Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 112
To all the regulars on Retire Early CampFIRE, Conservative fools;

I think you folks need to take a snort of smelling salts and reflect on what some of your forum mates are posting, here is a recent excerpt:


It's not a freaking war on terror, it's a war against Islam. The sooner a majority of Americans acknowledge this the better IMO. Of course Americans are not going to learn the truth about Islam in the "government indoctrination centers" aka public schools.......

I don't think Muslims want to exterminate all of us infidels. Islam offers three choices: convert to Islam, submit to Islam and pay the Jizya, or die. If we all die, who's going to be around to pay the Jizya? Muslims aren't much for economic development and need a large supply of slaves to run things.

........Then make a policy decision that all acts of terrorism will be punished by death, the bodies fed to pigs, and the remains returned to the families in the form of pig excrement.


This psychotic raged-filled individual seems to banging the drum for global genocide. And you guys rec'd the post 17 times at last count! I pointed out earlier that unlike in good old-fashioned conventional wars with countries like Germany and Japan, Islam will never surrender, so what are the possible outcomes of such a war?

Since 9/11, a common complaint about Muslims is that the majority of law abiding Muslims need to do a better job of denouncing the whack-job blood thirsty radical ones. Well, reflect on the above comments and take a look within your own house.

Evil prospers when good men do nothing. I am speaking out against this nut-job. Rational Americans need to start loudly denouncing the lunatic fringe that craves nothing less than a global bloodbath.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Agreed; it's gotten ugly over there. I rarely read it anymore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well

Someone posted that there were 7 times as many people on earth as it can possibly support.

Get rid of half of them and we only have 2.5 billion to go.

Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody is willing to die to get there. Except of course a few young men from the Middle East.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Evil prospers when good men do nothing. I am speaking out against this nut-job. Rational Americans need to start loudly denouncing the lunatic fringe that craves nothing less than a global bloodbath.




I heard their idol was in the hospital this morning with "chest pains"...

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Rational Americans need to start loudly denouncing the lunatic fringe that craves nothing less than a global bloodbath.

They not only crave it, they crave that others do the work for them. The loudest cravers are the ones who have never, and will never, serve. Too busy bed-wetting, I suspect.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Who cares what you think?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Well, a wild guess would be a majority of voters, since that's what elected our current president.

The Republican Party-moving steadily towards the fringes of polite society for nearly a decade now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I am speaking out against this nut-job. Rational Americans need to start loudly denouncing the lunatic fringe that craves nothing less than a global bloodbath.


Rational Americans rarely hear these folkers (sitting around the 'campfire', screeching to each other).

if they do, they think , "fringe nutter; no worries. what's the game score"

and you're speaking out where pretty much no one will hear ..especially 'them'


but you're right that's One Scary Post.


=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Republican Party-moving steadily towards the fringes of polite society for nearly a decade now.

Like the Fundamental Christians who helped get Bush elected?



I think I detect another fringe minority religious group looking to be the dominant power.

jC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That poster you responded to has a history of making inflammatory posts. Kind of scary, kind of sad.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"has a history of making inflammatory posts."

like that's a surprise at the Fool?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 81
As a moderate Muslim who loves this country, served it, and would proudly do so again, I genuinely want to cry, not for myself or my faith (we'll be fine) but for my country when I see such Naziism receive numerous recs. My country - "home of the free and land of the brave" - is under attack from within, and the enemy ain't Muslim, the enemy is a minority of cowards that would deny freedom, even to death, to anyone different than they.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I don't read that board any more. Too many angry, nasty people. And it got tiresome continuing to stand up for my Muslim family members to ignorant, angry people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The conservative boards here are filled with sad, old men who view every Muslim as a suicide bomber. It's just another group of non-whites that frighten them (Mexicans, blacks, etc.).

It's part of a general theme of the decline of the relative power of white males over the past generation. Their absolute power is still overwhelmingly great, of course. The idea that "white people" are getting shafted is a joke. But that's what conservatives believe, through their extreme ignorance and fear.

The sad thing is that this demographic, best represented by Fox News, is actually setting the agenda and the terms of our national debates. Their fear of Muslims is the root cause of our endless wars in that region. Their hatred of blacks is what keeps them from signing off on universal healthcare (if it were just poor, white farmers in Iowa without health insurance, we'd have a universal system tomorrow). And their disdain for Mexicans drives our immigration debate (although they gladly employ them for pennies to cut their grass and build their McMansions in the suburbs).

--JC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Since 9/11, a common complaint about Muslims is that the majority of law abiding Muslims need to do a better job of denouncing the whack-job blood thirsty radical ones.

And since then we've read a Pew Research study telling us that 41% of Indonesian Muslims think that the targeting of civilians by suicide bombers in defense of Islam is at least occasionally justified, the province of Aceh has re-instituted stoning as punishment for adultery, and now that the whack-job blood thirsty radical Taliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan the moderate Shiites there can celebrate Ashura by whipping themselves with knife-tipped chains.

At least we're making progress.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
And since then we've read a Pew Research study telling us that 41% of Indonesian Muslims think that the targeting of civilians by suicide bombers in defense of Islam is at least occasionally justified, the province of Aceh has re-instituted stoning as punishment for adultery, and now that the whack-job blood thirsty radical Taliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan the moderate Shiites there can celebrate Ashura by whipping themselves with knife-tipped chains.

At least we're making progress.

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


Early yesterday evening a friend was recounting a vacation she took to Paris. She was walking back to her hotel one evening - and it was very hot so she was wearing a sleeveless tank top. A skinny Muslim dude started yelling and screaming and kicking at her. She was alone and wasn't sure what to do but decided that if he touched her she would flatten him (she outweighed him). She kept walking on a straight line down the walk and looking at her hotel - she didn't change her course at all but the guy kept coming closer and closer screaming and pointing and actually kicking at her like a madman. Before he got to her, two guys came from out of nowhere (she described it) and physically took an elbow each and lifted her out of harm's way. They told her to go inside her hotel and not come back out that evening because it wasn't safe.

