Bush was right!!!

[Kendra17]

Vernon,

As Bill Buckley said, "I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence."

I own and have Stephen Hayes' book. It is sourced thoroughly. You seem to take great glee in dismissing it. Yet, you never say that you've read it, so I'd guess you haven't. This is a classic tactic of somebody who is losing an argument. That is, to dismiss a convincing source or valid proof that tends to overturn or defeat their own position.

This is not intellectually defensible. When valid proofs are dismissed, it minimizes and reduces the discussion to mere opinion.

It has been shown that there was a clear link between Iraq and al Quaeda. Your assertion that al Quaeda was associated anti-Saddam forces in neither truthful and is counterintuitive. You claim to know Arab culture, but you don't display any such knowledge of it. If you did know Arab culture, you would know that the basic unifying force Arab interactions from the Street all the way to State level is the idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Follow this line.

Your points about the release of several of those arrested in the last al Quaeda sweep in London is a strawman argument that you throw out merely to confuse the core point. I don't think that you believe al Quaeda is NOT in England. I also don't think you believe that Europe has not been infiltrated by Islamic fundamentalist lunatics. Yet you posit these strawman arguments to prove just that. It seems that you are arguing against your own position because they are too painful to deal with. Let me just say this one last time, your reality and your approach is based upon a world in which 9-11 is just another passing event. My world is built upon the understanding that 9-11 is the core event of our lifetimes so far.

I absolutely would prefer a bloodless solution. However, the enemy has created this environment of massive bloodletting; we did not. And, if their must be bloodletting, I'd rather it happen on their streets rather than yours and mine.

Your question about what did the United States do to provoke such anger in the Arab world is another indication that you don't understand Arab culture as much as you claim, since you refuse to see the clear signals they have given that answer your question.
First reason is our support of Israel. The continued existence has always been a thorn in the side of the Arabs. This could readily start an entire new thread which I am not ready to do at this point. The second reason has nothing at all to do with the United States. The current conflict and the rise of fundamentalism in the Middle East is a function of the total failure of the Arab States to provide societies in which the population has hope for the future and opportunities to create better lives for themselves and their children. No reasonable person would make the argument that tyranny, violence, anti-semitic and anti-western madrassahs, injustice/unjust law, misogyny, etc., in the Arab world is the fault of the United States. This is another reason why Iraq is so important. The Bush Administration has repeatedly said that, in addition to removing Saddam Hussein, the purpose of our involvement in Iraq is to change the Middle East at a FUNDAMENTAL level.

If you look at the character of the people who oppose the coalition in Iraq, you will see that this is NOT the general population. The opposition in Iraq is a very small minority of hyperviolent reactionary fundamentalists and the remnants of Saddam's terror infrastructure, i.e., Ba'athists. The vast majority of Iraqis, one of the most highly secular and educated in the Arab world, want the killing to end and want their new future to begin as a democracy.

The solution of minimizing bloodloss that you and I would like, is a total restructuring of the many dysfunctional dictatorships of the Arab world that disenfranchise their people and support continuing violence in Israel, and support the hardcore fundamentalist mullahs and Imams for one singular purpose: to keep the population distracted and to channel their hate and frustration away from their leaders. So far, this strategy has worked. However, it is beginning to crack. The apparent coming Civil War in Saudi Arabia is perfect illustration of this. The royal family's financial and moral support for Wahabism, in general, and Wahabist mosques and Imams, may very well prove to be their last major mistake.

Across the Arab world, state sponsoring of religious reactionism, mainly to keep the population in check, is the fundamental cause of the current terror movements. Why do you suppose Saudi Arabia doesn't have a military worthy of the name? It's because they've put their money and resources into building a vast internal security service meant only to keep the House of Saud in power.

These points, that you aren't connecting, are the dysfunctions that underlay 95% of Arab states.

Cordially,

PS. I am proud now to be considered on the "right" since the country has become so divided. I, believe it or not--and thoroughly regretfully-- actually did not vote Republican in the last Presidential Election. Thankfully, Bush is in office. If Joe Lieberman was running this November, I may have considered voting for him, but I'm completely satisfied with the way the Bush Administration has run things. I believe the Democratic Party has taken the stance that "Whatever Bush is for, we're Against"

 

[vernon]

I own and have Stephen Hayes' book. It is sourced thoroughly. You seem to take great glee in dismissing it. Yet, you never say that you've read it, so I'd guess you haven't. This is a classic tactic of somebody who is losing an argument. That is, to dismiss a convincing source or valid proof that tends to overturn or defeat their own position.

I haven't been able to get a copy of Mr Hayes book in the day and a half that you posted a link to it, but all the assertions make in the link that you posted have, to my knowledge, all been reasonably well documented previously. I'm assuming that the CIA, MI6, American and British Governments have all had access to the same sources that Mr Hayes has had. Or do you claim he has knowledge that the American governemnt doesn't have. If so the best thing you could do to further Mr Bush's attempt on the White House would be to send him a copy , because I'm sure he's appreciate it.
Many different sources have been over all those documents and claims. The CIA, MI6, the 9-11 Commission, the Butler report a very large number of equally eminent journalists have come to the conclusion the evidence doesn't point to a link. Mr Hayes has the same evidence, his opinion is that it does. You choose to agree with him, I choose to agree with Butler, 9-11 commission MI6 and the CIA.
When I come live in the USA, if I can't find a copy maybe you'll mail me yours.

