Response to Multiculturalism

[Kendra17]

The idea that all cultures are of equal significance and value and are inherently equivalent in quality is the foundation of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the absurd politically correct response to an American- and Western European- centric focus in the humanities in higher education.

These core assertions of multiculturalists are absurd on their face. If one were to construct a list of all the pros and cons of Western Culture as represented by the United States versus Arab culture, the pros on the American side would far outweigh the pros on the Arabist side. However, the Arab side would certainly win on the negative side. It's a simple matter to comprehend that a culture whose foundation is openness, opportunity, intellectual and spiritual investigation, and entrepreneurship, does not send its children out as human bombs to further some twisted political-religious agenda.

Consider the number of foreign books translated to Arabic in the last ten years versus the number of foreign books translated to English and published in the United States. The number is astounding. The number on the Arab side can be counted on one's hands, while the numbers for English translations numbers thousands. This is because we have a culture of intellectual vigor and openness versus the culture of the Arab world, where people who question fundamental institutions and philosophy of society end up in prison or much worse.

The United States is the largest financial donor to Egypt. Egypt's economy is almost in ruin. It is a country run by a pseudo-dictatorship. Recently, the greatest export from Egypt was t-shirts. The disparity between American culture and Arab culture is a construct of the tyranny--religious and political--under which the people of the Arab states live.

The multiculturalists, in their continued quest for perfect political correctness, believe that it's somehow insulting to say that a particular culture is of lesser quality than another. Is it not reasonable to say that the Aztec culture--for all its admitted greatness--is a lesser culture than our own--because of their chosen method of seeking favor from their gods--which was by ripping the hearts out of sacrificial victims? To say that every culture is equivalent and that none is better and none worse, is to deny the function of historical change and the concept of learning.

In the United States, we are protected by laws which prevent the state from stoning us to death for speaking against God or criticizing Mullahs or other religious leaders. The tyrannies of the Arab world offer no such protections to their people. The truth of the matter in Iraq is that the vast majorities of Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone and glad for the opportunity to build a true civil society. The Jihadists and murderers that are showing themselves in Iraq are doing so because they rightly see that Iraq is the frontline of their war. The creation of a democratic Arab State between Syria and Iran-- and with the third largest oil reserves in the world-- would be nothing short of a disaster for those who prefer tyranny to equality. Tyranny is fundamentally a lesser form of society and government than our democracy in the United States.

The Bush Administration rightly understands that it's far better to have the house to house combat in this war take place in Baghdad or Falluja rather than Washington, New York, or San Francisco. But, back to the original point: We ought not to be ashamed or hesitant on the grounds of political correctness to rightly identify our way of life as by far more equitable, rational, and just than that of our despicable enemies.

 

[jennyanydots]

welcome to the 21st century, Kendra.

multiculturalism is the wave of the future. why? because here in America we have a secular society composed of immigrant groups from all over the world.

as I said on the other thread, we live in a global society. if we take a superior attitude we will surely isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
welcome to the 21st century, Kendra.

multiculturalism is the wave of the future. why? because here in America we have a secular society composed of immigrant groups from all over the world.

as I said on the other thread, we live in a global society. if we take a superior attitude we will surely isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

our sense of superiority often gets us embroiled in situations we don't understand.


our current president still insists that the Iraqis view us as liberators, not occupiers.


but Baghdad, Samarra and Fallujah demonstrate that Iraq circa 2004 is a very different place from France after D Day. and if we weren't so "superior" we'd recognize that.

ever ask someone from the third world what he thinks of 19th century colonization? or the efforts of Christian missionaries to convert people?

the president wound up in hot water with our Arab allies when he used the world "crusade" to describe his war on terror. wonder why that happened?


of course I believe that our American values should be supported and that we should encourage enlightenment throughout the world.

but get real, people. it's a small planet. we live in a global society and have a global economy. right now the US is the only superpower. and we're hated throughout much of the world. and that can't be a good thing

Understanding of the superiority of one's culture does NOt necessarily translate into superiority in manner, approach, or attitude. One can understand the superiority of one's culture yet still have respect for other cultures.