Oy. That was PARIS!
What the heck is happening in this world?

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<As a moderate Muslim who loves this country, served it, and would proudly do so again...

My country - "home of the free and land of the brave" - is under attack from within, and the enemy ain't Muslim, the enemy is a minority of cowards that would deny freedom, even to death, to anyone different than they.>

When I read this the first time, I thought that your reference to the "minority of cowards that would deny freedom, even to death, to anyone different than they" was to the suicide bombers. After reading the entire thread, I realized that you might have been referring to the Republicans as the "minority of cowards that would deny freedom, even to death, to anyone different than they."

Please clarify whom you meant.

And if you were referring to the anti-terrorist Republicans, please explain why the moderate Muslims in America have not come out strongly and continuously against radical imams in their midst and around the world, and against violence and death against those who are not Muslim, not to mention many who ARE Muslim but not of the same denomination.

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 72
The idea that "white people" are getting shafted is a joke. But that's what conservatives believe, through their extreme ignorance and fear.

Actually, white people are getting shafted and have been getting shafted and will continue getting shafted -- by a small, powerful, elite corps of other white people who are genius enough to say to them, "Look at us. We you are like us and you can become us if it weren't for those people [insert your favorite "those people"] who want to take your jobs and raise your taxes and run down your property values." So those who are getting the shaft and who buy into this message, who are fearful of losing their homes and watching their jobs go overseas or performed by lower paid workers and dread getting sick with no means to pay for it, suck in this meme and continue to vote for the interests of that small elite even if it means voting against their own interests.

They are being pissed on from above but trained to blame the guy standing below them for their heads getting wet.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
And since then we've read a Pew Research study telling us that 41% of Indonesian Muslims think that the targeting of civilians by suicide bombers in defense of Islam is at least occasionally justified, the province of Aceh has re-instituted stoning as punishment for adultery, and now that the whack-job blood thirsty radical Taliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan the moderate Shiites there can celebrate Ashura by whipping themselves with knife-tipped chains.


The victims of these acts are primarily Muslims. You're eager to draw lines to separate the savage from the civilized, so draw them right. If you draw it so that all Muslims are on one side, and you're on the other side standing next to a racist moron who proclaimed a war against Islam and the twenty or so imbeciles who applauded him, you've messed up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 54
And if you were referring to the anti-terrorist Republicans, please explain why the moderate Muslims in America have not come out strongly and continuously against radical imams in their midst and around the world, and against violence and death against those who are not Muslim, not to mention many who ARE Muslim but not of the same denomination.

Consider how you are acting here. I have a lot of Catholic friends and family. Not a single one has told me unequivocally "I oppose the raping of children." Am I going to go around asking them to do so for my peace of mind? How would you expect them to react if they were treated like potential child-rapers unless they took steps to prove they weren't? It's absurd. But this is how you're treating innocent Muslims.

Muslim organizations in North America are constantly releasing statements condemning acts of terrorism. My guess is that you're not hearing them because you're waiting for the media to deliver such an unsensational story when they could be telling you what balloon boy had for lunch.

I'd guess that you might see even more do it except for being a country in which they are widely seen as "the enemy" might sap some of their motivation to put on a minstrel show to prove to you that they aren't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
As a moderate Muslim who loves this country, served it, and would proudly do so again, I genuinely want to cry, not for myself or my faith (we'll be fine) but for my country

Point taken. And thanks for serving.

But they DID attack us. My family and I visited the World Trade Center once. Had the attack occurred that day we'd be dead, too.

I am sure that during WW II many Germans and Japanese didn't support their leaders either. But there being no way to tell who did and who didn't, all had to be bombed.

The solution: moderate muslims need to speak out more against the extremists and work to remove them from power. Until that happens expect to remain under suspicion by many.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
But they DID attack us.

"They" were Al Qaeda, which says it speaks for Islam. That you believe them says more about you than about Muslims.

moderate muslims need to speak out more against the extremists and work to remove them from power.

Needless to say, I've seen this ignorant statement many times before. I used to reply with hundreds of links, but realized that's pointless. For example, on one occasion one meathead responded that he saw no links there to American Muslim sources, so I gave him a hundred or so of those. His response: "but those are all American sources". We've spoken, and you haven't listened, nor will you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Muslim organizations in North America are constantly releasing statements condemning acts of terrorism. My guess is that you're not hearing them because you're waiting for the media to deliver such an unsensational story when they could be telling you what balloon boy had for lunch.

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


Nah.
There is no room in the papers or in the media because they are all busier than cats coverin' up guavas on a tin roof trying to get out the word about Tiger Wood's ho's.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That you believe them says more about you than about Muslims.

Making it personal, eh? So be it.

Needless to say, I've seen this ignorant statement many times before.

And yet the extremists are still there. I guess you are a slow learner.

Do more to get rid of them (by death, if necessary) and I'll be impressed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Muslim organizations in North America are constantly releasing statements condemning acts of terrorism. My guess is that you're not hearing them because you're waiting for the media to deliver such an unsensational story when they could be telling you what balloon boy had for lunch.

I'd guess that you might see even more do it except for being a country in which they are widely seen as "the enemy" might sap some of their motivation to put on a minstrel show to prove to you that they aren't.


Unfortunately, and although these declarations happen constantly, there's not much point to them, and our greatest efforts are best devoted to raising respectful, tolerant, and freedom-loving families. People like the poster don't want us to be moderate, so they don't hear our declarations or at least pretend not to, and the terrorists just don't care what we think. Apparently we're supposed to do what the Pope and moderate Catholics did about the violence in Northern Ireland: organize our own Army and defend everybody else. The Pope did do that, right? Surely the victims of atrocity didn't have to be responsible for defending themselves when there were Catholics about to do it for them.

