Ahmadinejad at Columbia University

[Squeek]

I listened today as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed a large group of Columbia University students. A bold move by the university, Columbia has been criticized by some for providing Ahmadinejad an opportunity to enjoy a right he denies his own people: Freedom of Speech.

Smart and well educated, Ahmadinejad seemed confident except for moments when his audience erupted into laughter in response to a few of his serious comments. Myself, I wasn't particularly surprised. I see Ahmadinejad as a peculiar kind of intellectual who was likely to greatly underestimate his audience and its ability to think.

Ahmadinejad is a snake oil salesman. His is intellectualism for unsophisticated thinkers, and it sells when customers are effected, somehow, and not at their best. The desperate are big-time buyers. So are the deeply opinionated. The hateful are prime customers.

How do you explain to a man like Ahmadinejad, who teaches at the doctorate level, that some of his ideas are just plain stupid? You don't. Folks like Ahmadinejad will invite you to engage them and their ideas. They have to figure it out for themselves. They are to be ignored and pitied.

Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad can’t be simply ignored. He’s in a position of great influence in the Middle East, and his government is working hard to develop nuclear power. It's definitely a worrisome situation.

[magerette]

I need to see if I can catch any of the talk before I comment but I was wondering how that visit would go. Have they decided whether he will be allowed to "pay his respects" at the Trade Center?

[Squeek]

I'm not certain, but I think not. He explained and defended his purpose for visiting the site, and it sounded like he wasn't going to be allowed.

[magerette]

I would think the security issues would make a for a complete nightmare. I for one wouldn't want to go anywhere in New York where the New Yorkers didn't want me. :)

[dteowner]

Last I heard, his "ticket" was revoked. It's guilt by association at best, but I think it would be in very poor taste to let him visit the site.

I'd be interested to hear the left wing rationale of the person/group that extended the invitation. I imagine there are some factions in our government that are wetting themselves over the un-take-able opportunity to remove a crackpot from the world.

[Prime Junta]

You're making a big mistake if you believe Ahmadinejad to be just a snake-oil salesman or crackpot. Empires have fallen from underestimating their enemies. "Ha ha, come on -- that little guy with a furry hat riding a pony? Get real!"

Ahmadinejad is genuinely nasty, and genuinely dangerous. Also worth listening to. Very carefully, and with a lot of consideration about who he is really addressing.

Hints for parsing him:

(1) He's a populist. His power base is 18-25-year-old men with a limited education, limited prospects, a strong sense of grievance, and a strong sense of patriotism. That means that his first consideration about anything he says -- *anything* -- will be how it will play with the homies.

(2) He's religious. Genuinely religious. The same way George W. Bush is religious. Meaning, he looks for guidance in scripture.

(3) He is, as you noticed, quite intelligent. He's also cunning, and very good at manipulating people. What's more, he understands you much, much better than you understand him. That means that after point (1), whatever he says will be calculated to manipulate *you* -- and almost certainly not simply by reasoned argument.

And finally, about the Ground Zero thing -- he's going to be laughing all the way to the bank. You guys are *so* easy to manipulate it isn't even funny.

I'll leave it up to the readers to figure that one out.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I agree with almost every word of Prime Junta, a rare case, by the way.

Especially point (1) is worrysome, because from exactly THIS group he and all radical sects recruit their kamikaze bombers from, especially the Taliban.

Young men with no prospect because they have learned too little to take a good job, because in Afghanistan, all good schools are destroyed already and replaced by religious ones, no prospect because the land's industry isn't properlöy working anymore - that's why tourism is so often attcked, because it generates most of the country's cash - directly to the people ! - no prospects, because it's a patriarchalic system in which more boys are born than girls, which leads into a bigger number of young men who can't find a job because of what I've said above and because in a patriachalic system they are trained/educated to be the heads of everything, not the workers. The real work, they are taught - as far as I see it - is done by women, who are often better organized and educated somehow.

In an article and in a book I heard from, the authors said that this situation is similar here within Europe, France, for example. Because the young men are not well educated enough because they are trained within a patriarchalic system, which says to them that they don't need to do the "dirty work" - meanwhile the girls move out and get educated much better because they DO have to do the work - and be good trained for that.

So, the real intellectual "class" of them lies with the young women, at least here, these two writings said.

It's a bit difficult or me to explain what i really mean, but I hope you get it.