It seems that you are arguing against your own position because they are too painful to deal with

I've lived with a terrorist threat since I was a little kid. In the UK it's been part of everyone's lives for as long as I can remember, far from being "too painful to deal with" it's a fact of life that we've been dealing with for decades. From the London (where I was brought up) IRA bombings in the 1970s to Hyde Park in 1982 was my "formative years, I grew up with terrorism. I was in the US Embassy in Kuwait a week before it was blown up in the early/mid 1980s, I walked past the Baltic exchange (bombed in 1992) in London everyday for 3 years 1993-96. The fact that terrorist threat has taken on a different mask doesn't terrify the British in the way the realism that you ( Americans) aren't safe in your own country has brought widespead panic to much of your population. Your kneejerk reaction to strike back at someone, anyone in order to feel safe, is understandable, yet it is still wrong and ultimately does little to bring about the solution that you seek.

First reason is our support of Israel
The second reason has nothing at all to do with the United States.

Reason one you're correct, although it would be more correct to have said blind support for Isreal. The USA's one sidedness in all it's dealings with the Palestinian problem is a major cause of conflict. Your "reason two" illustrates why it has been so easy for the militant hate preachers to find such furtile ground in the minds of their Muslim populations. The government and people of America's steadfast refusal to acknowledge that ANYTHING they do,sell or export to foreign countries impacts on that society. By not defending that which is defendable nor changing or stopping that which causes genuine discomfort or offense you make yourselves look arrogant and "guilty" of the accusations of trying to destabilise Islamic culture and societies. YOU SIMPLY WILL NOT LISTEN, CHANGE OR ADAPT to another society. Now if those people are coming to live in your country then you'd have a point, but you're not. American corporate entities export American goods, services and ideals without a care as to the local impact. It ignores cries of protest and treats with contempt those that try to reason with them.


I see you chose to ignore my question about whether you thought the people of America would be bombed into submission, or how many of them you thought it would take to achieve that situation.
Quite rightly as both you and I know they would not accept that situation and would eventually find a way to reverse that situation. We also both know that it damages your argument of bombing Islam into submission ( a people few Americans understand) if you don't think that America (a notion easily contemplated by every American) would fold. I'll go further, you don't think that if say Russia managed to knock out the USA's defense systems in the 60s and laid waste to Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas that the USA wouldn't want a heavy revenge for that? Y'all would just roll ever and have your tummies tickled, I don't think so.

I absolutely would prefer a bloodless solution. However, the enemy has created this environment of massive bloodletting; we did not. And, if their must be bloodletting, I'd rather it happen on their streets rather than yours and mine

I beg to differ, Al Qaeeda's attack killed some 3,000 Americans. America's attack on an Iraq that was not involved in 9/11 has caused a much higher degree of loss of life. You may not have started it, but you have continued it and ratched up the stakes a good couple of notches. You wanted justice for 9/11 and the inability to find OBL meant that the administration didn't think it had achieved it's "pound of flesh" so it went after a defenseless and annoying Iraq. All it means is that now, Islam now thinks it "owes you some back" If it takes 20,50 or 100 years one thing I am 100% certain of, it'll come.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

The CIA, MI6, the 9-11 Commission, the Butler report a very large number of equally eminent journalists have come to the conclusion the evidence doesn't point to a link.

Actually, the 9-11 Commision report notes several links between Al Queda and Saddam.

 

[Kendra17]

Vernon:

I repeat, when valid proofs are dismissed, it minimizes and reduces the discussion to mere opinion-- the U.S. Senate Intelligence Commission states there were many links between Iraq and al Quaeda. They only stated there was no proof of a link between 9-11 and Iraq. Read the report thoroughly--not just the first sentence of each paragraph.http://intelligence.senate.gov/

Your personal experience with terrorism, be it the IRA in London or the Islamic lunatics from the Middle East, does not make you an authority on this subject. That would be the same as saying Wesley Clark's or John Kerry's military experience makes them automatically qualified to be President of the United States.

You have very strong opinons based upon your personal experience. However, your personal experience is NOT the universal experience of these matters.

Both you and I have delivered so many points and counterpoints that it's impossible to address every single point. I never purposefully ignored any point you made because I was unable to address it. You challenged my explanation of the nature of Arab anger towards the United States, by saying that our dealings in the Middle East were completely skewed towards Israel and against the Arabs. You said, "The USA's one-sidedness in all its dealings with the Palestian problem is a major cause of conflict." You are incorrect.

You may recall the many Palestinian "innocents" dancing in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza as the towers fell on 9-11. As the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel is our natural ally. We support our allies and not those who want to kill us. With that in mind, you ought to thank the United States for its generosity rather than criticize its so-called single-minded support of Israel.

Perhaps you are aware that the single largest contributor to the so-called Palestinian Authority is the United States. No other country in the world, has supported the so-called PA with treasure and diplomatic support more than the United States. In addition, you may also be aware, but probably not, that the largest source of foreign aid to the country of Egypt is the United States. Your point of American one-sidedness is FALSE. You have not learned the lessons of history though you are very articulate. Your arguments are as empty as a Guinness Light.

George Bush has enunciated the doctrine of American foreign policy, known as the Bush Doctrine. This doctrine clearly places terrorists and those states that support them on notice. We will hunt down the terrorists and we will overturn those States that support them. This is publicly stated and supported by the majority of the American people. There is nothing unjust about self-defense or taking the battle to one's enemies. Your criticism of a nation at war, fighting to preserve its existence, is shallow. I would also suppose that you would make the argument that Palestinian terrorists killing a family in their beds as they sleep is a valid exercise of their own right to self-defense; many have made this argument. Those who do are moral relativists at best and nihilists at worse.