If one examines the noisiest of these people who fraudulently call themselves "anti-terrorist" (which would put them on my side), they aren't usually inclined to defend the country or its magnificent system against terrorism, they're often (but not always) chickenhawks, as should be expected of people who fear everyone different from them and anything that looks like change - that is, life itself. Then they tell someone like me I'm supposed to defend them, but I already have and in any case they define me as enemy. They ought to enlist, but they'd rather hide under the bed and scream epithets at those they fear: most of the human race. They're pathetic, and in their uncontrolled anger and bigotry (which is always fear-driven) they're a serious threat to all our freedom, which makes them true threats to American democracy and as such, my adversaries.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh no, "they" are here- where's the guy with the Rebar when you need him?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Muslim organizations in North America are constantly releasing statements condemning acts of terrorism. My guess is that you're not hearing them because you're waiting for the media to deliver such an unsensational story when they could be telling you what balloon boy had for lunch.

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


Nah.
There is no room in the papers or in the media because they are all busier than cats coverin' up guavas on a tin roof trying to get out the word about Tiger Wood's ho's.



heh.

translation to Yankee--

There is no room in the papers or in the media because they are all too f -ing busy getting out the word about Tiger Wood's ho's.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Oy. That was PARIS!
What the heck is happening in this world?"

The French are funny - we bailed their arses out in WW2 and they still hate us. So much for a courteous "thank you."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 42
The French are funny - we bailed their arses out in WW2 and they still hate us. So much for a courteous "thank you."

They bailed us out in our Revolutionary War and were somewhat surprised that we didn't return the favor during theirs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"They bailed us out in our Revolutionary War and were somewhat surprised that we didn't return the favor during theirs."

We weren't welcome there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We weren't welcome there.

I'll bet the Loyalists felt the same way about them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
They are being pissed on from above but trained to blame the guy standing below them for their heads getting wet.

LtUhura
-----------

The wisdom here is so true, it makes me weep.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I'll bet the Loyalists felt the same way about them."

I guess we're even then.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The French are funny - we bailed their arses out in WW2 and they still hate us. So much for a courteous "thank you."

They bailed us out in our Revolutionary War and were somewhat surprised that we didn't return the favor during theirs.


that too.

and i REALLY doubt they hate us.

.. just because they didn't buy Cheney/Bush's story about Iraq?


=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nah.
There is no room in the papers or in the media because they are all busier than cats coverin' up guavas on a tin roof trying to get out the word about Tiger Wood's ho's.



heh.

translation to Yankee--

There is no room in the papers or in the media because they are all too f -ing busy getting out the word about Tiger Wood's ho's.






Hardie Har Har.
Can't imagine why I just rec'ed that - because my version is just SO much better. ;o)

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Oy. That was PARIS!
What the heck is happening in this world?"

The French are funny - we bailed their arses out in WW2 and they still hate us. So much for a courteous "thank you."

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


<SIGH>
It WASN'T a French guy. It was one of their Muslim immigrants.
It was two French guys that saved her.
So my friend said. I wasn't there.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
They bailed us out in our Revolutionary War and were somewhat surprised that we didn't return the favor during theirs

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


They gave us the Statue of Liberty
We gave them Freedom Fries.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"They" were Al Qaeda, which says it speaks for Islam. That you believe them says more about you than about Muslims.

Well, that's not really true. Al Qaeda is the 'voice' of Islam the same as Rush and Beck have become the defacto 'voice' of the republican party by saying the craziest things and then having them broadcast everywhere because they are crazy. I didn't believe that Rush and Beck spoke for the majority of the republican party. But, everyday that does by it looks as if they do becasue the more rational people leave the GOP, such as myself.

Crazy is loud in this world or constant broadcast media, calm and rational is a whisper, or a whimper.

Needless to say, I've seen this ignorant statement many times before. I used to reply with hundreds of links, but realized that's pointless. For example, on one occasion one meathead responded that he saw no links there to American Muslim sources, so I gave him a hundred or so of those. His response: "but those are all American sources". We've spoken, and you haven't listened, nor will you.

Perhaps it is ignorant. However, a bunch of websites cannot compete with crazy when it comes to being heard. It's not because we aren't listening that we haven't heard you, it's because the voice of moderation isn't loud enough. And moderation must be much louder than crazy to be heard.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They gave us the Statue of Liberty
We gave them Freedom Fries.

AM



And we gave them idiot cheese.


"In protest of France's opposition to a U.S. war on Iraq, the U.S. Congress' cafeteria has changed french fries and french toast to 'freedom fries' and 'freedom toast.' Afterwards, the congressmen were so pleased with themselves, they all started freedom kissing each other. In a related story, in France, American cheese is now referred to as 'idiot cheese.'" —Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"



flowerschild
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The French are funny - we bailed their arses out in WW2 and they still hate us. So much for a courteous "thank you."

They saved or rear ends during the revolutionary war. Call it even.

Also, that was 60 years ago - exactly how long are they supposed to kiss our heineys?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Also, that was 60 years ago - exactly how long are they supposed to kiss our heineys?"

Forever maybe?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The French are funny - we bailed their arses out in WW2 and they still hate us. So much for a courteous "thank you."

===

They bailed us out in our Revolutionary War and were somewhat surprised that we didn't return the favor during theirs.




+++
+++


Are you suggesting that the USA should have reciprocated by supporting Louis XVI?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution



sunray
noted francophobe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Thank you for your service, sir.

As a moderate who loves this country, I think you for having worn the uniform and, much more importantly, for continually speaking out against the cowards who are the real threat to American democracy.

sincerely

Dean Kidd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The French are funny - we bailed their arses out in WW2 and they still hate us. So much for a courteous "thank you."

I have been to France many times and they don't hate us. So much for "stereotypes."

R:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
a bunch of websites cannot compete with crazy when it comes to being heard. It's not because we aren't listening that we haven't heard you, it's because the voice of moderation isn't loud enough. And moderation must be much louder than crazy to be heard.

If you listen you'll hear, unless you're deaf. Do you really expect some guy in Malaysia who's looking for his next bowl of rice to defend us? Our defense is our own responsibility.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 140
But they DID attack us. My family and I visited the World Trade Center once. Had the attack occurred that day we'd be dead, too.