By the way, I'd just like to point you out to the Lebanon, where a whole state and country is currently undermined by Syria - assassins kill any politicians who are against Syria - thus they are "making facts", because only pro-Syria politicians are actually left.

Plus, some military groups are attacking and thus undermining the Lebanon in such a way that it looks as if they just had been fully contzrolled by Syria.

If Syria succeeds with their plan to completely destroy the Lebanon - and Israel eventually helps them by destroying the parts of that country where dangerous military groups are located - then doom comes over Isreal, because I have no doubt at all that Iran and Syria want to collaborate - or I'm rather sure they do it already.

I can only say that this world's politicians are nothing but fools, because they don't do anything tzo protect and stabilize the Lebanon. And I'm quite sure they do it despite their knowledge of this danger.

If and when the Lebanon collapses, then the WHOLE middle east collapses !

Within a big BOOOM !

[magerette]

Prime Junta wrote
And finally, about the Ground Zero thing -- he's going to be laughing all the way to the bank. You guys are *so* easy to manipulate it isn't even funny.
Yes, and we rise to the bait every time, too, don't we? :)

I assume you're saying he really had no true desire to visit the site and leave a wreath or whatever because he knew he would not be allowed to.

That shows a definite streak of the aforementioned manipulativeness because the request really was a difficult one to call well. If you say yes- security nightmare, riots, possible assassination attempts and general bad press all round if anything goes wrong; if you say no, he has his low opinions of the U.S. validated for the folks back home, thusly proving his point. I think they made the right decision, unless proving his point at home and perhaps in the world press is a bigger deal than I think it is.

I'm not quite sure what point that is, though. That we are restrictors of freedom, not protectors, we're irrationally lumping him/his country with the terrorists? Or that if we weren't planning on invading Iran, we'd let him go *mourn our fallen*?

I think he already has plenty of ammo on most of those issues anyway, true or not. Anyway, even if it feeds his propaganda machine, I'm glad he didn't go. I'd just as soon not see what the conservative right, survivor's groups and assorted New York crazies would have had to say about him meditating over the ruins of the WTC, or watch him get his small polyester-clad rear blown away----here.

I caught a bit of the address on nightly news. I would say he turned the whole thing to his own purposes pretty well. AFA calling him a snake-oil salesman, it isn't all that dismissive a term; I think the old time snake oil salesmen were very dangerous to others by definition--purveyors of poison that purports to heal. And they took your money for it.

We may make fun of Ahmadinejad's ingenuous remarks about homosexuals, or his backpedaling on the Holocaust, (first it never happened, now it happened but it isn't pertinent ) but I have no doubt he did indeed say what his primary audience wanted to hear and that to them he did not come off the worse. And then Bollinger gives him a perfect excuse to appear the injured party by lambasting him before he's said a word. He might have been feeding him lines in his earnest desire to ask all those "difficult questions" in the name of free speech. Ego or principles, it doesn't seem to me like it was a brilliant plan.

As Squeek said, it's troubling, to say the least.

[The Hulk]

I caught a clip on CNN of what the president of Iran said at the university, he said to the effect that there are no gays in Iran. The audience laughed when he said that. I think they knew it was not true and he just did not want to admit that some number of gay men and women exist in Iran, but keep it quiet for fear of being harshly punished and even put to death. Later on CNN, Anderson Cooper talked about a recent case where 2 gays were publicly hanged in Iran(not by vigilantes, but by authorities from what I understood).

[Prime Junta]

By the way, I'd just like to point you out to the Lebanon, where a whole state and country is currently undermined by Syria - assassins kill any politicians who are against Syria - thus they are "making facts", because only pro-Syria politicians are actually left.

Yup, being anti-Syrian in Lebanon is a bit of a risky career move. One man, one bomb.

Plus, some military groups are attacking and thus undermining the Lebanon in such a way that it looks as if they just had been fully contzrolled by Syria.

You're referring to the Nahr-el-Bared mini-war?

If Syria succeeds with their plan to completely destroy the Lebanon - and Israel eventually helps them by destroying the parts of that country where dangerous military groups are located - then doom comes over Isreal, because I have no doubt at all that Iran and Syria want to collaborate - or I'm rather sure they do it already.

