anything with someone whose stated desire--backed up by actions, murders, and violence--is the death of my way of life and all that that means? This is the core subject.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself "why ?" .
Why are Muslims so opposed to the USA in particular?
What do we do that causes this fear and loathing in them?
Can we change the way we do things so we don't give them such cause for alarm?

In all the years you've studied and looked at Islam and Islamic culture, have you ever tried to look at the situation through their eyes? To see what they see, and how you could improve the situation?

You should be better educated on the subject than most Americans, yet you seem unable to have any understanding of the people you try to study. Why is that? It is never the case in inter human relations, be it a messy divorce between partners, a gang fight, or a war between nations were one party couldn't have done something to avert the worst of the bloodshed.

Here are some clues, maybe you can come up with the answers.

We the West are far superior in technology, education, wealth and influence. Our media (TV, radio and Films) impinge upon, effect and alter their society, whether that's through State permitted routes or "black market". Some parts of their society (mostly young) welcome western influences others (midldle aged and older ) fear the changes that will bring. Their family ties and support are much stronger than ours. It is expected for the young to take care of the older members of the family much more than in our more "my generation" society. They fear that our influence will weaken those family ties and leave that older generation with no support network. We have to show them our way of life doesn't have to destroy theirs. It can be molded into something that creates the best of both.

Where Muslims feel they have a superiority over the West is in their faith and their devotion to their God. It has long been my feeling that religion survives best and strongest in societies that have little else to sustain them. When all you have is hope, then hope is going to be a pretty strong driving force. By trying to beat down Islam, you are in effect playing into the hands of the religious zealots. If you leave a man with no reason to live, you give him plenty of reasons to die, you make his faith in his religion stronger (it's all he has left) , this is particularly dangerous when many of those orchestrating that faith are whispering in his ear that his way to a better life, guaranteed entrance to paradise for him and all his loved ones is to die in the cause of Jihad taking as many of us with him as possible.

If we leave Islamic society with little hope and an even harder future than they previously faced we're not protecting our future, we are damning it. Muslims feel they have the moral fortitude to deal with a hard life much better than an America population they see as spoilt and soft both mentaly and physically ( I think they underestimate the Wests abilities in this matter, but given the way we portray our society in movies and TV, I can see why they feel this way). They think if they can drag us down to their level of economic survival they will be the stronger of the two. What we have to show to them is how we can help them attain the level of growth, comfort and stability in their society that will make for a more prosperous future for them and a quieter one for us.

Deep down most Muslims believe if Armageddon comes, their society can survive it and ours can't. Without hope for a better future for them they have nothing to lose. We believe we can't lose. At least one of the societies is wrong and maybe both.

I look at it like two warriors tied together by a long rope. We're on opposite sides of a ravine, if we pull the other guy off his side we might be able to untie ourself before his weight pulls us down as well. We are by far the stronger, so we're sure to win. The other guy, knows he's the weaker, he has no chance to win, he could however throw himself off the cliff, causing us to fall over and removing the chance of us having time to untie the rope. A draw is as good as it gets for him.

So do we pull or do we offer both sides to untie the knots?
-----------------------------------------


Accidental republican said

we have no choice but to succeed.

I agree, but succeed at what? Building a sustainable future or stalling the next world war.

But like all the others, this war for survival was not one we chose to initiate

But now you're in it, are you prepared to listen to the complaints of the other side and take the time to explain to them where they've got it wrong. The biggest complaint from Muslims is the lack of approachability of America's government and people to their
grievences. The unwillingness to explain America's reasons for doing things is at the root cause of the percieved arrogance, without another reason for things the peoples of the middle East are swayed by the rabble rousers in their mosques as to the aims and ambitions of America. America has created a vacuum by it's feeling that it doesn't have to justify it's actions and vacuums have a habit of being filled. The zealots, rabble rousers and war mongerers of Islam are more than happy to fill the void with their messages of fear, hate and warning. If America were to take the time to listen to Islam's fears and to make some very small adjustments in their posturing and way of doing things it would be a very major step in allowing a two way dialogue to start.