My husband was there, and died. I don't understand the use of this as a qualifying statement; I'm pretty sure my opinion on terrorism is every bit as uninformed as yours. Having experienced the phenomenon doesn't make me an expert. And I take exception to your use of the word "they." They - you mean, the whole religion? Are you kidding?

The solution: moderate <insert group name here> need to speak out more against the extremists and work to remove them from power. Until that happens expect to remain under suspicion by many.

Take out the group name and it sounds pretty rational, actually. It's the scapegoating that renders it non-viable. Turn it around, put in a word like "Christians", or "Republicans." Does it still sound like a good idea?

Our problem - our global problem - isn't a single idea or ideology or creed, even when those ideas are non-sane. Our problem is the willingness of the insane to promote their ideas to us with violence. This willingness bespeaks a cowardice in the face of strange (and, yes, even possibly inimical) ideas, a disbelief in the ability to defend adequately against such ideas, a devaluation of the lives of people who will not embrace our own ideas, and an essential insanity which I feel is shared by all radical/fundamental practitioners of religion, from priests who shield rapists to anti-abortionists who kill doctors to suicide bombers; they are all cut from the same cloth. Crazy is as crazy does - there is no "they" in that respect.

But there being no way to tell who did and who didn't, all had to be bombed.

You suggest that we might bomb the many to root out the few; you compare Islam with wartime Japan and Germany. But we did not bomb Tokyo so that we might convert the Japanese from Imperial Shintoism - and Al Qaeda is no nation's government, any more than Fundamentalist Christianity is ours. By insisting that the majority should preemptively root out their radical fringe under threat of violence you render your intentions exactly equivalent to Al Qaeda's.

I know the dreadful capability of extremism from personal experience. Would you have me - us - take it up for ourselves in response? Seriously: would you have the insanity of the world make us insane too?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 53
And if you were referring to the anti-terrorist Republicans, please explain why the moderate Muslims in America have not come out strongly and continuously against radical imams in their midst and around the world, and against violence and death against those who are not Muslim, not to mention many who ARE Muslim but not of the same denomination.

The previous Christian president, George W. Bush, tortured prisoners. Why haven't "moderate" Christian groups "come out strongly again continuously against" war crimes?

Bush also started two wars, resulting in the deaths and displacement of millions (meek much?). Where is the Christian outrage? Did Jesus say it's OK to kill Muslim babies?

What about Bush's policies that favor the rich? Where is the Christian outrage there (camels, needle eyes, etc.).

What about health care? Would Jesus favor large, profit driven corporations over sick kids, millions of whom go without proper care right here in one of the richest countries on earth? And yet, little or no Christian outrage.

Why don't you get your own glass house in order before you start throwing rocks at Muslims.

--JC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you listen you'll hear, unless you're deaf. Do you really expect some guy in Malaysia who's looking for his next bowl of rice to defend us? Our defense is our own responsibility.

If I listen, I mostly hear whackos - they are louder. That is not my fault.

To be honest - I do not go out of my way to search for the voice of moderation. I'm sure it is out there, but in general, it's the whackos that are getting the most press. Makes better news.

That's just the way it is.

What's a guy in Malaysia have to do with anything?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Also, that was 60 years ago - exactly how long are they supposed to kiss our heineys?"

Forever maybe?

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


Of course. It's the American way. The entire world is supposed to kiss our bright shineys every time we drop our drawers and bend over. They are supposed to tremble at the sight of us. And bow low when we walk by with all our guns slung on every part of our anatomy.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
scaryblondechick: You suggest that we might bomb the many to root out the few; you compare Islam with wartime Japan and Germany. But we did not bomb Tokyo so that we might convert the Japanese from Imperial Shintoism - and Al Qaeda is no nation's government, any more than Fundamentalist Christianity is ours. By insisting that the majority should preemptively root out their radical fringe under threat of violence you render your intentions exactly equivalent to Al Qaeda's.

Very well said.

--JC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
My husband was there, and died.

I am sorry for your loss.

But we did not bomb Tokyo so that we might convert the Japanese from Imperial Shintoism

I never said we did. The bombing was to hinder their fighting ability and drop morale. We did force the emperor to renounce his divinity as a condition for remaining on his throne after the war.

By insisting that the majority should preemptively root out their radical fringe under threat of violence you render your intentions exactly equivalent to Al Qaeda's.

Maybe so. But who else is going to do it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What's a guy in Malaysia have to do with anything?

Malaysia is one of the largest Muslim countries, and my question was indeed "What does he have to do with anything?"

I understand your point that the crazies naturally get more attention, like a five-car wreck on a highway with a hundred safe drivers, but my point is that the attention paid the wreck is in the nature of the onlookers, not the nature of safe drivers. Once they're driving safely, there's nothing more radical they can do to get attention. Doing the right thing is neither radical nor flashy, it's just right. That was also my point when I told somebody that his belief in Al Qaeda's claim to represent Islam spoke about him, not about Islam. It is the perceiver who makes these choices. Reality is still there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Our problem - our global problem - isn't a single idea or ideology or creed, even when those ideas are non-sane. Our problem is the willingness of the insane to promote their ideas to us with violence. This willingness bespeaks a cowardice in the face of strange (and, yes, even possibly inimical) ideas, a disbelief in the ability to defend adequately against such ideas, a devaluation of the lives of people who will not embrace our own ideas, and an essential insanity which I feel is shared by all radical/fundamental practitioners of religion, from priests who shield rapists to anti-abortionists who kill doctors to suicide bombers; they are all cut from the same cloth. Crazy is as crazy does - there is no "they" in that respect.



bears repeating ...IMO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<I<But they DID attack us. My family and I visited the World Trade Center once. Had the attack occurred that day we'd be dead, too.

My husband was there, and died. I don't understand the use of this as a qualifying statement; I'm pretty sure my opinion on terrorism is every bit as uninformed as yours. Having experienced the phenomenon doesn't make me an expert. And I take exception to your use of the word "they." They - you mean, the whole religion? Are you kidding?

The solution: moderate <insert group name here> need to speak out more against the extremists and work to remove them from power. Until that happens expect to remain under suspicion by many.