I doubt that very much. Israel has the Bomb, remember -- if it ever came to a genuine existential war, they would not hesitate to use it. Iran and Syria acting in concert can certainly cause a quite a bit of grief to Israel, especially if they can use Hezbollah as a proxy; however, the Syrian military is a mess (badly trained, badly motivated, badly equipped), so the only thing it can contribute is a base of operations.

Second, the Syrian-Iranian axis is very, very much a marriage of convenience. Syria is a secular, Ba'athist, authoritarian, Arab Socialist country, mostly Sunni, with an Alawite ruling clique and seven separate intelligence services stabbing each other in the back when they're not blowing up Lebanese politicians. Iran is a Shi'ite, Islamist, Persian country with a much more open society and political system, several distinct power centers, and a completely different agenda. They're only playing together because nobody wants to play with either of them.

It totally baffles me why the US hasn't tried to drive a wedge between them. It would be about as easy as:

"Hi, Syria/Iran. We'll drop the sanctions on you and start treating you like a civilized country if you'll get out of bed with Iran/Syria."
"Done."

Iran is too far away, too big, and too well defended to be seriously threatened by any military action Israel can take (short of nuclear attack). Syria, however, is just like Saddam's Iraq, only more so -- a pushover in its conventional military capabilities, but even better at being a low-key pain in the proverbial, and would be even more of a pain to occupy.

IOW, Israel isn't attacking Syria because the only thing it would get is Gaza on a much, much larger scale; Syria isn't attacking Israel because it can't, and Iran isn't attacking Israel because it's too far.

I can only say that this world's politicians are nothing but fools, because they don't do anything tzo protect and stabilize the Lebanon. And I'm quite sure they do it despite their knowledge of this danger.

If and when the Lebanon collapses, then the WHOLE middle east collapses !

Within a big BOOOM !

Lebanon isn't quite that important -- it only looks like it to us because it's the only Arab country with a significant Christian component, a large part of the population is very Western-minded, and it's sorta kinda democratic, or would be without those pesky bombs and if people voted for policies rather than feudal leaders. (And a fat lot of good it did them.)

But the Middle East is pretty certain to go BOOM anyway, and pretty much everybody will get hit by the shrapnel -- especially us in the West. Serves us right too; we're the ones who cooked up that particular soup.

[Prime Junta]

Prime Junta wrote

Yes, and we rise to the bait every time, too, don't we? :)

I assume you're saying he really had no true desire to visit the site and leave a wreath or whatever because he knew he would not be allowed to.

That shows a definite streak of the aforementioned manipulativeness because the request really was a difficult one to call well. If you say yes- security nightmare, riots, possible assassination attempts and general bad press all round if anything goes wrong; if you say no, he has his low opinions of the U.S. validated for the folks back home, thusly proving his point. I think they made the right decision, unless proving his point at home and perhaps in the world press is a bigger deal than I think it is.

Bingo.

I'm not quite sure what point that is, though. That we are restrictors of freedom, not protectors, we're irrationally lumping him/his country with the terrorists? Or that if we weren't planning on invading Iran, we'd let him go *mourn our fallen*?

Oh, all of that, certainly. Also that you demonstrate once more that any brown guy with a beard is the same to you (i.e., you can't tell the difference between a Sa'udi Sunni Wahhabi and an Iranian shi'ite Islamist), that your response to a gesture of peace and respect is to slap it away and scream "murderer," "terrorist," and "go to hell" and so on. I'm not saying that isn't the case -- but you can bet your life that's *exactly* how it'll play in the audience that matters (to him) -- the folks back home, as well as every single disaffected Muslim youth anywhere (as well as a quite a few non-Muslims).

IOW, he managed to ratchet up the level of anti-Americanism all over the world several notches with that caper, not to mention polish his image at home. Gotta admire the little monkey-face.

Of course, if you *had* let him lay his wreath at Ground Zero, and you *had* treated him with politeness and respect with reasoned, calm critique of what he has to say, *he* would've been the one who looks like a foolish hothead.

But, of course, that was never going to happen, since you folks take everything at face value.

We may make fun of Ahmadinejad's ingenuous remarks about homosexuals, or his backpedaling on the Holocaust, (first it never happened, now it happened but it isn't pertinent )

I looked up what he actually said about the Holocaust, by the way. As far as I can tell (and it's not that easy to tell; I don't speak Farsi so I have to rely on translations which are very often inaccurate or downright misleading), he never actually said it never happened.