If you believe that our "sense of superiority" brought about the hatred from the extremists in tha Arab world and their heinous murder of our people on 9-11 (and many other dates!), your agenda has blinded you to the realities of the world. Do you think that the Japanese didn't hate us during WWII? Do you think that the Germans and the Italiians didn't hate us during WWII? Guess what? They hated us passionately, deeply, vociferously. But now look at them! They are all our friends and/or allies. The hatred of tin pot dicatorship--anywhere in the world--should never be the basis of our foreign policy. It should never drive the decisions we make--especially on matters of self-defense and national survival.

Yes, we live in a global community. But it's not a unified community by any stretch. It is only a community of trade. Relationships between states still operate on the basis of power, military capability, and economic strength. The word on the Arab street is absolutely irrelevant. Just as the word on the streets of Tokyo, Berlin, or Rome were irrelevant during WWII. We knew who our enemies were then, just as we know who ouf enemies are now.

The opinion of governments and populations of countries or organizations whose goal is our destruction is simply not of any moment. They understand exactly the same thing that we do. They understand that they are going to be defeated.

 

[oracle]

The flaw with this argument is that you're approaching it from a Western point of view. To assert that the pro and con list would favor the American side is simply inaccurate, because that would be a representation of your perception of pros and cons. To many in the Arab world, their list would be radically different, and they would reject your notion of superiority. Now, don't get me wrong, I much prefer my McDonalds-eating, ESPN-watching way of life. But others don't place value on the same things we do. My point is that everything is shaped by individual perspective, and something that you consider superior, isn't percieved that way by everyone else.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by oracle
The flaw with this argument is that you're approaching it from a Western point of view. To assert that the pro and con list would favor the American side is simply inaccurate, because that would be a representation of your perception of pros and cons. To many in the Arab world, their list would be radically different, and they would reject your notion of superiority. Now, don't get me wrong, I much prefer my McDonalds-eating, ESPN-watching way of life. But others don't place value on the same things we do. My point is that everything is shaped by individual perspective, and something that you consider superior, isn't percieved that way by everyone else.

I think you're confusing our values with our culture.

 

[bsnyder]

Kendra, a few days after 9/11, Linda Chavez had an excellent editorial on multiculturalism and its' consequences for our country. I thought it so "right on" that I saved it:


It took a tragedy

It is a simple truth, obscured in recent years, but seen clearly again through the ashes of 6,000 lost lives. What unites us as Americans is more important than any of the petty divisions of race or ethnic group, of class or profession, of religious or political affiliation. We are not black or white, Asian or Latino, Christian or Jew. We are Americans. Our enemies understand this. Unfortunately, it has taken their savage attack to remind us of what some have forgotten. We've been indoctrinated with the cult of multiculturalism for the past three decades in our public schools, in our colleges and universities, in the popular culture and news media, even from our public officials and political leaders. We've been told to abandon the myth of the melting pot and embrace the metaphor of the salad bowl, where each of us in our separate groups co-exist side by side, maintaining our ancestral identities and affinities intact. We've elevated "diversity" to a kind of civic virtue, ignoring that diversity can be good or bad. It is what we do with our diversity that matters.

For the moment, at least, we seem willing to put this nonsense aside. We are not a multicultural nation. We are one nation, indivisible. We are one people, regardless of our color or creed, how long our families have been here or where they came from. And in that, we are unique in the annals of human history.

We saw it on the faces of those gathered in Yankee Stadium last weekend to pray for the dead. They were black and brown and white. They wore uniforms and t-shirts. Some covered their heads with yarmulkes, or turbans, or scarves. But they waved small, American flags and sang the national anthem.

In time of war, it is easier to remember what it is that binds us together. We are fighting to protect our freedom, to preserve our democracy, to continue our way of life, to sustain our unity. But when this war is over -- and it will end, not soon, perhaps, but victoriously nonetheless -- will we remember what it is we were fighting for?

Or will we go back to the corrosive ideology that pits one group against another, that divides us into factions, that emphasizes difference over commonality? What makes this task all the more daunting is the huge shift in demography that has taken place in the last several decades, especially the impact of immigration on our population.

There has never been a time in our history when it was more important to recommit ourselves to assimilating the millions of newcomers who have come to the United States in recent years -- nearly 30 million living here now. It is simply not tenable to continue to accept so many million foreign-born to live here permanently unless both they and we are willing to help make Americans of them. At every period of large-scale immigration to this country, we have understood this as our duty -- that is until recently.