Take out the group name and it sounds pretty rational, actually. It's the scapegoating that renders it non-viable. Turn it around, put in a word like "Christians", or "Republicans." Does it still sound like a good idea?

Our problem - our global problem - isn't a single idea or ideology or creed, even when those ideas are non-sane. Our problem is the willingness of the insane to promote their ideas to us with violence. This willingness bespeaks a cowardice in the face of strange (and, yes, even possibly inimical) ideas, a disbelief in the ability to defend adequately against such ideas, a devaluation of the lives of people who will not embrace our own ideas, and an essential insanity which I feel is shared by all radical/fundamental practitioners of religion, from priests who shield rapists to anti-abortionists who kill doctors to suicide bombers; they are all cut from the same cloth. Crazy is as crazy does - there is no "they" in that respect.

But there being no way to tell who did and who didn't, all had to be bombed.

You suggest that we might bomb the many to root out the few; you compare Islam with wartime Japan and Germany. But we did not bomb Tokyo so that we might convert the Japanese from Imperial Shintoism - and Al Qaeda is no nation's government, any more than Fundamentalist Christianity is ours. By insisting that the majority should preemptively root out their radical fringe under threat of violence you render your intentions exactly equivalent to Al Qaeda's.

I know the dreadful capability of extremism from personal experience. Would you have me - us - take it up for ourselves in response? Seriously: would you have the insanity of the world make us insane too?


And the verdict is that you are not blond. That is too intelligent.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
And the verdict is that you are not blond. That is too intelligent.

Hence the "scary" part.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And yet the extremists are still there. I guess you are a slow learner.

Do more to get rid of them (by death, if necessary) and I'll be impressed.


Pretty much every group has it's share of extremists. Are you suggesting that we kill them all? If so, that's a pretty extreme suggestion.

LWW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Would you have me - us - take it up for ourselves in response? Seriously: would you have the insanity of the world make us insane too?

Suppose that in 1944 Roosevelt decided, "Oh we don't actually have to invade Germany. It'll cost too many lives. If they promise to behave we can all go home."

I think we have to destroy our enemies before they destroy us. And--make no mistake--that is their goal. They hate our freedoms. If that is insanity to you, so be it.

That said, it is my hope we can marginalize the militants and then the ordinary people will stop fighting. That won't be easy.l
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pretty much every group has it's share of extremists. Are you suggesting that we kill them all? If so, that's a pretty extreme suggestion.

If they've already killed Americans and have vowed to kill more, then yes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Suppose that in 1944 Roosevelt decided, "Oh we don't actually have to invade Germany. It'll cost too many lives. If they promise to behave we can all go home."

This is a non-sequitur. In 1944 we were fighting a nation state. Uniforms. Tanks. Command and control. The current problem is no such thing, and cannot be compared in any way.

I think we have to destroy our enemies before they destroy us. And--make no mistake--that is their goal. They hate our freedoms. If that is insanity to you, so be it.

Well, "destroying our enemies" doesn't include destroying the 99% of muslims who are not our enemies does it? Or if you think it does, then yes, that is insanity. It ranks right up there with the Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, or Milosevic's worst efforts.

That said, it is my hope we can marginalize the militants and then the ordinary people will stop fighting.

The "ordinary people" aren't fighting. It's the extremists who are, and who need to be marginalized. You might remember when we were fighting "the godless communists" in Vietnam, the 'ordinary people' were just trying to stay alive.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 60
But they DID attack us. My family and I visited the World Trade Center once. Had the attack occurred that day we'd be dead, too.

I am sure that during WW II many Germans and Japanese didn't support their leaders either. But there being no way to tell who did and who didn't, all had to be bombed.


Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.

Let's imagine that it is 2001, and I am a middle-class muslim Iraqi woman, with a family and a job. My country is ruled by a dictator, but his rule doesn't really affect my daily life - I hate him, but I'm a bit fatalistic about it all.

The US is attacked, and 3000 people are killed. I am saddened, but it has nothing to do with me or my country - some group based in Afghanistan, with most of the hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia has done it. My friends and I talk about it, shake our heads, and go on with our lives.

Suddenly, the US attacks my country. And several of my countrymen fight back. I do not support terrorists, but these are my neighbours fighting foreigners who bombed my workplace, the bridge my kids cross to go to school every day - all without being provoked.

And you, PKnudsen, actually expect me to speak out against my countrymen fighting the US?

George W. Bush, a Christian, bombed my country. Should I and all my Iragi bretheren kill all Christians???

Orinjade
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
If they've already killed Americans and have vowed to kill more, then yes.

So would you support Fundamentalist Christians who have murdered doctors who provide abortions? Or would that be wrong? Extremism in any form is dangerous.

I have news for you: there are people in this country who have vowed to kill the Americans who don't live and believe the way they do. I have no problem with us protecting our borders, however, when we start invading other countries and telling them how to live their lives according to our laws, I do have a problem with it. Look at how we've treated people in foreign countries for so long, it's really not surprising that they see us as a great evil that must be stopped. But you don't start wiping out entire populations based on the idea that some of them have vowed to destroy you. When you do that, then you are no better than the people you are trying to wipe out.

LWW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You suggest that we might bomb the many to root out the few; you compare Islam with wartime Japan and Germany. But we did not bomb Tokyo so that we might convert the Japanese from Imperial Shintoism - and Al Qaeda is no nation's government, any more than Fundamentalist Christianity is ours. By insisting that the majority should preemptively root out their radical fringe under threat of violence you render your intentions exactly equivalent to Al Qaeda's.

I know the dreadful capability of extremism from personal experience. Would you have me - us - take it up for ourselves in response? Seriously: would you have the insanity of the world make us insane too?


That was a BRILLIANT post, scaryblondechick!

This far down on the thread, few people will note my response. But I wanted YOU to know that I read and really admired the way you summarized this very difficult situation.

You deserved all the recs, and more!