So many American leftists are desperate to recapture the so-called 9-11 dividend of sympathy and support that came from Europe and all around the world--excepting the Arab States. This is really a whimsy. Once we began the process of taking the battle to our enemies, all that so-called sympathy evaporated and became derision. Europeans, especially in Western Europe, seem to want to "tie the hands" of the only remaining Great Power. Western Europeans want to replace Soviet - American conflict with an EU - United States economic conflict. But, the Islamic reactionaries have changed the nature of every interstate conflict. You refuse to see it, you will listen to NO argument, no matter how well-stated, that will challenge your position. You may read or have studied history, and you may have witnessed terrorism first-hand but, for whatever reason, you clearly refuse to learn the hard lessons.

You never chose to address my comment regarding Iraq's violation of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement AND the multiple UN resolution violations. If nothing else, their continued violations gave the U.S. reason to act. Iraq had been in violation for YEARS.

Again, EVERYONE believed there to be WMD, and, although you will most likely deny the evidence that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium and uranium oxide from Niger, I do not deny that evidence. However, even after you dismiss that evidence, dismiss the documentation that there was an Iraq-al Quaeda link, you cannot deny that Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions and the Cessation of Hostilities agreement. Saddam was behaving like a man NOT in compliance; he was behaving as if he had something to hide, he was not cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. This kind of behavior, from a head of state, only makes sense if he has something he was trying to conceal, i.e., weapons of mass destruction. Don't forget: there was MORE than enough time between our threats of war and our actual invasion, for him to hide all his weapons that he certainly had in his country in a neighboring country.

If, as you claim, he was merely being a belicose brinksmanship player, trying to be the new Nasser or the new Saladin, all one can say is that he certainly miscalculated. And, his absence from the world stage is, other than his death, perhaps the best thing he can possibly do for humanity.

You stated, "I see you chose to ignore my question about whether you thought the people of America would be bombed into submission, or how many of them you thought it would take to achieve that situation.
Quite rightly as both you and I know they would not accept that situation and would eventually find a way to reverse that situation. We also both know that it damages your argument of bombing Islam into submission. .."

This is correct. We look at continued terrorism targeting Americans and American interests as an attempt to bomb us into fear and submission. We have decided that it is time to reverse that situation. 9-11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. You are absolutely correct when you state "they would eventually find a way to reverse that situation". But the "they" is the United States-- you have the starting point of this conflict wrong. Again, as I have stated before, they started it. We will end it.

You say we want justice for 9-11. That is absolutely true. We went to Afghanistan to get justice for 9-11. We hunt, arrest, and destroy al Quaeda for the same reason. However, there is another reason we hunt these people--the same reason why we are now in Iraq, and why soon we may be in Syria, Sudan, or Iran. And, that is to PREVENT another 9-11, as well.

I appreciate the time that you've spent to debate with me, but I have decided I want to take a break from political discussions. If you choose to reply in detail, I cannot promise a swift reply.

Cheers,

 

[Kendra17]

posted in error. please excuse.

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by Douglas Dubh
Actually, the 9-11 Commision report notes several links between Al Queda and Saddam.

I am sorry if I am wrong but when I Googled for 9-11 probe links to Iraq and Al-queda I found this:
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links
The rest of the links were about IRAN and Al-Queda.
Could you please show me the link to the document linking Iraq?

 

[Kendra17]

I don't want to start a whole new thread regarding the media's liberal slant. However, the Senate Commission did point to links between Iraq and al Quaeda. Admittedly, it did NOT find links between Iraq and 9-11. The findings are obviously lengthy, wordy and the introductory sentences to each paragraph may be considered a bit misleading.

A recent article, from the Weekly Standard (make sure to read both pages!)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/248eaurh.asp

A less recent article, also in the WeeklyStandard (hey, if the more liberal media was reporting this news, I'd include a link from them, too!), and also by Stephen Hayes, since that's where he's employed. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

And, of course, the senate findings: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/

It's too bad Hayes is the only one that is reporting this. This fact does not negate its validity.

 

[vernon]

You never chose to address my comment regarding Iraq's violation of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement AND the multiple UN resolution violations. If nothing else, their continued violations gave the U.S. reason to act. Iraq had been in violation for YEARS.

If an Iraqi missle battery, launches a weapon against a US fighter, blast that battery to smithereens. If an Iraqi missle battery radar locks a US plane, blast it to smithereens, a full scale invasion is not justified. As to the UN resolutions, they are that, UN resolutions. The UN alone has the authority to enforce those resolutions as it sees fit. It is not the job of the USA to enforce the rosolutions of the UN without the UN's consent. That consent was very obviously and pointedly denied.

You still refuse to answer, would the people of America be bombed into submission? How many dead would it require to make them get on their knees? How quickly would they forgive and forget the deaths of their loved ones and country men?.

Anyone here think America would kow tow to a military superior nation, it would accept the deaths of it's countrymen and not plan it's revenge?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Kendra17


You stated, "I see you chose to ignore my question about whether you thought the people of America would be bombed into submission, or how many of them you thought it would take to achieve that situation.
Quite rightly as both you and I know they would not accept that situation and would eventually find a way to reverse that situation. We also both know that it damages your argument of bombing Islam into submission. .."

This is correct. We look at continued terrorism targeting Americans and American interests as an attempt to bomb us into fear and submission. We have decided that it is time to reverse that situation. 9-11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. You are absolutely correct when you state "they would eventually find a way to reverse that situation". But the "they" is the United States-- you have the starting point of this conflict wrong. Again, as I have stated before, they started it. We will end it.

edited to add:
Also, those that support the war in Iraq are not internationalists. We trust and support the United States government to protect and serve our citizens. There is no reason to trust an international body, the UN, to protect and serve our citizens, to put our best interests first. Furthermore, the UN's resolutions, decisions, actions, and inactions have consistently shown that they ignore what's in our best interests. Your argument is devoid of common sense.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by vernon
Anyone here think America would kow tow to a military superior nation, it would accept the deaths of it's countrymen and not plan it's revenge?