In the waning days of the Clinton administration, proposals floated to alter dramatically the process of becoming a U.S. citizen, to drop or diminish the English requirement for naturalization, to reduce the amount of knowledge of U.S. history and civics required, to abandon portions of the oath of allegiance.

Not only should we reject such misguided public policy proposals, we must reinvigorate the concept of Americanizing newcomers and do so proudly. Our schools should be committed to teaching immigrant children English, so that they can fully participate in our society. They should teach all students -- not just immigrants -- American history in depth so that they understand the foundations of our democracy. Our volunteer and community organizations should promote civic education for immigrants, setting up classes in cities and towns to help prepare immigrants to become U.S. citizens.

We can turn our diversity into a strength by creating a common identity from our various strands. Like steel, an alloy of iron and carbon, we can become stronger from the union of our elements, but only by forging them into one. But if we fail to do so, our great American experiment will fail. And it will not be terrorists who destroy us but ourselves.


Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a TownHall.com member organization.

 

[oracle]

Originally posted by bsnyder
I think you're confusing our values with our culture.

Not at all. But regardless, the two are connected. Culture reflects the values of the society. So I'm not seeing your point here.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by oracle
Not at all. But regardless, the two are connected. Culture reflects the values of the society. So I'm not seeing your point here.

Culture reflects the values of the society, for good or ill. An independent observer would certainly see Western Society as a superior society.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by oracle
The flaw with this argument is that you're approaching it from a Western point of view. To assert that the pro and con list would favor the American side is simply inaccurate, because that would be a representation of your perception of pros and cons. To many in the Arab world, their list would be radically different, and they would reject your notion of superiority. Now, don't get me wrong, I much prefer my McDonalds-eating, ESPN-watching way of life. But others don't place value on the same things we do. My point is that everything is shaped by individual perspective, and something that you consider superior, isn't percieved that way by everyone else.

I understand this view; I believe it is flawed. Of course, to many in the Arab world, their view would be radically different. What I'm asserting is that there is an Absolute Truth--that Western society and culture are superior to that of the Arab world's.

To make this assertion, there must be a criteria. And, of course, just 'cause we say it is, doesn't mean all cultures will agree with us. That seems besides the point. The point would be for those of us to UNDERSTAND the inherent truth and subsequently take pride in and defend our culture and/or values.

What culture values life? What culture values those with differing religious views? What culture values all races and both genders? What country places value on critical thinking skills, intellectual curiosity, dissent? What culture believes we all have a right to pursue happiness and freedom of opportunity? What culture places value on monogomy--thereby teaching their daughters and sons that both men AND women are worthy? These things should be the criteria.

My argument isn't flawed--at least not for the reason you site. It is certain that the Arab world will believe their culture more worthy. I would assert that the Aztec culture I mentioned would also believe theirs to be better. The Japanese in WWII believed their culture to be better; gee, the Nazis believed their society to be utterly perfect--if only those "less than perfect" could be eliminated. The facts, though, because of the deeds they committed, and their LACK of value of life, say otherwise.

The Arab world also does not value life, does not value intellectual curiosity, does not value women, monogomy, dissent, relgious freedom. It can also be argued that it doesn't value children.

The criteria I've mentioned MEANS something to US. To dismiss our own value system when judging others does not do anything to further Good.

 

[luvsTink]

John 11:35


I do not know if you are a Christian or not, but I am assuming so due to the rather xenophobic view points you hold. Many of my brothers and sisters in the faith share your ...how shall I say this... interesting world view.

Culture is to people what water is to fish. Is air better than water? Yep....if you breathe it. Is water better than air? Yep...if you breathe it. Unless you are willing to truly put yourself in anothers shoes you can NOT know what their world view is. You can NOT understand their values. You can NOT know the beauty of their beliefs.

You speak with some "authority" in your tone about the Arab world. Have you lived there? Have you studied Islam? Have you had your house run over by a bulldozer? Have you had a parent riddled with machine gun fire because she spoke out against the tyranny of an occupying government? If you answered no to these questions I hope that you will study them a bit before you begin to denounce the value of another's culture.