Islam is wrong about the ambitions and goals of America IMHO
, it's frustrations and anger at the way it's voiced concerns are ignored and the contempt with which they treated however do have some justification. Remove the frustration and anger, you have a chance at reducing the chances of a second 9-11 or worse. Let the resentment live, fester and breed you may temporarily subdue Islam militarily, but it will cost a lot more American lives and MANY MANY more worldwide.

 

[Kendra17]

Thank you, AccidentalRepublican!!!!!! I loved your first-ever post. . .you were right on!

Vernon:
I will try to make this quick. Thank you for your reply. One of the points that you made was that a defeated people will never accept defeat, but will bide their time and regroup--until they can attack the victor--thus creating an endless cycle of neverending conflict.

Well, in your world of theory, this makes sense. In the world of history and reality, this has been shown to be patently false. There is such a thing as "victory". There is such a thing to an end to a war. There is such a thing as a defeated population accepting the truth of their defeat, and going forward with their lives not in conflict with the victors.

If your argument were true, we would still be fighting the Germans, the Japanese, and, of course, the British, on account of your invasion and burning of Washington in 1812.

Proofs of my argument are as follows:

The peaceful status of a united Germany; the peaceful status of democratic Japan; the unmolested status of your Island of Avalon; the reintegration of the Confederate States after the United States Civil War. There are many more.

As I've said before in previous posts, you clearly know history, but you also clearly refuse to learn its lessons.

This is not a criticism of you; it's a common problem. You also express doubt that the United States could dictate a peace to the Arab peoples. However, we did that to the Japanese, the Italians, the Germans, and the British. . .and we will do exactly the same to the militant lunatics currently seeking our destruction.

You will probably be aware from your self-asserted extensive knowledge of history that the victor always dictates the peace. The shrillness of the left liberal argument is not a substitute for a validity. Clearly, you are beyond convincing on any of these subjects and, while this banter has been semi-interesting, it clearly is a waste of my time and my computing resources. I have spent too many hours trying to illuminate the truth of the world in which we live for you. I have been unsuccessful--through no fault of my own.

I mean no insult by this, as ignoring the facts, excessive shrillness, ad hominem attacks, an excessive reliance on fantasy, and a rejection--outright--of the painful truth of the world, is the classic approach of the left.

Fundamentally, you and your colleagues on the left--for some reason--refuse to accept that the events of September 11 has changed the world. My argument is a post-9-11 argument. Your arguments are based in a world somewhere around 1993.

I would like to reiterate my point about Arab extremism couched by the veil of nation-based respectibility. Foreknowledge of cruel, sexist, mysogynist, and extreme "laws" in the Arab world, does not make those laws just. You say you hold the United States to a higher standard. That is because our constitution is based upon the notion of inherent justice in law. Knowing about cruel and savage Muslim law, doesn't make it any less cruel or injust. I suppose you would make the argument that Saddam's laws, which justified everything that Saddam and his two dirtball sons did, were just. . .so long as they were known in advance. Your arguments aren't historically based or morally defensible.

Why do you suppose the German people preferred to surrender to the United States troops rather than any other allied soldiers? Because they knew they would be treated fairly. Look at the foundation of the apparent Arabist and Islamophile behavior of our so-called "Allies" of Europe. Look at the recent past, won't you, Vernon? Why do you think the Arabist, Islamophile governent of France recently banned public display of religious clothing--specifically targeting the Islamic headscarf in schools? This is the very first shot in a forthcoming desperate European struggle against an entrenched fifth column. Certainly, a domestic enemy who wants your death is much more worrisome than an enemy that wants your death 3,000 miles away in the Middle East. Through excessive liberal immigration policies over the last 20 years, the Western democracies have helped to create an Islamic fifth column. France, Germany, and England are absolutely terrified of what this could mean. We here in the United States have the same fear and the same problem. However, our responses have been completely different.