What he did say is something along these lines: that it has become the founding myth for Israel; something with which it justifies its existence and any violent action it takes against anyone -- and that this is not defensible. He's arguing that the holocaust is not or should not be pertinent to the actions or even existence of Israel -- both should be justifiable through other, more concrete and more immediate arguments. Or, put another way, it's wrong to keep the Palestinians under occupation now because Germans gassed Jews in 1943.

I happen to agree with that, by the way.

[magerette]

Oh, all of that, certainly. Also that you demonstrate once more that any brown guy with a beard is the same to you (i.e., you can't tell the difference between a Sa'udi Sunni Wahhabi and an Iranian shi'ite Islamist), that your response to a gesture of peace and respect is to slap it away and scream "murderer," "terrorist," and "go to hell" and so on. I'm not saying that isn't the case -- but you can bet your life that's *exactly* how it'll play in the audience that matters (to him) -- the folks back home, as well as every single disaffected Muslim youth anywhere (as well as a quite a few non-Muslims).

Thanks, I see more clearly now what he had in mind. I was really puzzled about how it was so significantly to his advantage to be denied the visit.

IOW, he managed to ratchet up the level of anti-Americanism all over the world several notches with that caper, not to mention polish his image at home. Gotta admire the little monkey-face.

Forgive me if I sound cynical, but anti-Americanism is inevitable in this scenario. You find what you're looking for. If we'd let him visit, it could just as easily have been interpreted as the weakness of our apathetic, fat regime...


Of course, if you *had* let him lay his wreath at Ground Zero, and you *had* treated him with politeness and respect with reasoned, calm critique of what he has to say, *he* would've been the one who looks like a foolish hothead.

I agree, especially with the way the address itself was handled.

However to expect that to happen is just unrealistic. Here, and especially in New York, Ground Zero carries a very heavy symbolic load that apparently doesn't translate well. It's a contemporary Pearl Harbor in many ways, and that he was allowed to visit and protected from harm while here is about as close to politeness and respect as there's going to be. Can you imagine a Japanese or Nazi political figure being invited here to speak during WWII? (Just a parallel analogy--I'm not equating this mess with the clearcut issues of WWII)

But, of course, that was never going to happen, since you folks take everything at face value.

You lost me with that one. We're not talking about a diplomatic dance, but populist sentiment.

I looked up what he actually said about the Holocaust, by the way. As far as I can tell (and it's not that easy to tell; I don't speak Farsi so I have to rely on translations which are very often inaccurate or downright misleading), he never actually said it never happened.

I am pretty sure he said several times that it was "a myth" but I could be wrong, and he may have meant something short of outright denial.

What he did say is something along these lines: that it has become the founding myth for Israel; something with which it justifies its existence and any violent action it takes against anyone -- and that this is not defensible. He's arguing that the holocaust is not or should not be pertinent to the actions or even existence of Israel -- both should be justifiable through other, more concrete and more immediate arguments. Or, put another way, it's wrong to keep the Palestinians under occupation now because Germans gassed Jews in 1943.

I happen to agree with that, by the way.

It's a great exercise in logic and seems to have right on its side. I agree with the logic, but the motivation behind the logic denies any need for raprochement with Israel and pretty much is just a tool for shifting blame. Guilt is a poor choice of motivators in world affairs, whether its for the Holocaust or for the plight of the Palestinians. I agree that what happened in 1943 needs to be understood, resolved and not mythologized(?)--and that what's happening now is indeed more pertinent.

[Prime Junta]

Forgive me if I sound cynical, but anti-Americanism is inevitable in this scenario. You find what you're looking for. If we'd let him visit, it could just as easily have been interpreted as the weakness of our apathetic, fat regime...

Certainly. It was a win-win play for him. However, you made sure he hit the jackpot, not just the pair of cherries.
However to expect that to happen is just unrealistic. Here, and especially in New York, Ground Zero carries a very heavy symbolic load that apparently doesn't translate well. It's a contemporary Pearl Harbor in many ways, and that he was allowed to visit and protected from harm while here is about as close to politeness and respect as there's going to be. Can you imagine a Japanese or Nazi political figure being invited here to speak during WWII? (Just a parallel analogy--I'm not equating this mess with the clearcut issues of WWII)

There you go -- exactly what I meant about the "brown guys with beards" thing.