Depends on the circumstances. If I was living under the iron fist of SH for a long time I'd surely welcome a change of power and the possibility of self rule. The only ones that don't want change are the corrupt that fear the loss of control, power and money.

The main difference is (no matter how much it gets airplay) is that the US does NOT want to colonize Iraq and remain in charge. I firmly believe that we hope to plant the seed of democracy in that cesspool

Under my current living conditions, which I'm quite happy with, I would take up arms against an invader that sought to change my life for the worse. But I suppose it would be hard to put myself in the average Iraqi's shoes and feel the same way.

 

[vernon]

This is correct. We look at continued terrorism targeting Americans and American interests as an attempt to bomb us into fear and submission. We have decided that it is time to reverse that situation. 9-11 was the straw that broke the camel's back

Maybe I'm dense, but this is a non answer, you still shy away from a clear answer.

Do you think the American people would be bombed into submission?

By the way, the "they" I was refering to was the people of the United States. I don't think there is a chance in hell the people of America would accept a foreign power dominating them.
-------------------------

Elwood, while it is certain SH did some terrible things to some parts of Iraq's society, it is also true that large parts of the population did pretty well out of his rule. Not just the corrupt or those seeking power and money. Those that opposed him he was ruthless with, but large parts of Iraq's population got by pretty well.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by vernon
Maybe I'm dense, but this is a non answer, you still shy away from a clear answer.

Do you think the American people would be bombed into submission?

.

Vernon,

No, I do not think the American people would be bombed into submission. We did submit to countless acts of terror in the past, but 9-11, as I tried to explain in a recent post, was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Your point is that they aren't going to submit, either. Well, you are incorrect. We will be victorious, Vernon. You may have grown up with terrorist acts committed in your backyard, but we, here in the United States, plan to try and avoid what so much of the world has, unfortunately, been subjected to.

Finally, you stated, " If an Iraqi missle battery, launches a weapon against a US fighter, blast that battery to smithereens. If an Iraqi missle battery radar locks a US plane, blast it to smithereens, a full scale invasion is not justified. As to the UN resolutions, they are that, UN resolutions. The UN alone has the authority to enforce those resolutions as it sees fit. It is not the job of the USA to enforce the rosolutions of the UN without the UN's consent. That consent was very obviously and pointedly denied. "

Like it or not, Vernon, you're incorrect again.

The Cessation of Hostilities agreement, as I've mentioned in past posts, was only valid if Iraq abided by certain rules. Violating just ONE rule (and they violated many, as we have discussed in past posts--repeatedly fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone and elsewhere, development of long-range ballistic missiles, obstruction of UN Weapons Inspections are just a few of the MANY violations of the UN resolutions) gave the United States reason (approved by the UN) to take military action and continue the First Gulf War. This was completely approved by the UN, Vernon. They didn't have the spine to follow through with the agreement but, gratefully, we did.

 

[AccidentalRepublican]

Vernon-The reason this debate (although not necessarily as it is found on this board) is so important is because it does address America's willingness to continue to fight, and why we should even be fighting in the first place.

Kendra, Vernon, I definitely disagree with both of you! If enough Americans are sick of fighting, then we will quit fighting, NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES!

It won't matter if this majority, or even plurality, has or has not thought through all the consequences or even the more probable consequences of their actions (or inactions in this case). I would say it is the same in all wars. When the cost of continuing to wage war exceeds a government's willingness to pay, the war ends.

Tsar Nicholas found this out the hard way (something I think Bush I was hoping would happen to Saddam after Gulf War I)! He (the embodiment of his government) was willing to continue to pay; his countrymen were not. So he was deposed. A new coalition government (led by the Mensheviks) took the helm, actually decided to continue the war, and was itself deposed by the Bolsheviks, who sued for peace. (There was actually a civil war up through the 20s, during which Stalin consolidated power, but this only serves to show how important it is to get Iraq right!)

I would dare say Emperor Hirohito also found out the hard way that his countrymen could no longer continue to fight. To this list we could add many, even after confining ourselves to the 20th century.

This is precisely why this has become the seminal issue of the 2004 presidential campaign. It is also why many of us, Kendra included, it seems, have decided to go with Bush, though his "domestic" policies may be undigestable to us. We are given a choice between a man who had to out anti-war the anti-war candidate (Dean) in the primaries to win the nomination, and now has to beat feet back to the center; and another man who merely had to, without flinching, continue pursuing our reaction to 9-11.

Vernon, BTW, you're really starting to lose. You're going to have to come up with something to counter Kendra. You've got some points, but you're not effectively using them to build your argument, whereas Kendra is stringing hers together very nicely. May I interject: what about the State Department's list of nation-states that sponsor terrorism? Here's the easiest reference I could find:http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh02052203.html

May 22, 2002

While state-sponsored terrorism has declined over the past several decades, seven governments -- Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria -- remain on the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism, according to the State Department's annual terrorism report.

The designation of state sponsors of terrorism is a mechanism for isolating nations using terrorism as a means of political expression, the "Patterns of Global Terrorism: 2001" report said. The State Department released the report May 21 at a news briefing.

The list, which imposes strict sanctions, has remained unchanged since Sudan was added in 1993.

"While some of these countries appear to be reconsidering their present course, none has yet taken all necessary actions to divest itself fully of ties to terrorism," the report said.

"Sudan and Libya seem closest to understanding what they must do to get out of the terrorism business, and each has taken measures pointing it in the right direction."

The terrorism report, which is required by the U.S. Congress, indicated that Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism last year.

"Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued ...

Vernon, you and others, but you most intelligently (although that would be giving some who posted in this regard far too much credit, as it presumes their arguments had some intelligence), assert that there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I would assert it doesn't matter what terrorist group it is, as those on this list are the ones who support terrorists who affect the U.S. (else why would they be on the list?). In other words, if they're on this list, they should be worried, because their terrorists now have our attention! So it matters not a whit what the Butler report or the 9-11 report says about Al-Qaeda and Iraq. We've known for > 10 years that these states are using terrorists to further their national ambitions. That's all we need to know! The only thing that remains is: prioritization!!!!

 

[vernon]

No, I do not think the American people would be bombed into submission......
Your point is that they aren't going to submit, either. Well, you are incorrect. We will be victorious

So a society that you are well versed in would not submit, yet your contention is that a society of which your total knowledge has come from books, magazines and media articles would. You have no understanding of the people, or their mentality, yet you base your whole stratagy on the assumption they don't have the fortitude that Americans have. IMHO their (blind) religious faith will be enough to carry them through any adversity you care to through at them.

Either of us might be right, only time will tell. The difference is, IMHO, if I am wrong then a military solution can easily be brought to action at a later date. If you're wrong how do you plan to make peace with a society that you've killed tens if not hundreds of thousands maybe even millions of their people. Once you go down that path it's going to be very difficult to find a way back.

I have a plan B , if plan A doesn't work, what's your plan B?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by vernon
So a society that you are well versed in would not submit, yet your contention is that a society of which your total knowledge has come from books, magazines and media articles would. You have no understanding of the people, or their mentality, yet you base your whole stratagy on the assumption they don't have the fortitude that Americans have. IMHO their (blind) religious faith will be enough to carry them through any adversity you care to through at them.

Either of us might be right, only time will tell. The difference is, IMHO, if I am wrong then a military solution can easily be brought to action at a later date. If you're wrong how do you plan to make peace with a society that you've killed tens if not hundreds of thousands maybe even millions of their people. Once you go down that path it's going to be very difficult to find a way back.

I have a plan B , if plan A doesn't work, what's your plan B?

Vernon. This IS our plan "B". We exhausted our plan "A", which WAS diplomacy and discussion. I don't doubt their fortitude--their fortitude is WHY plan A doesn't work. The current administration and those that support it also have fortitude. Fortunately, we also have military strength.

We don't want to bomb them into submission, only, Vernon. We want their children to learn more than just the Koran, we want their schoolbooks to reflect that the State of Israel exists, we want them to refrain from teaching that all Jews are the sons of pigs and monkeys, and that, although Christians, Jews, Hindus, and all other non-Muslims don't accept Islamic theology, we can all live peacefully together--that Jihad is unacceptable, despite what they've been taught. They have to learn that they can't "Kill, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" or "Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) until they pay the poll tax with the hand of humility" (I don't see any ambiguity here, do you?). And, they have to learn that they have to cease seeing the world a an open-ended conflict between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. These beliefs are cause for conflict--not our support of Israel or our television programming.

This is tough, but it's got to be done. It will also be a very lengthy, expensive, and difficult--but not FUTILE--process. But, they have to learn this as children. It's always hardest for the first generation that goes through a change such as this. You wouldn't be saying that you think attempting to bring positive change to the Muslim world and changing their way of thinking is futile, do you, Vernon? I mean, you respect their intelligence enough that you would agree they are capable of thinking and learning, right? You would agree that they, if given the opportunities we have in the West and would like to share with them, CAN contribute to their own economy, live among themselves and others in peace, right? I mean, gee, you don't think they're INCAPABLE of the same things that we, in the West, ARE capable of, do you?

AccidentalRepublican brought up a good point, too, Vernon. He said, "If enough Americans are sick of fighting, then we will quit fighting, NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES!
It won't matter if this majority, or even plurality, has or has not thought through all the consequences or even the more probable consequences of their actions (or inactions in this case). I would say it is the same in all wars. When the cost of continuing to wage war exceeds a government's willingness to pay, the war ends. "

There is no disagreement here; this is absolutely true (although, on a side note, I disagree that the Japanese citizens refused to continue the fight. . .they were extremely loyal to the Emperor and would have fought until the Very End. Hirohito correctly decided that to continue the fight would mean that Japan's existence was in peril). However, that being said, the importance of this War on Terror is, as I've said before, an existential matter. We either fight it now, and continue to fight it--hopefully on their turf only--until we are victorious. Or we withdraw and/or lose and continue to deal with attacks on Americans and American interests and respond ineffectively--thereby sending clear signals to these murderers that they can attack without fear of retribution, that nobody will stop them, and that terror is a useful political tactic.

Addendum: I misspoke when I wrote earlier: "I don't doubt their fortitude--their fortitude is WHY plan A doesn't work. " I meant to describe their stubborness born of fanaticism. This isn't fortitude per se, but rather an inability to accept defeat, to accept differing cultures, and a fanatic desire to attain the 72 virgins awaiting all of them, and a ferocious murderous desire to eradicate all who differ with them. Well, except the women killers, they don't get 72 virgins, do they? But that's another thread entirely.

 

[vernon]

Vernon. This IS our plan "B". We exhausted our plan "A", which WAS diplomacy and discussion.

I respectfully disagree, America's attempts at diplomacy with the muslim world have hardly scratched the surface of what could be done, let alone become "exhausted". You're response is very long on how THEY should change and what THEY should do, but at no time do I see ONE suggestion that America should try to alter the things it does that upset Islam,or to listen to the other side. Your views reflect what has passed for American diplomacy and discussion in the past (and why it has failed). Basically that is, "We ( America) tell you what to do, and you go and do it, or we'll hit you with a big stick" It is a form of diplomacy, it's called Gunboat diplomacy.