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Our problem - our global problem - isn't a single idea or ideology or creed, even when those ideas are non-sane. Our problem is the willingness of the insane to promote their ideas to us with violence. This willingness bespeaks a cowardice in the face of strange (and, yes, even possibly inimical) ideas, a disbelief in the ability to defend adequately against such ideas, a devaluation of the lives of people who will not embrace our own ideas, and an essential insanity which I feel is shared by all radical/fundamental practitioners of religion, from priests who shield rapists to anti-abortionists who kill doctors to suicide bombers; they are all cut from the same cloth. Crazy is as crazy does - there is no "they" in that respect.

bears repeating ...IMO


Heck ... it bears memorizing. SBC nailed it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So would you support Fundamentalist Christians who have murdered doctors who provide abortions?

Of course not. What a silly question. That's not fighting a war. Of course if they kill someone they should get the chair.

I have news for you: there are people in this country who have vowed to kill the Americans who don't live and believe the way they do

I know that! Not News. They're as bad as the Taliban. Fortunately there aren't many of them, and the police can deal with them. You are doing what is called raising a strawman then knocking it down.

Look at how we've treated people in foreign countries for so long,

What people? What countries? You're way off base.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, "destroying our enemies" doesn't include destroying the 99% of muslims who are not our enemies does it?

I'm not going to debate you further if you put words in my mouth. I never said anything of that sort and you know it. I think we're pretty much exhausted this topic anyway, don't you? I clearly stated that we should only fight those who attack us.

The "ordinary people" aren't fighting.

If they help the Taliban, that is as bad as fighting. But since we can't always know for sure, it's difficult. I guess entering or leaving a Taliban camp might be proof enough.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.

OK.

Let's imagine that it is 2001, and I am a middle-class muslim Iraqi woman, with a family and a job. My country is ruled by a dictator, but his rule doesn't really affect my daily life - I hate him, but I'm a bit fatalistic about it all.

OK.

The US is attacked, and 3000 people are killed. I am saddened, but it has nothing to do with me or my country - some group based in Afghanistan,


Exactly. There was no need for Bush to attack Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Everyone knew the Taliban were in Afghanistan. Bush was just trying to show up his father, I suspect.

And you, PKnudsen, actually expect me to speak out against my countrymen fighting the US?

No, not if you are unjustly attacked. And first of all, I was not talking about Iraq in any previous post.

Nor in any situation if it puts your life at risk. Where did that come from anyway?

But for that matter, are not the Iraqi people better off today?


Should I and all my Iragi bretheren kill all Christians???


I suppose some would think it was justified. On the other hand, if people from your country DID in fact attack the USA, you should not be surprised if we strike back.

Orinjade

Orinjade" interesting name. What's its origin?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Pretty much every group has it's share of extremists. Are you suggesting that we kill them all? If so, that's a pretty extreme suggestion.

What I find fascinating is that everyone seems to heap this all on religion when political extremists are in the same category. Like everything else though, if they believe in something similar to what we believe, we usually say they aren't extremists, just zealots who got a little carried away.

What I don't understand is why the saying, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." is used so often when it so obviously is ignored by almost everyone.

Calabogie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But for that matter, are not the Iraqi people better off today?



no ..though i'm sure Cheney would say so.

but we'd have to ask them..



=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't give a rat's rump what Cheney thinks about anything. He's an evil idiot who wouldn't know the truth if it smacked him in the hind end with a bass fiddle. If anybody in the Bush administrations deserves to be in jail, he's it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The solution: moderate <insert group name here> need to speak out more against the extremists and work to remove them from power. Until that happens expect to remain under suspicion by many.

Take out the group name and it sounds pretty rational, actually. It's the scapegoating that renders it non-viable. Turn it around, put in a word like "Christians", or "Republicans." Does it still sound like a good idea?



Yes, it does still sound good. Extremists within any group tends to be the minority -- otherwise they would not be noted as extremists.

Keith
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The previous Christian president, George W. Bush, tortured prisoners. Why haven't "moderate" Christian groups "come out strongly again continuously against" war crimes?


Many moderate Christians and many moderate Americans have come out strongly and continously against war crimes.


Keith
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I know that! Not News. They're as bad as the Taliban. Fortunately there aren't many of them, and the police can deal with them. You are doing what is called raising a strawman then knocking it down.




You overlook the fact that, in some Red States, they ARE the police.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't give a rat's rump what Cheney thinks about anything. He's an evil idiot who wouldn't know the truth if it smacked him in the hind end with a bass fiddle. If anybody in the Bush administrations deserves to be in jail, he's it.


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


Oh, he knows the truth all right. He just breaks out in hives if it gets anywhere near him.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Extremists within any group tends to be the minority -- otherwise they would not be noted as extremists.

Keith

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


This is not true - UNLESS you define your "group" to be much larger than the group of extremists. I would call the entire group of KKK members extremists. They are only a minority if you enlarge the group to contain the entire population of the United States. But that is really manipulating the data, don't you think?

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Can I invoke Godwin's Law for references to the KKK?

I think this thread is starting to smell a little off. I'm sorry - really really sorry - that I was goaded to respond, even in the vein of "coming out" against scapegoating and preemptive violence (controversial though that may be). I'm sure most of us would rather not have this board become PALite ... aw, crap, too late.

How about I just go threaten somebody with a piece of rebar in the supermarket parking lot, then can we call it even?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, not if you are unjustly attacked. And first of all, I was not talking about Iraq in any previous post.

I was talking as a moderate Muslim. In your first post, you said, "but they DID attack us."

I (and many others on this board, I suspect) felt that you were talking about Muslims in general, because of the following part of your post "The solution: moderate muslims need to speak out more against the extremists and work to remove them from power. Until that happens expect to remain under suspicion by many."

If I were a peaceful moderate Muslim, in Indonesia, or India, or Bangladesh, or Egypt (some of the largest Muslim populations in the world), why would this be any concern of mine? Why would I have to speak out more against the extremists?

American Muslims have, overwhelmingly, spoken out against terrorism. Most of the rest of the Muslim world is not involved in this fight, but has a general distrust of the US based on its support of Israel over the years - they don't support extremists, but it is not their fight. Why would you suspect all Muslims based on the actions of a few extremists?