I sit in the middle of the United States surrounded by our supposed supreme culture: fast food, inadequate health care, substandard schools due to lack of funding, big box retailers that suck the life blood out of local businesses, television filled with "wardrobe malfunctions", college campuses over run with binge drinking, anti-choice activists unwilling to help single mothers, and a population with far too many boot strap pulling judgemental people.

Superior culture? I think it is OK to say: this is the best culture for me. I do not think it is OK to say: this is the best culture for EVERYBODY. The culutre I want is one that is best portrayed as a set of open arms and open hearts. A culture defined not by being the "best" but by being the most loving..the most willing to care for the least among us...the most willing to turn the other cheek. And believe me, when I find a place with that culture I will be loading up the truck.

Anne

 

[JoNo]

Give america back to the native americans

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Culture reflects the values of the society, for good or ill. An independent observer would certainly see Western Society as a superior society.

I am curious if, in your opinion, such an independant observer exists.

 

[luvdisney81]

Multiculturalism is happening, and will continue to happen in all facets of our life here in America and around the world. Kendra, we may value equal rights, monogamy, freedom and life but our society, government and schools do not promote them. We can talk about it but it doesn't happen. We have people trying to strip rights away from individuals without the thought of compromise. Our schools receive less funding than most schools in the world. We give less than 10% and expect our children to be prepared for the changing market. America has the fundamentals for a great society but we don't promote it. Even our root culture is barely incorporated anymore.

Remember in the scheme of the world we are still toddlers learning out to walk and stay steady on our feet. I've lived in other cultures, travelled to foreign places so I have a deep appreciation for other cultures. I am an avid supporter of multiculturalism and see only benefits.

People overseas do view Americans as ego-centric because we are. We think our way is best and it is not. It may be for us and that is fine, but we cannot go forcing other people to understand or believe that. We value material things more than time with family. A 50+ hour work week is okay, whereas in Europe its about 30 or so with long breaks to enjoy lunch with friends.

Our idea of multiculturalism is giving the main ethnicities a month to celebrate. They can talk about important people in history on PBS and maybe have a Sunday special on ABC. The teacher will read a short biography and put some pictures up on the wall till the next month roles around. We have to do more otherwise we will be left behind. Our country is changing and we should accept and respect that. We will be stronger for it.

 

[Castlebound]

I couldn't agree more with luvdisney81. Saying that one culture is better than another is like saying that one religion is better than all the others. If that were true we would all think that our own religion was the best. I would not say that my religion is better than all others, because I do not fully understand all the other religions in the world. Besides this is the United States of America a country full of people from diverse cultures. Who gets to decide which parts of our culture and other cultures remain, and which parts must go?

 

[caitycaity]

Superior culture? I think it is OK to say: this is the best culture for me. I do not think it is OK to say: this is the best culture for EVERYBODY.

I couldn't agree more with luvdisney81. Saying that one culture is better than another is like saying that one religion is better than all the others. If that were true we would all think that our own religion was the best. I would not say that my religion is better than all others, because I do not fully understand all the other religions in the world. Besides this is the United States of America a country full of people from diverse cultures. Who gets to decide which parts of our culture and other cultures remain, and which parts must go?

ITA!!!

 

[disneylizzy]

Kendra17: Extremely well said. Am printing out what you wrote to take with me to "Celebrate Diversity" night at school. Pictures of dreidls, pictures celebrating Kwanzaa, but heaven forbid the Virgin Mary or even a Christmas tree or Santa. When my children are asked "what they are", they proudly reply AMERICAN.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by luvdisney81
Multiculturalism is happening, and will continue to happen in all facets of our life here in America and around the world. Kendra, we may value equal rights, monogamy, freedom and life but our society, government and schools do not promote them. We can talk about it but it doesn't happen. We have people trying to strip rights away from individuals without the thought of compromise. Our schools receive less funding than most schools in the world. We give less than 10% and expect our children to be prepared for the changing market. America has the fundamentals for a great society but we don't promote it. Even our root culture is barely incorporated anymore.

Remember in the scheme of the world we are still toddlers learning out to walk and stay steady on our feet. I've lived in other cultures, travelled to foreign places so I have a deep appreciation for other cultures. I am an avid supporter of multiculturalism and see only benefits.