Europe has been terrified into inaction, while the U.S. actively seeks out its enemies abroad and prefers to fight on the enemies' streets rather than our own. The recent arrest in London of 15 Al Quaeda terrorists is proof of my argument that Europe has been infiltrated. As someone who understands history, you will know that no events happen in a vacuum. Your implication that the U.S., through its interaction with Arab countries, somehow brought about and, perhaps in your mind deservedly so, the 9/11 murders, is obscene.

To be a member of the Family of Nations and the Family of Humanity, a State has mechanisms through which it can lodge complaints against other countries--either directly or indirectly. Killing innocents on aircraft and office towers is not one of those mechanisms. For you to defend this so-called culture that supports the notion that killling innocents is justifiable and rewarded with 72 virgins is beyond comprehension. I understand the nature of Arab States, the Islamic religion, and Arab "culture". Believe it or not, we do want to live peacefully with these people. However, in this time, and this environment of ongoing threat and continuing evidence of designs of attacks against us, this is not possible. That is why we have our military in action.

The United States is in Iraq for many reasons beyond the threat of WMD, which every reasonable leader in every Western democracy acknowledged--even Bill Clinton, even John Kerry. But, similar to Nazi Germany and WWII Japan, these are dysfunctional societies that must be changed for everyone's security. The continued status quo in the Arab world does not benefit the Arab people, who you claim to know so well. The only people who benefit are the corrupt leaders and their sycophants.

Arafat, Assad, King Abdullah, Ghadafi, and all their cronies, want a continued status quo. The status quo benefits them and not their people.

The only Arab country whose people live comfortably are the Kuwaitis. And, why is that? Because they have a universal dole built upon their oil revenues that can only exist because of foreign workers like yourself.

Our efforts with British cooperation and support from many other countries in Iraq, is a very risky, very expensive effort to alter, for the better, these dysfunctional societies. It's in the best interest of the entire world that the Arab people be empowered through democracy, and their corrupt murderous leaders removed.

Consider a scenario in which a lunatic regime like Iran acquires nuclear weapons. This is a nightmare. Unfortunately, we are already in that nightmare because Bill Clinton didn't have the spine to take action against N. Korea before they finished their nuclear development projects. As we are in a position to take action, and prevent lunatics from acquiring nuclear weapons in the Middle East, that is exactly what we are doing.

The stakes in the current situation are existential. You don't understand the concept. the only country in the world that has experience with this level of threat on a daily basis up to this point, is Israel. And, if they are the model on how to interact with those who wish to kill them, which they are, you would know that there is a combination of violence and discussion, not just the one or the other. So, we have a two-pronged approach, just as you suggest in an earlier post. There is not just warfare, there is also diplomacy and discussion. Libya's surrender of their nuclear weapons is evidence of this.

Really, Vernon, perhaps you ought to see things as they truly are, and not how you would prefer them to be. That, I think, is the approach that separates us in our viewpoints. I see the world and my foes as they are, and take action accordingly or support those who are defending me, and you heap criticism and derision, yet give the criminals and murderers the benefit of the doubt of being the aggrieved party. I believe that the coming events of the future will bear me out and not you.

I wasn't able to make this as quick as I had hoped but, in conclusion, I appreciate your response and your continued interest in this debate.

 

[Loftus]

Vernon and Kendra, this has been a fascinating discussion and it is refreshing to see people with differing opinions conduct their debate in such a civil fashion.

I supported the war in Iraq because I believed that Saddam possessed WMD. Along with so many others I bought the bluff. Because, with hindsight, I believe I bought a lie does not invalidate what I previously thought. The actions of the time can only be judged by the information at the time.

What I did not believe, then or now, is that Saddam was linked to Al Qaida and therefore to 9/11. This is where I have a real problems with parts of Kendra's arguments.

She says:-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through excessive liberal immigration policies over the last 20 years, the Western democracies have helped to create an Islamic fifth column. France, Germany, and England are absolutely terrified of what this could mean. We here in the United States have the same fear and the same problem. However, our responses have been completely different.