On the other hand, if people from your country DID in fact attack the USA, you should not be surprised if we strike back.
So you are recommending that we attack Saudi Arabia? Because people from that country did attack us. The difficulty here is that a country did not attack us, and we have nobody to focus our attention and anger on, so some of us pick a whole religion.

Orinjade" interesting name. What's its origin?
Childhood nickname. I loved orangeade, and used to have hair the same colour. A friend gave me TMF as a gift (in the days we used to pay) and she spelt it this way - we decided that it works, since I have green eyes :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is the perceiver who makes these choices. Reality is still there.

I agree. Of course, perception is reality, and some choices are made for you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would call the entire group of KKK members extremists. They are only a minority if you enlarge the group to contain the entire population of the United States. But that is really manipulating the data, don't you think?

While I agree that all KKK members are extremists, I would still say they are a group that the moderates in the United States should condemn. I would also say that moderate Caucasians should also condemn KKK activities. The same is true for Christians. In fact, history has many examples of moderates in the U.S. (many white Christians) condemning the activities of the KKK.

Keith
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Should I and all my Iragi bretheren kill all Christians???


I suppose some would think it was justified.


You appear to have no concept how decent people think.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
but we'd have to ask them..


Fine. Let's ask them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You overlook the fact that, in some Red States, they ARE the police.

I used to live in Georgia. Red State enough for you? I had no problem with any police department there whatsoever.

It's not the 1960's anymore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How about I just go threaten somebody with a piece of rebar in the supermarket parking lot, then can we call it even?

It's OK with me.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Let's imagine that it is 2001, and I am a middle-class muslim Iraqi woman, with a family and a job.

Orinjade, as best I can tell based on my many conversations in Political Asylum, the right wing has no understanding of empathy. Or, to the degree that they get the concept, they reject it out of hand as a weakness.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
This will be my last post on this topic, I promise.

are not the Iraqi people better off today?

I don't think so.

The average Iraqi person, like the average American, cares first and foremost about their immediate life. Roads in good repair, running water, consistent energy supply, etc. Only when everything in their regular life is okay, do they worry about broader ideals like democracy and freedom. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and all that.

Right now, things in Iraq are much worse than they were when Saddam was president, because while they might get to choose their leaders, the basic stuff does not work, whereas before it did.

The one thing you could say for the British Empire (disclaimer, I am English) - they knew how to do nation-building. Built roads and railways, established courts and civil systems. Maybe if the US could do that as successfully, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. But we have this thing against being an empire, so we eschew such organisations. Pity, really. Because IMHO, more than military power, what the US really needs is an international civil service.

Orinjade
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You appear to have no concept how decent people think.

Sorry, but I don't consider the Taliban decent people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Look at how we've treated people in foreign countries for so long,

What people? What countries? You're way off base.


Seriously? Americans have been going to 3rd world countries and lokoing down their noses at them for years. We strut all over the world and bring our attitude of superiority with us. If we'd treated the people of a lot of those countries with more real respect and not so much lip service, maybe we'd still have the respect of the people in those countries and they wouldn't be willing to provide aid and comfort to those who seek to harm us.

I'm going to hazard a guess here and figure that if a group if Islamic extremists came into your community and insisted that all the women wear burkas, and school was to be for males only, you'd probably raise a stink about it. If you were Christian, you might even think that they were sent by Satan to destroy your way of life. Turn that around: the US exports all sorts of images to the middle east and countries like Malaysia and Pakistan, that are a complete affront to their religion, and when they protest, they are told that they are repressing women, and that women should dress as they please and be allowed the same educational benefits as men. To the members of that religion, we are trying to destroy their way of life.

It is not the job of the United States to force our beliefs on other countries. Maybe if we spent a little more time in earlier years actually trying to understand the rules in the countries where we wanted to do business, there wouldn't have been the backlash from Al-Quaeda. We should be protecting our home borders, not trying to erase "terrorism". Terrorism will always be with us. It's been with us since the dawn of time. We only jumped into all this because we can't seem to keep our national noses out of other countries business. Now we're learning, just like Russia did in the 80s, that it's a losing proposition.

LWW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What I find fascinating is that everyone seems to heap this all on religion when political extremists are in the same category. Like everything else though, if they believe in something similar to what we believe, we usually say they aren't extremists, just zealots who got a little carried away.

Call them extremists, call them zealots, it doesn't really matter. The end result is the same. The first time you kill in the name of ideology, you've crossed the line. I find it fascinating that when push comes to shove, Christians are more likely to turn to the Old Testament, where the law was an eye for an eye, rather than the New Testament where we were told to turn the other cheek and forgive our enemy seventy times seven.

What I don't understand is why the saying, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." is used so often when it so obviously is ignored by almost everyone.

You will note that like all extremists and zealots, those who are on the attack truly believe that they are the good men who are trying to prevent evil from triumphing.

LWW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 45
Turn that around: the US exports all sorts of images to the middle east and countries like Malaysia and Pakistan, that are a complete affront to their religion, and when they protest, they are told that they are repressing women, and that women should dress as they please and be allowed the same educational benefits as men.

Women should dress as they please and be allowed the same educational benefits as men.

I'll go so far as to say adulterers shouldn't be stoned to death and homosexuals shouldn't be executed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

are not the Iraqi people better off today?
=================
I don't think so.

The average Iraqi person, like the average American, cares first and foremost about their immediate life. Roads in good repair, running water, consistent energy supply, etc. Only when everything in their regular life is okay, do they worry about broader ideals like democracy and freedom. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and all that.