People overseas do view Americans as ego-centric because we are. We think our way is best and it is not. It may be for us and that is fine, but we cannot go forcing other people to understand or believe that. We value material things more than time with family. A 50+ hour work week is okay, whereas in Europe its about 30 or so with long breaks to enjoy lunch with friends.

Our idea of multiculturalism is giving the main ethnicities a month to celebrate. They can talk about important people in history on PBS and maybe have a Sunday special on ABC. The teacher will read a short biography and put some pictures up on the wall till the next month roles around. We have to do more otherwise we will be left behind. Our country is changing and we should accept and respect that. We will be stronger for it.

Actually, you are incorrect. Your argument is so absolutely shocking to me, I am not sure how I should respond. Your argument, in case you hadn't realized, is that not everyone values equality, monogamy, freedom and life. . .and that that's okay. Do you realize slavery is still permitted in some countries? It's permitted within certain cultures. You are then saying, that's okay? My point is that EVERYONE deserves to have the freedoms we value. . .and, if they are living under a theocratic despotic leadership that follows Shari'a, how would you possibly hear the voices that want what we have?

Because their leaders say it's so?

Oh where oh where are some examples to support your assertion that our society, government and schools do not promote our values? The only time I would agree with you is when we get Leftist professors attempting to indoctrinate the students into believing that these other forms of government and these other aforementioned cultures and societies have values that are as worthy as our own--despite the fact that people suffer under them in an way that is unrivaled in Western Culture. Obviously, since you disagree with my assertion, what exactly are you referring to? And, our root culture? Please clarify.

Our culture values freedom. That some cultures don't--despite the fact that some of those living under that type of leadership do--that doesn't matter to you? Many of the women forced to be one of several wives actually don't like this set-up. . .but, since it's in their culture, it's okay, then? Many people want reform in their governments, but since their culture doesn't value dissent, it's okay that reform is not brought about? Some cultures teach that it's a good thing to fight Jihad. . .well, then, according to your argument, that would be alright and equally permissible--as would the argument that what Nazi Germany did was okay, because they accepted that within their culture. . .or, what Japan did in WWII was okay, because they believed--as a culture--that they must follow what their Emperor desired. By criticizing these cultures, one is not demeaning what good came out of them. I strongly admire much art, music, literature, architecture, etc., that was borne from other societies.

Also, where do you get your information regarding education--that we spend less than other countries. . .absoltuely false, btw.

From National Review, this week (I can't link it 'cause I typed it in. (I'm a really fast typist):

resident Bush's campaign website trumpets the administration's success at enacting "historic levels of funding" on its watch, including a 49 percent increase in total K-12 spending, $139 million for reading programs totalling four times the amount spent in FY 2001, and a 75 percent increase in special-education funding. Bush has highlighted school spending on the campaign trail, telling a West Virginis crowd, "Listen, we've increased the budgets out of Washington by 49 percent since 2001. That is a healthy increase, " A Department of Education officail later publicly boasted, "Funding has gone up 49% under President Bush. Let me repeat that: 49 percent. That's a huge, historic, gargantuan increase in federal education spending."

The administration is correct. In its first three years, elementary- and secondary- education spending increased by more than it did during the entire Clinton administration. Between 2001 and 2004 federal appropriations nearly doubled, from $29.4 billion to $55.7 billion. Moreover, the GAO has concluded that the new requirements actually imposed by NCLB--testing every child, for example--are relatively inexpensive and are more than adequately offset by federal education dollars.

it goes on to say that:

: In fact, some may be surprised to learn that the US ranks at the top of the international charts when it comes to education spending. In 2000, the most recent year for which international comparisons are available, the OECD found that the United States spent significantly more per child than any other industrial democracy, including those famous for their generous social programs. in primary education, on a per-pupil basis, the U.S. spent 66 percent more than Germany, 56 percent more than France, 27 percent more than Japan, 80 percent more than the United Kingdom, 62 percent more than Finland, 62 percent more than Belgium, and 122 percent more than South korea. At the secondary-school level, the figures are similar, with the US outpacing Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and South Korea, among others, by more than 40 percent per pupil.