Ahmadinejad is to bin Laden what Stalin is to Hitler, not what Hirohito was to Hitler. The two hate each other more than either hates you, and that's a lot. The fact that several years after 9/11 you *still* conflate the two -- even you, individually, who's way better informed than most -- says a great deal about why your country is going to hell in a handbasket.

[Prime Junta]

You lost me with that one. We're not talking about a diplomatic dance, but populist sentiment.

I meant both -- on the diplomatic, national level and on the popular sentiment level. You guys are terribly bad at seeing hidden agendas -- you always appear to take what somebody says at face value. That makes you terribly easy to manipulate -- whether it's by a presidential candidate, a foreign enemy, or someone on a message board looking to persuade the hard-core red-blooded true-blue patriots in your midst that attacking Iran is a really bad idea.

[magerette]

You mistake me. I'm not conflating the two. Nor do I see all brown guys as identical, though I don't know all the cultural nuances for sure. I was using an analogy to paint a sentiment, not assert a fact.

You certainly are a confrontational type, Prime J. Cut me some slack. The majority of ANY population fits your description. People do not sit back analytically(except on debate teams and message boards) and use reason to define emotion.

You keep thinking that emotion can be drawn out of a charged issue like poison from a snakebite. I don't think it can anywhere in the world, not just here. It's part of the contradictory and frustrating human package that things which should be faced with cold logic are invariably the same things that stoke an emotional response.

[Prime Junta]

You mistake me. I'm not conflating the two. Nor do I see all brown guys as identical, though I don't know all the cultural nuances for sure. I was using an analogy to paint a sentiment, not assert a fact.

You most certainly were, with your Pearl Harbor/Nazi/Japanese official analogy -- it's only an analogy if Ahmadinejad represents the people responsible for 9/11 the same way that a Nazi or Japanese official would have represented the people responsible for Pearl Harbor.

You certainly are a confrontational type, Prime J. Cut me some slack.

No, I won't cut you some slack. I respect you -- you've shown the rare ability to re-examine your positions when presented with new evidence. I'm not going to stop pointing out your unconscious assumptions when I see them because of that. You're tough; you can take it.

The majority of ANY population fits your description. People do not sit back analytically(except on debate teams and message boards) and use reason to define emotion.

You keep thinking that emotion can be drawn out of a charged issue like poison from a snakebite. I don't think it can anywhere in the world, not just here. It's part of the contradictory and frustrating human package that things which should be faced with cold logic are invariably the same things that stoke an emotional response.

Oh, I don't believe that at all. However, I do believe that individuals are capable of behaving rationally, and that people in positions of power have the moral obligation to do so, to the best of their ability and within the bounds of possibility.

What's more, the sentiment you're describing didn't appear from thin air: it's been very consciously built up through manipulation by *your* political machine. They could have taken an entirely different approach, but they didn't -- and ol' Mahmoud is playing you guys like a violin.

[Prime Junta]

A bold move by the university, Columbia has been criticized by some for providing Ahmadinejad an opportunity to enjoy a right he denies his own people: Freedom of Speech.

Oh, by the way -- check out what the real state of freedom of political discourse is in Iran. I think you'll be surprised.

[Squeek]

What he did say is something along these lines: that it has become the founding myth for Israel; something with which it justifies its existence and any violent action it takes against anyone -- and that this is not defensible...I happen to agree with that, by the way.Wow. What do you say to someone who doubts and challenges facts that are the most understood and acknowledged in the world?

In a master-disciple relationship, the master might severely scold his student and explain to him the proper way to think. A psychologist might suggest to his patient that his realities are out of order. As a Christian, I would say it's a flaw in the design, a facet of human nature that sometimes rears its ugly head.

On the one hand everyone is entitled to their own point of view, and there's nothing at all wrong with discussing that particular opinion. On the other, it's an exercise in futility trying to make headway with anyone that is so stuck.

[Prime Junta]

Wow. What do you say to someone who doubts and challenges facts that are the most understood and acknowledged in the world?

Which facts are you referring to?

[Squeek]

Which facts are you referring to?That's my point exactly.

[Prime Junta]

That's my point exactly.

Sorry, you've completely lost me here. Which facts am I (or Ahmadinejad, for that matter) challenging? Certainly not the Holocaust (OK, I can't speak for Ahmadinejad *for certain* -- but I'm certainly not.)