Right now, things in Iraq are much worse than they were when Saddam was president, because while they might get to choose their leaders, the basic stuff does not work, whereas before it did.


a million or so have fled --part of why things don't work (those who fled are better off? but not IRaqi?)

many thousands have died .. they may be better off, but most of their surviving friends and family don't feel better for the loss

the secular ones (that didn't flee) are living under semi-Sharia (enforced by local gangs?) ..might not think they're better off.

they get to choose their leaders ..sort of (like here, there's a limited slate --those who can never win in the elections are still terrorizing the rest)



The one thing you could say for the British Empire (disclaimer, I am English) - they knew how to do nation-building. Built roads and railways, established courts and civil systems. Maybe if the US could do that as successfully, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. But we have this thing against being an empire, so we eschew such organisations. Pity, really. Because IMHO, more than military power, what the US really needs is an international civil service.


true. British perception might be different, but my understanding is that the Empire worked because of a might-makes-right, suck-all-the-resources, no-industry-allowed, no-democracy-allowed attitude. Moderns Americans (& English?) don't like those attitudes. Problem is Americans want to use their might to right-wrongs (eliminate Taliban), buy the resources (at bargain rates), and Instill Democracy --doesn't seem to work for some reason.



=
..... does seem like there'd be poll somewhere ..on Iraqi attitudes towards US 'liberation'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Seriously?

Very.

Americans have been going to 3rd world countries and lokoing down their noses at them for years.

Speaking for yourself? I know of no one who has done that.


I'm going to hazard a guess here and figure that if a group if Islamic extremists came into your community and insisted that all the women wear burkas, and school was to be for males only, you'd probably raise a stink about it.


Correct. And Rightly So. You want to give them a pass, go right ahead.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
=
..... does seem like there'd be poll somewhere ..on Iraqi attitudes towards US 'liberation'

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


How accurate could a poll be in a culture where everyone is always surrounded by other people? How free would they feel to express their actual opinions in the face of what those others around them might think (and, later, do)?

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
..... does seem like there'd be poll somewhere ..on Iraqi attitudes towards US 'liberation'

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


How accurate could a poll be in a culture where everyone is always surrounded by other people? How free would they feel to express their actual opinions in the face of what those others around them might think (and, later, do)?


there IS that.

but a poll would be a bit of data ..better than WAGs


-
.... especially if it confirmed MY guesses <g>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
0x6a74 says

..... does seem like there'd be poll somewhere ..on Iraqi attitudes towards US 'liberation'

I recall seeing several polls taken in Iraq at different times since the invasion. All of them showed a heavy majority of Iraqis wanting the US to leave immediately.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
recall seeing several polls taken in Iraq at different times since the invasion. All of them showed a heavy majority of Iraqis wanting the US to leave immediately.

Those were of our soldiers.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Americans have been going to 3rd world countries and lokoing down their noses at them for years. We strut all over the world and bring our attitude of superiority with us. If we'd treated the people of a lot of those countries with more real respect and not so much lip service, maybe we'd still have the respect of the people in those countries and they wouldn't be willing to provide aid and comfort to those who seek to harm us.

Maybe. The English went around to 3rd world countries for two centuries, looking down their noses at the indigents and it worked out OK for them. Australia. South Africa. North America. India. Ireland. Islands of the Caribbean. At one point they controlled the economies of Siam and China, and had significant interests in Argentina as well. After World War I they gained significant control and economic interest in Iraq, New Zealand and Palestine.

I'm not saying they didn't get some troubles along the way, but overall they did pretty well - and most of their "protectorates" did also.

It is not the job of the United States to force our beliefs on other countries. Maybe if we spent a little more time in earlier years actually trying to understand the rules in the countries where we wanted to do business, there wouldn't have been the backlash from Al-Quaeda. We should be protecting our home borders, not trying to erase "terrorism".

Maybe, but this kind of isolationism didn't exactly stop the outbreak of World War II. And had we waited even longer, the price would have been even higher, as more recently discovered documents from Hitler show that after his conquest of Europe and Russia he was planning an invasion of the US.

Now we're nowhere near that now, but neither do I think we can stick our head in the sand and retreat to "our borders." If nobody has noticed, a great deal of our economy now depends on extra-national business. Coca Cola. General Electric. McDonalds. Procter & Gamble. Microsoft. Could we afford to just ignore things everywhere in the world except the contiguous 48 statesj +2? I don't think so.

OTOH, that doesn't call for intervention everywhere, either. This one is a quandry, because its actually quite small and very diffuse. But to allow it to metastasize would only make things worse later.

Now we're learning, just like Russia did in the 80s, that it's a losing proposition.

Well, it's only a losing proposition when you're losing. America has managed to export democracy to a fair number of shores, to demonstrate that it can work, and has outlasted many other attempts at localized or institutionalized dictatorship, from facism to communism to strongman, etc. That we haven't been 100% successful shouldn't be a surprise. No one ever is. On balance, we've done OK. We've gotten in trouble because of hubris, thinking that we CAN always be successful, and our grandiose military spending is partly responsible for that. Sometimes (like in Afghanistan 2002) it doesn't take "big military". It takes "smart military." We don't seem to be playing that card a lot.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Look at how we've treated people in foreign countries for so long,

What people? What countries? You're way off base.


This argument usually goes on ad infinitum with each side meaning different things by "America". One side refers to American corporate and military power, the other to American culture and citizens.

Even the most cursory understanding of history makes it clear that American power has forced its will on other countries. Denying this is just ignorant. This is simply what concentrated power does...it works to preserve and extend itself. Throughout all of history, where you see highly concentrated power, you see people being subjugated by it. It's not anything inherent about America, it's inherent to power.

From the time early agrarian societies first found ways to store surplus resources, those in control of those surpluses have used this power to their advantage and have treated the powerless as just one more resource to exploit. Its a pattern that pervades history. When the Catholic Church held vast power, it imposed its will on its subjects. Then the European colonial powers did the same, treating the rest of the world as resource farms populated with human livestock. The Nazis tried brute force to build their empire. The Soviets used ideology and bribes to bring satellite states under its rule.

Democracy makes it harder to build empire, so the American government hasn't gone the same route. But America does have a highly concentrated source of power that is not subjected to democratic interference: private capital. As power has shifted from states to private capital, so has the projection of that power.

So yes, these folks have gone into foreign countries, fueled by amoral greed, and done whatever was within their power to get what they want, whether it be land, oil, diamonds, customers, or whatever else. But they've done that to America too. "America" is the victim as much as the perp.
Print the post Back To Top