Europe has been terrified into inaction, while the U.S. actively seeks out its enemies abroad and prefers to fight on the enemies' streets rather than our own.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Qaida has no state and no streets within a state to fight it on. The war in Iraq is not disabling Al Qaida, it strengthens it. It produces volunteers, sympathisers and funds. How does battling a radical Shi'ite cleric - the sect that was supposed to come out with open arms to welcome our troops as liberators - and his followers prevent an Al Qaida cell in the US, the UK, Spain or Turkey from carrying out a murderous act. To extend your logic we must take the fight on into Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and, with the evidence of the recent arrests, the UK.

The coalition believes it is working in Iraq to make the country a better place for the Iraqi people. It believes that the establishment of a democratic government and the, eventual, withdrawal of foreign forces will remove the need for violent uprising and lead to a stable society. But Iraqi society is formed from disparate, radically opposing forces. Wasn't this the reason why President Bush senior and his government left Saddam in power at the end of Gulf War 1? The fear that his removal would lead to the fracturing of Iraqi society and provide an opening for Islamic fundamentalism.

I wish I could give a solution. In Iraq I can only think that we have to stay as long as it takes for a seedbed of democracy to root and grow - which could be a very long time. During that time Iraq will remain a magnet for the forces which oppose the West, it ways and beliefs, and hates with a passion the idea of arab land being occupied by infidels. With respect to Al Qaida I suspect we must trust our intelligence services to provide the information that enables our security forces to neutralise threats before they come to fruition.

 

[Kendra17]

loftus,
There actually IS an established link between Al Quaeda and Iraq. Stephen Hayes' book, The Connection, goes through it point by point. I have recommended this on other threads. However, I just found this article which excerpts some of the points Hayes makes. http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200407211107.asp

However, this does not change the fact that we thought--everyone thought--that Iraq had WMD, Iraq was uncooperative, that Iraq was in violation of many UN resolutions, that Iraq shot at our planes in the no-fly zones CONSTANTLY. That the first Gulf War had not ended with a peace treaty--it had ended with a Cessation of Hostilities agreement that Saddam was bound to follow. Even ONE violation gave the United States reason to continue the "war".

From the link above:
According to the Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." (Page 114.)

In what the CIA nicknamed "Operation Dogmeat," two Iraqi students who lived in the Philippines tried to demolish U.S. Information Service headquarters in Manila. Iraqi diplomat Muwufak al Ani met with the bombers five times before the attack. His car even took them near their target on January 19, 1991. Their bomb exploded prematurely, killing Ahmed J. Ahmed, but his accomplice, Abdul Kadham Saad, survived and was whisked to a Manila hospital. Saad, carrying documents bearing two distinct identities, asked staffers to alert the Iraqi embassy, then recited its phone number. (Page 39.)

Around this time, according to former high-level CIA counterterrorist Stanley Bedlington, Hussein paired Iraqi intelligence operatives with members of the Arab Liberation Front to execute attacks. "The Iraqis had given them all passports," he said, "but they were all in numerical sequence." These tell-tale passport numbers helped friendly governments nab these terror teams. (Page 41.)

President George Herbert Walker Bush ignored information that Hussein "was offering state payment to terrorists," then-Senator Al Gore (D., Tennessee) declared on October 15, 1992. Gore also listed more than a dozen examples of Iraq-sponsored terrorism and said "an estimated 1,400 terrorists were operating openly out of Iraq." (Page 41.)

"In 1992, elements of al Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein," Abu Aman Amaleeki, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, said on ABC's Nightline on September 26, 2002. Speaking from a Kurdish prison, he added: "And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri," bin Laden's chief deputy. "I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad." (Page 43.)

Former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi, reports a reliable foreign spy agency, supplied blank Yemeni passports to al Qaeda in 1992. (Page 66.)