While I agree with some of your aims of education and rationalising their fears/beliefs I think you're aim is too wide. I would suggest that America (and the West) would have more success by concentrating it's support on the small number of Muslim countries that are trying to embrace democracy. Turkey, Jordan, Bahrain, Algeria and Morocco would be countries I would support first. Albania and Bosnia are also two vital countries that we should be making huge efforts in (more than we currently are) . Financially support these countries and militarily defend them if their neighbours try to get rough.
If you noticably improve the standard of living in those countries that work with you, without impinging on their basic religious beliefs, allowing them to find a version of democracy that works within their society, then I think the word will spread.
To use a gardening analogy I think it works better to plant the seeds in a small corner. Tend, water and feed them well, keep the weeds down and gradually allow the rest of the garden to grow out from the area we have cultivated. If you spread your seeds too wide, and only have a finite amount of water, you run the risk that the seeds you do sow, will shrivel and die.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by vernon
I respectfully disagree, America's attempts at diplomacy with the muslim world have hardly scratched the surface of what could be done, let alone become "exhausted". You're response is very long on how THEY should change and what THEY should do, but at no time do I see ONE suggestion that America should try to alter the things it does that upset Islam,or to listen to the other side. Your views reflect what has passed for American diplomacy and discussion in the past (and why it has failed). Basically that is, "We ( America) tell you what to do, and you go and do it, or we'll hit you with a big stick" It is a form of diplomacy, it's called Gunboat diplomacy.

While I agree with some of your aims of education and rationalising their fears/beliefs I think you're aim is too wide. I would suggest that America (and the West) would have more success by concentrating it's support on the small number of Muslim countries that are trying to embrace democracy. Turkey, Jordan, Bahrain, Algeria and Morocco would be countries I would support first. Albania and Bosnia are also two vital countries that we should be making huge efforts in (more than we currently are) . Financially support these countries and militarily defend them if their neighbours try to get rough.
If you noticably improve the standard of living in those countries that work with you, without impinging on their basic religious beliefs, allowing them to find a version of democracy that works within their society, then I think the word will spread.
To use a gardening analogy I think it works better to plant the seeds in a small corner. Tend, water and feed them well, keep the weeds down and gradually allow the rest of the garden to grow out from the area we have cultivated. If you spread your seeds too wide, and only have a finite amount of water, you run the risk that the seeds you do sow, will shrivel and die.

Vernon. With all due respect, you did not take my advice, and you apparently have been hitting the Guinness Light excessively.

Despite your protest to the contrary, the U.S. government is NOT responsible for the quality of life in ANY other country other than the U.S.

With this in mind, we do our best to help those who need it across the world. How do you think Europe was rebuilt after WWII? Ever heard of the Marshall Plan? Our efforts to help less privileged nations improve their situations is really unprecedented in history. The tax dollars of my grandparents were spent to keep your country free. I don't recall England sending money to the less privileged parts of this country--ever.

The responsibility of improvements for any Nation State is the responsibility of the government of that Nation State and its people. Because 95% of the Arab states are ruled by tyrants and dictators, the people are not given a voice nor given the opportunity to influence the direction of their countries. That is what WE have to change. We need to give the people a voice. That is how countries improve.

Our current policy in the Middle East is NOT Gunboat Diplomacy. Don't forget about 9-11-- the foundation for everything we are doing.

While this is NOT Gunboat Diplomacy, lucky for you and your European friends that the big stick is being wielded by the United States and not by the enumerable dirtbag regimes that you appear to admire and support.

Vernon. You continually harp upon the notion that the so-called culture of the Arab world is too rigid, too entrenched, and even, by your standards, respectable, to be changed from outside influences. Again, I will tell you: you simply do not want to learn the lessons of history. The empire of Japan had a feudal empirical system that was hundreds of years old. Sure enough, they changed. Do you remember the bad guys in Germany in WWII? They called their so-called culture and their society the Thousand-year Reich. You and your French friends would be speaking German right now if it weren't for our efforts in rescuing you. Don't think that we here in the United States are not completely aware that you resent us for securing your freedom when you could not do it yourselves.

Where is the Thousand-year Reich? It's buried under the streets of a democratic and united Germany. The Nazis actually thought that their "culture" would last 1000 years. They were wrong. Let the Arab fanatics think what they want. As before, their opinion is not relevant to me. The reason I say this is because they declared war upon us, they murdered our children and our civilians--expecting, insanely, to be rewarded in Paradise. This IS a culture that is utterly dysfunctional and murderous. The forces of change in the Arab world are generally dealt with by imprisonment or death and are never given the opportunity to flourish.

In this particular world that we live in, as the aggrieved party defending and PROTECTING our right to exist, WE are the force of change. And, as it was in WWII, we will dictate the peace and we will guide the direction of their development. The nature of this change will be away from fanaticism, away from ultra-violence, and a destruction of the zombie-like attitude that any nonbeliever, any Jew, any American, no matter their age or sex, is a justifiable victim for their murderous frustrations. These folks need to be refocused. We will help them.

The new focus ought to be developing their society so that they can produce intellectuals, professionals, and seekers of the truth. The zombie-world that they live in needs to disappear and be replaced by open societies in which questioning fundamental ideas is encouraged.

People in the Arab world desperately NEED our help--yours and mine. For example, clearly there are vigorous forces that are FOR change in Iran. The leadership, the thug Ayatollahs that run that country quickly "subdue" those that would challenge the status quo. People in power, especially those who take power rather than those who are granted power by the people in a Republic and a Democracy, will generally do ANYTHING to retain their hold on authority. If you choose not to see this, that is your option. But, it is one not based upon reality.