[Squeek]

OK. Let's leave it at that.

[Prime Junta]

Whatever.

You've certainly chosen your avatar well, though -- going "squeak" and then running back into the shadows.

[magerette]

You most certainly were, with your Pearl Harbor/Nazi/Japanese official analogy -- it's only an analogy if Ahmadinejad represents the people responsible for 9/11 the same way that a Nazi or Japanese official would have represented the people responsible for Pearl Harbor.

It is an analogy pure and simple:a 'similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.'

You just didn't grasp what I was trying to compare in your rush to judgment. It's not "only an analogy" if I'm putting the pawns into specific places--it is equally an analogy if I'm comparing the feelings and reactions to the WTC bombing to the REACTION to Pearl Harbor.

I deliberately said I was NOT comparing it mote by mote with WWII. I was trying to think of a way to express the mood and feelings of things-being female ;)--and didn't even consider the Iran=Japan written in stone aspect.

But I will meet you half way and agree that there is a merging of the bad guys and a simplification of who is at fault. It's very hard to pick out who is and who isn't al Qaida. Are you saying that Ahmadinejad was sincere? That no one who isn't a brainwashed American could doubt that he is genuinely sorry for what happened? That he loves our country and wants to be pals? If so, you are being perverse and contradictory. He is identified with the amorphous 'enemy' not only because he is a brown guy with a Koran but because he is a mouthy brown guy and that is where his statements would seem to put him. And no, I can't read his statements in Farsi either--but I think you catch my drift.

No, I won't cut you some slack.... I'm not going to stop pointing out your unconscious assumptions when I see them because of that. You're tough; you can take it.

Yes I can. And so can you. I hope you caught your own unconscious assumption in the example above. :)

You want to hold America accountable for the ills of the world and that's fine, but there are many players in the game of war, profiteering and world oppression. The country is composed of individuals, it's huge, it has no cohesive single ethnic base anymore, and the reins of power are not that easy to grab. I understand that you want to goad people into examining their responsibility to themselves and the rest of the world, but you seem to think we have super powers denied other humans. That we have to be smarter, cleaner and better because we're the flavor-of-the-month civilization wise. I think history shows the opposite is true.

... However, I do believe that individuals are capable of behaving rationally, and that people in positions of power have the moral obligation to do so, to the best of their ability and within the bounds of possibility.


Individuals are indeed capable of behaving rationally, but how seldom they do! I don't think this is confined to America.

I wish we had a less materialistic culture going on, I wish my generation hadn't been stripped of the best leaders we had and left with puppets, I wish that we could be as clear sighted and unified as we need to be, but I accept that this country is no less vulnerable to the venal faults of humanity than any other. In fact, the affluence draws out the scavengers and predators.

What's more, the sentiment you're describing didn't appear from thin air: it's been very consciously built up through manipulation by *your* political machine.

Just like Pearl Harbor? No argument, that's how propaganda machines are fueled. Does your country not have one? If so, you're very fortunate.

They could have taken an entirely different approach, but they didn't -- and ol' Mahmoud is playing you guys like a violin.

You know, the whole visit puzzles me. I don't like to think in terms of conspiracies, Bohemian Groves and New World Orders, but I really don't see how anything positive for anybody on "our side" was served by this.

'Kay bye--my head hurts.:sweatdrop:

[Prime Junta]

It is an analogy pure and simple:a 'similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.'

But there *is* no similarity here -- or, rather, the similarity is a false one. Forbidding Ahmadinejad from Ground Zero is like forbidding Stalin from Pearl Harbor -- it only makes sense if you believe that Tojo and Stalin / Ahmadinejad and bin Laden are one and the same!

You just didn't grasp what I was trying to compare in your rush to judgment. It's not "only an analogy" if I'm putting the pawns into specific places--it is equally an analogy if I'm comparing the feelings and reactions to the WTC bombing to the REACTION to Pearl Harbor.

Ah, I see. So you were actually commenting on the way the American public has been manipulated into conflating A and b-L, and therefore experience the same emotional reaction from either of them visiting Ground Zero?

But I will meet you half way and agree that there is a merging of the bad guys and a simplification of who is at fault. It's very hard to pick out who is and who isn't al Qaida.