Mohammed Salameh, a 1993 World Trade Center attacker, called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Salameh's June 1992 phone bill totaled $1,401, which prompted his disconnection for non-payment. After the blast — which killed six individuals and injured 1,042 — Yasin fled to Baghdad, where records and multiple press accounts show he received safe haven and Baathist cash. (Pages 11 and 50.)

Based on a 20-page IIS document discovered in Baghdad, the Defense Intelligence Agency reports that "Alleged conspirators employed by IIS are wanted in connection with the [June 25, 1996] Khobar Towers bombing and the assassination attempt in 1993 of former President Bush." (Page 180.)

In an October 27, 2003 memo, Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith explained Hussein's bonus pay for terrorists: "Iraq increased support to Palestinian groups after major terrorist attacks and...the change in Iraqi relations with al Qaeda after the [1998 east African] embassy bombings followed this pattern." A top Philippine terrorist also said Iraq's payments to the al Qaeda-tied Abu Sayyaf grew after successful assaults. (Page 120.)

ABC News reported on January 14, 1999, that it "has learned that in December [1998] an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden."

Hijazi "went to Afghanistan in December with the knowledge of the Taliban and met with Osama bin Laden," former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro told National Public Radio's Mike Shuster on February 18, 1999. "It's known through a variety of intelligence reports that the U.S. has, but it's also known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place." (Page 124.)

On January 5, 2000, Malaysian intelligence photographed September 11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar being escorted through Kuala Lumpur's airport by VIP facilitator Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi recommended to Malaysian Airlines by Baghdad's embassy there. The pair soon were photographed again at al Qaeda's three-day planning summit for the October 2000 U.S.S. Cole and 9/11 attacks. Three separate documents recently unearthed in Iraq identify an Ahmed Hikmat Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in Uday Hussein's elite Saddam Fedayeen. (Page 4)

Memo to communications-addled White House: Release these photos!

Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani is the former Iraqi diplomat suspected of meeting September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta in Prague on April 8, 2001, and possibly June 2, 2000, the day before Atta flew from Prague to Newark, New Jersey. Top secret Pentagon records cite a Czech intelligence report that al Ani "ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." During the summer of 2000, $99,455 was wired from financial institutions in the United Arab Emirates to Atta's Sun Trust bank account in Florida.(Page 129.)

After evacuating an al Qaeda training camp he ran in Afghanistan as U.S. troops approached, Ansar al-Islam founder Abu Musab al Zarqawi eventually had his leg amputated and replaced with a prosthesis around late May 2002. He was treated in Baghdad's Olympic Hospital, an elite facility whose director was the late Uday Hussein, son of the deposed tyrant. Zarqawi is implicated in ongoing attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and is believed to have sawed off American businessman Nick Berg's head. (Page 167.)

U.S troops inspecting an al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Islam camp in Iraq discovered, Hayes reports, "several hundred passports belonging to suspected Ansar and al Qaeda fighters, dozens of them bearing visas issued by the Iraqi regime." A passport found on one dead terrorist listed his visit's purpose as "jihad." (Page 172.)


You said," To extend your logic we must take the fight on into Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and, with the evidence of the recent arrests, the UK."

If they are linked to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, we may have to take the fight into Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Anybody who SUPPORTS terror are in our country's crosshairs. If they do not stop supporting people who kill Americans, then you are correct. . .going next to Syria, Iran, Sudan, etc. The choice is THEIRS--either these governments put a stop to the terrorists that find haven within their countries, or we will.

 

[vernon]

Thanks for keeping it short

One of the points that you made was that a defeated people will never accept defeat, but will bide their time and regroup

Not defeated, but attacked, oppressed and occupied. There is a difference. Germany, Japan and Italy were all aggressors in WWII, their population knew they asked for what they received. Iraq has not attacked the USA, did not possess the ability to attack the USA.