Despite all this spending, the US ranked 15th among the 31 countries that participated in teh OECD's 2000 Program for International Student Assessment reading exam. Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand were among the nations that outperformed the US while spending far less per pupil. The results in math are equally disquieting: In the international 1999 TIMMSS study, which assessed mathematics and science achievement at the eighth-grade level, the US ranked 19th out of 38 countries.

Not only are we spending education dollars without much payoff, we are spending more than we think. The accounting guidelines in schools would bring smiles to the former executives of Enron or Tyco. Unlike private-sector businesses, school systems exclude several major costs when computing "current expenditures". Among those excluded: property acquisition and construction.

In California, a state beset by yawning budget problems, personnel costs outstripped revenue growth in 13 of the 20 largest school districts betwen 1996 and 2002. Sacramento enjoyed revenue growth of 33 percent and saw entollment grow by just 4 percent in that period, yet even then found a way to boost its personnel costs by 41 percent. This summer's state budget passed after a contentious legislative session, included a 5 percent increase for K-12 education adn devoted $49.3 billion of the $78.7 billion education budget to K-12 schooling. Were the educators elated by their good fortune? Hardly. Education Week reported that state superintendent of public instruction Jack O'Connell was 'disappointed' by the budget and that educators were simply relieved "the numbers were not as bad as they could have been'.

For decades, we have poured money into shrinking class sizes and reducing teacher workloads. Between 1960 and 2000, the ratio of teachers to students fell from one teacher for every 26 students to one for every 16.1 students, meaning that today's teachers instruct only about 60 percent as many students as teachers did 40 years ago. meanwhile, the amount of time teachers spend with students each day has actually shrunk, from an average of 4.5 hous in 1980 to 3.9 hours in 1998.

It is indeed possible we don't spend enough on schooling, however, until we start wringing out inefficiencies and rewarding educators for finding ways to do more, there's no way to know. Until we make that effort, more spending is and excuse for lethargy and for ducking hard decisions

Lastly, I guess your example of giving other ethnicities a month to celebrate also proves my point, though you don't seem to understand. We are Americans first. . .all of us who live here. There is no reason to give a month to the AA community, since their contributions to our society are American contributions and should be taught ALONGSIDE the contributions of white Americans. Learning about other cultures shouldn't be dismissed; it's important, but we should also teach the negatives of those cultures, not excuse them because, hey, to each his own. Also, what I've found is that we're very quick in academia to teach all the negatives we've done, but dismiss all the good we've done. And, yes, I can cite examples if you wish.

So, when teaching that others value polygamy wouldn't it also behoove us to teach the negatives about that, as well? Or, more to the point, teach why our culture doesn't value some of the things other cultures do? How we came to where we are today? The historical significance of the past to the present? Why we eliminated slavery, why we value equality, liberty and freedom?

 

[danacara]

Who is Kendra's husband who posts, someone named Louie?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by danacara
Who is Kendra's husband who posts, someone named Louie?

My lovely husband doesn't post on here regularly. And, his name is not Louie.

 

[JKanownik]

Actually, multiculturalism is defined as:

the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can co-exist peacefully and equitably in a single country

or

Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

This would be to state that all cultures have value and can co-exist peacefully. Obviously some cultures have qualities that are superior to others, but calling one culture superior to another is like telling one of your children that they are your favorite. While both may be true it is simply bad taste to hurt the feelings of others in stating it publicly. And forcing another culture to completely succomb to yours through force goes against what our culture is based on. You can however point out negative aspects of certain cultures and point out positive alternatives. You can also try to peacefully persuade a culture to change when certain aspects of a culture run counter to basic human rights.

Right now the majority of the world is using positive forces to change the negative aspects of some cultures. Through the EU Europe has been able to gain many human rights gains in Turkey. The Islamic nation of Turkey continues to change for the better in hopes of obtaining entrance into the EU. In China tremendous strides are being made as China hopes to gain entrance into the WTO. While China has a long way to go and at times has been sliding backwards, progress is being made and it will continue to move forward.

The fear and anger that you have expressed in your post are the same emotions that Jihadists use to inspire terror. They do nothing to further democracy or freedom in the world. At the end of your opening post it almost seems that you wish to declare against the entire Middle East. And perhaps China and Korea too. Surely this is not what you are suggesting? If I establish a culturally superior nation am I justified in invading the US?

-Josh