You may find this debate as frustrating as I do, but for different reasons. Your frustration rests on the annoyance of my inability to understand the world through your prism. My frustration originates in my inability to break your prism so that the light of reality shines upon you. This is the classic response of the left. You simply want to see the world as you prefer it to be, and those things that don't fit your paradigm absolutely must be crushed. Our perspectives are so different that we cannot agree on even essential basic truths.

I know that you want to make an argument for unfettered sovereignty. Your assertions that Saudi law, or any Arab state's laws, because they are their own laws, are somehow just or inherently valid, is contrary to the ideas of a Universal framework of Laws outlined by numerous English political philosophers and perfected by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin. Americans believe that ALL people, regardless of their country of residence or origin, deserve freedom and opportunity based solely upon their humanity and not their national status. I don't give a hoot which Arab states restrict entry upon religious grounds, treat their women as chattel, preach a militarist, reactionary, murderous religious philosophy, or justify their crimes no matter what religious tract they reference. Injustice, to an Arab, is the same as injustice to anyone, anywhere. The people in the Arab states live in filth and poverty, in general--with a few exceptions including Kuwait, Bahrain, and Dubai--but the majority of the Arab world lives in dirt poverty.

Do you suppose that Assad lives in filth? No, he does not. You are aware that 90% of the Palestinian people live in dirt poverty. Yet their leader, Arafat, is consistently listed as one of the wealthiest men on the planet.

The explanations and arguments I have laid out here explains this truth. None of yours do. This is why I say again, with no ill-intent, that you choose not to see the world, particularly the Arab world, for what it really is.

 

[vernon]

The tax dollars of my grandparents were spent to keep your country free. I don't recall England sending money to the less privileged parts of this country--ever.

While your grandparents generation were giving tax dollars, my grandparents generation were giving their lives defending their country. I think you'll find proportionately the UK gave far more lives in the "cause" during WWII, while I'm sure your grandparents missed their $$ I think my grandparents missed their dead friends and relatives more. I believe one of the reasons we may not have been in a situation to send money to the USA was the very high interest rates that were attatched to LOANS made to the UK. Those loans took the UK decades to repay. I think our lives trump your $$$s JMHO.

Despite your protest to the contrary, the U.S. government is NOT responsible for the quality of life in ANY other country other than the U.S.

I agree you're not responsible, but if it is in your interest to promote those countries that follow a path which helps to lead YOUR world to a more peaceful existance then surely that would be a better use of the tax dollars you so jealously guard. A better use than the, is it now $10 BILLION ( plus 1,000+ allied lives lost AND 10s of thousands of those seriously injured ) money spent on trying to send a message to Islam by invading Iraq.
You do it not because you can, not because it's needed, you do it because it's in your interest

Because 95% of the Arab states are ruled by tyrants and dictators, the people are not given a voice nor given the opportunity to influence the direction of their countries. That is what WE have to change. We need to give the people a voice. That is how countries improve.

It's much more cost efficient to give support to the 5% effectively, YOu need to give an example to people of how it can work within their society. Point at where it has worked,in fact you wouldn't even need to do that, the evidence would do far more than any amount of lecturing and dictating. Let them see for themselves how and why it would work, lessons learned from person experience work much better than lectures and reading things in books.

Our current policy in the Middle East is NOT Gunboat Diplomacy. Don't forget about 9-11-- the foundation for everything we are doing.

Maybe helicopter gunship diplomacy then (the world has moved on since the phrase was coined) , it is military or would you care to argue with that as well? . But your foundations are built on very shakey ground. Iraq did not participate nor help plan 9-11, much as you and your like try to continually link the two, they can not be linked ( save by one writer of a book you've read), the CIA, MI6, 9-11 commission or Butler all state there is no evidence to show Iraq was involved in 9-11.
I've got no problem with the response as far as Afghanistan went, perfectly justified and the message was clearly received in the Muslim world. Iraq was unjustified and overkill, IMHO, it lost much of the good work done by dealing with the Taliban and Afghanistan.

You and your French friends would be speaking German right now if it weren't for our efforts in rescuing you. Don't think that we here in the United States are not completely aware that you resent us for securing your freedom when you could not do it yourselves.

While America's EVENTUAL joining in hostilities in WWII certainly brought about the close of that conflict much quicker than would otherwise have been the case, Germany's victory was far from certain. IMHO the logistics of it's front with Russia would have been a massive drain on it's resourses. Would Germany has defeated the UK? Possibly, but even then would have it been possible for them to retain that control? The Brits are a pretty resiliant people, I think we would have proved a much more difficult country to occupy than France had done, fortunately it wasn't a fate we have to contemplate, because Japan attacked the USA and forced you to join in a war that you may, or may not have joined of your own choosing. Your assertions that the British resent America because you were "our saviours" is as laughable as it is arrogantly ignorant.

People in power, especially those who take power rather than those who are granted power by the people in a Republic and a Democracy, will generally do ANYTHING to retain their hold on authority. If you choose not to see this, that is your option. But, it is one not based upon reality.

I actually agree with you here, although I think we need to take much more care on who we choose to fund and to arm. Among America's biggest support acts in the Middle East over the last 20 years have been the funding, arming and training of Saddam's Ba'athist party ( fighting Iran) and the Taliban (fighting the Russians). Following the arming and providing those entities with power has proved to be very costly mistakes, let's hope that instead of fostering a culture where " might is right" and we arm and fund these thugs we actually try to promote those regimes that are not antagonistic towards us. If we choose to select thugs, place those thugs in positions of power and continue to fund and support them, we can hardly be suprised when they continue to behave like thugs JMHO.