Fundamentally, you and your colleagues on the left--

My politics are not even central let alone "left". It is possible to be basically right politically and not believe that war is always the answer, just as it is possible to be a left wing government, like Russia for example, and believe that you can bomb your way to victory. Political leaning is no guide or limit to warmongering, nor does it mean people at either end of the spectrum can not advocate a peaceful answer to a problem in preference to exchanging the life of our soldiers. Kendra, you're obviously proud to be "right wing" given the choice would you prefer a bloodless solution or one that loses thousands of our troops? The difference between you and I is that I can see a solution that minimises bloodloss.

The recent arrest in London of 15 Al Quaeda terrorists is proof of my argument that Europe has been infiltrated

Better get your pre-emptive strike in quickly then. By the way of those 15 Al Qaeeda terrorists 2 have been released without charge. 2 have had terrorist charges dropped and have been arrested on false passport charges, 1 is being held on terrorist charges but it is believed they are exploring the possibility of extraditing him to the US as our authorities don't thik the evidence is strong enough to pass UK courts ( apparantly Y'all are a little less fussy) , 1 I don't know about and the remaining 9 are still being questioned and the police have until tonight to charge them or release them. Of the 500 or so arrests made in the UK under anti terrorism laws since 9-11 there have been less than 100 charges been filed and of those less than 10 have been found guilty of any wrong doing, although the government won't give the figures as to which of those 10 are on antiterrorist charges and which are on charges like the false passports in this recent group. There's a lot of noise been made about all the arrests ( IMHO to show the government has it's "finger on the pulse") although there is very little noise made about how many of those arrested are freed with no charges being made. One could make the argument that the low level of charges and convictions shows how little "terrorist" planing is going on, but people like you that read the headlines, but not the underlying facts prefer to see terrorists on every street corner that the government has to arrest.

Kenda you're quuick to look at possible targets to "teach a lesson", but you declined to answer my question. Care to take a pop at it?

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself "why ?" . Why are Muslims so opposed to the USA in particular?
What do we do that causes this fear and loathing in them?
Can we change the way we do things so we don't give them such cause for alarm

---------------------------------------

Stephen Hayes book ( or those extracts seem to) rely heavily on the the testimony of arrested (phillipino) terrorists, Iraqi dissidents and fallen from grace Saddam henchmen. All of these have a vested interest in telling their audience what they want to hear. He cherry picks extracts from intel, but like the discredited reports issued prior to invading Iraq he ignores the caveates and warnings that were in the intel before the political masters requested it be rewritten. The 9-11 commission in the USA and the Butler report in the UK ( both independent and not trying to sell their wares) looked at all that evidence, because Hayes brings nothing new, it's just his interpretation of old evidence. When looked at with all the caveates, warnings and caution that the intel chiefs originally wanted in their reports both the 9-11 commission and the Butler report decided that there was no credible proof that Iraq and Al Qaeeda were working together. Now it is well known that there were Iraqi Al Qaeeda sympathisers ( they were working together against SH in Northern Iraq) , there's every possibility that there were Ba'athist Iraqis that were pro Al Qaeeda, there's a good chance there were Al Qaeeda operatives that were spying for Iraq's intel services ( SH wanted to keep a very close eye on Al Qaeeda) none of that means the two organisations were working together. The CIA and MI6 would often meet their KGB equals, there were many double agents working on either side of the cold war, but I don't think anyone seriously would say the CIA and MI6 were working together. In the shadowy world of intel services links are bound to exist, the question is are those links proof of co-operation or of standard intel services. The 9-11 commission and the Butler report both decided that the evidence did not suggest any collusion between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeeda.
If you look hard enough, you'll often see what you want to see, that doesn't mean it's there.

You have however answered the question about bombing Islam into submission. You do believe that if you kill enough people Muslims will give up and meekly get on with their lives. I know the people reasonably well and disagree with you. I also think I know the American people fairly well. So Kendra, do you believe the American people would submit to a foreign power dominating it militarily, economically and socially. How many American deaths would it take to make them submit, to not seek freedom and revenge? You believe a people (any people) can be subdued, do you think the American people would accept it? I don't .