My frustration originates in my inability to break your prism so that the light of reality shines upon you. This is the classic response of the left. You simply want to see the world as you prefer it to be, and those things that don't fit your paradigm absolutely must be crushed. Our perspectives are so different that we cannot agree on even essential basic truths.

I find your posts very illuminating, but not in the way you intend.

Americans believe that ALL people, regardless of their country of residence or origin, deserve freedom and opportunity based solely upon their humanity and not their national status

As an American you should understand that freedom is a commoditity most valued when it is fought for and earned for oneself. It is not a gift you can force upon a people that don't even know if they want it.
By trying to install it in a society that doesn't understand it's value, and by pushing "our Western style of government and democracy" on a society that neither desires or understand it's practicalities you are merely replacing one style of dictatorship for another. If you want the Arab world to become democracies you have to let them discover how that works best for them within the confines of their society. I do not expect that initially an Islamic democracy and a Western one would be copies of each other. Each society needs to mould it's future image with reference to it's past. For us to try and impose our style as "the one and only" is arrogant folly.

The explanations and arguments I have laid out here explains this truth. None of yours do. This is why I say again, with no ill-intent, that you choose not to see the world, particularly the Arab world, for what it really is.

THe "truth" as you see it have been gleaned from books, magazines that perpetuate the view you already have of the world in general and the Muslim world in particular. My view of the Arab world may not be complete, it is afterall a very big place, but it is a view I have achieved from my own observations, I'm not just recycling the mantra of others. Whether I see the Arab world for what it "is" or not is obviously debateable, but at least I've seen it with my own eyes, something you have chosen not to do.
Perhaps it is you that are too scared of what you might see, too frightened that your image built from the words of others will not match up to reality. Until you are prepared to travel and find out for yourself, neither you or I will know how illuminating you would find that.

 

[vernon]

I didn't have time to answer this point earlier, and IMHO it deserves a separate answer.

The people in the Arab states live in filth and poverty, in general--with a few exceptions including Kuwait, Bahrain, and Dubai--but the majority of the Arab world lives in dirt poverty.
Do you suppose that Assad lives in filth? No, he does not. You are aware that 90% of the Palestinian people live in dirt poverty. Yet their leader, Arafat, is consistently listed as one of the wealthiest men on the planet

I hate to break this to you, and I'm sure it's going to shock you living all comfortable as you do in Georgia and not willing to visit other places to see what's happening in the world. But this is not a unique situation in the world, it's not a situation limited to Muslim countries. I'll grant you it's not ideal, but it's not exceptional.

Let's start close to home,
Cuba, Haiti and many other Caribbean states. There is great poverty among the people here, their leaders have everyting they could want and more. But they are not Muslims.

Central America, Guatamala more than half the population live below the poverty line, El Salvador not much better.

South America, one example among many but try visiting Brazil ( good Christian country) the poverty there would make you feel sick, the ruling classes however, do very well.

Asia, North Korea is facing starvation, yet it's rulers continue to preen themselves on the world stage. There's vast poverty in Buddist Thailand, yet there is also great wealth. Hindu India, an increadably poor and massive underclass yet the country has more than 60,000 US$ millionaires and again it's ruling dynasties do very well. The Christian Philipines, increadable poverty, but that didn't stop the US from lining the pockets of Marcos and his family for decades.

Africa, well it would be easier to list the countries that don't have poverty than those that do. But among the worst offenders would be Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Idi Amin in Uganda.

In Europe generally the countries now have a higher base level, but Albania would be a current example of a country with great poverty and still it's leaders would be considered wealthy. The Eastern Block countries 20-30 years ago would also have been good examples.


Had you visited ANYWHERE in the world, with the possible exception of Europe, you'd realise how facile, uninformed and unworldly your comments are.

Vernon. With all due respect, you did not take my advice, and you apparently have been hitting the Guinness Light excessively.

P.S. If I drink Guinness, I drink the proper stuff not the watered down rubbish.

 

[Kendra17]

Vernon,
I can't answer your posts anymore. Do not take this as a concession to you, however. It's that i don't think there' s anything more to be gained by this discussion.

I have two more comments to you. I disagree that it's in our best interest to focus on those 5%. They may need help, too, and we should absolutely not ignore their needs. However, the other 95% can't be neglected in the meantime. You seem to think, from your clever garden analogy, that by nurturing the 5 percent, the other 95 percent will eventually be reached. I tend to disagree, based on history. You base your differing opinion on gardening, apparently.

As for your consistent digs about my travel history. I have not traveled to any Muslim countries, and would refuse to even if I won a trip there at no cost.

I have ignored your cutting remarks and snide comments accusing me of not traveling for several reasons. The first reason was because I thought you were just making a silly point originally, not worth commenting on. After your second comment, I decided to ignore it, because I truly believe it's off the subject, and because I felt if I gave you a rundown of everywhere I've been, I'd appaear as if I'm defending myself personally and disregarding the issues I was attempting to really discuss. However, since it's such a huge issue with you, I will PM to you everywhere I've been. I really don't think it is part of this argument, and I'm disgusted with your continuing comments regarding it. Also, what if I just couldn't afford to travel as so many cannot? Would that have meant my opinions are less worthy? According to you, yes. And, to be honest, I completely disagree with you.

That said, I think traveling is wonderful for a variety of reasons. But, I certainly don't hold you in higher esteem because you were able to afford 30 trips to the United States.

As a postscript. . .the Guinness Light comment was a joke. Please reread it in context. I know it's rubbish. . .I thought you must be drinking the Light rather than the real stuff and I thought it was affecting the clarity of your thinking.


Grammatical error edited