But it wouldn't be, if you'd just bother getting a tiny bit educated on the people you're actually up against. *That's* my problem with you here.

Are you saying that Ahmadinejad was sincere? That no one who isn't a brainwashed American could doubt that he is genuinely sorry for what happened? That he loves our country and wants to be pals? If so, you are being perverse and contradictory. He is identified with the amorphous 'enemy' not only because he is a brown guy with a Koran but because he is a mouthy brown guy and that is where his statements would seem to put him. And no, I can't read his statements in Farsi either--but I think you catch my drift.

Oh, he certainly doesn't love your country -- quite the contrary. But I do have a feeling he bears little ill will towards you as a people. I'm sure he'd welcome you with open arms if you decided to convert to Shi'ite Islam. ;)


Yes I can. And so can you. I hope you caught your own unconscious assumption in the example above. :)

How could I, if it's unconscious?

You want to hold America accountable for the ills of the world and that's fine, but there are many players in the game of war, profiteering and world oppression. The country is composed of individuals, it's huge, it has no cohesive single ethnic base anymore, and the reins of power are not that easy to grab. I understand that you want to goad people into examining their responsibility to themselves and the rest of the world, but you seem to think we have super powers denied other humans. That we have to be smarter, cleaner and better because we're the flavor-of-the-month civilization wise. I think history shows the opposite is true.

Not exactly, but I would like it if you managed to get halfway to the level of awareness of the external world that most other civilized countries have attained. As in, being able to place your damn country on a map. (OK, only one out of five Americans polled can't do that, but still.)

Point being -- I believe that most (almost all) of the lethal damage America has inflicted on the world is due to simple ignorance rather than malice. What drives me up the wall is that *still* -- six years into the "Global War on Terror" -- so very few of you, general public, media, and leadership included, are the least bit interested in educating yourself. That's not just dumb, it's derelict.

And believe me, there you *are* behind the rest of the world, badly.

Just like Pearl Harbor? No argument, that's how propaganda machines are fueled. Does your country not have one? If so, you're very fortunate.

Last I counted, my country has fought twenty-seven wars and lost every single one. We have no shortage of Pearl Harbors. (I recall reading a newspaper article about a village where everyone is descended from the same guy -- every other male had gone off to war and not come back, so they took him from house to house to sire children to repopulate the place. He had stayed back because he was missing one leg.)

You know, the whole visit puzzles me. I don't like to think in terms of conspiracies, Bohemian Groves and New World Orders, but I really don't see how anything positive for anybody on "our side" was served by this.

That's because it wasn't. As stated, it was a win-win play for Ahmadinejad. The best you could've done is limit the damage (I think -- although it's quite possible that someone could've come up with a really clever riposte.)

But, to hammer again at my original point -- you didn't. You danced to his tune to the very last note. That did not do anyone on your side any good -- nor my side either. It's only his side that profited.

[curiously undead]

mr iran isn't the problem of the future and more than bush is the problem of the present. besides the fact that the two are beddie eyed baffoons, they are both pretty worthless. its the hype machine behind both that have and will be the problems. mr iran suffers from even more of a low popularity rating than bush. on top of which he is not "the commander in chief" of iran unlike bush and has limited other power. also unless the us or israel provoke iran by striking them first it is unlikely mr iran will be re-elected in 2 years time. its going to be a rough next few years though and hopefully dick cheneys robotic implants fail and he is unable to see through all he would like to happen.

[Corwin]

Actually, you need to get your eyes off Iran and onto Syria, that's where I see this conflict heading. The potential for a Syria/Israel blowup should not be discounted!!

[Prime Junta]

mr iran isn't the problem of the future and more than bush is the problem of the present. besides the fact that the two are beddie eyed baffoons, they are both pretty worthless. its the hype machine behind both that have and will be the problems. mr iran suffers from even more of a low popularity rating than bush. on top of which he is not "the commander in chief" of iran unlike bush and has limited other power. also unless the us or israel provoke iran by striking them first it is unlikely mr iran will be re-elected in 2 years time. its going to be a rough next few years though and hopefully dick cheneys robotic implants fail and he is unable to see through all he would like to happen.

That strikes me as wishful thinking.

[Prime Junta]

Actually, you need to get your eyes off Iran and onto Syria, that's where I see this conflict heading. The potential for a Syria/Israel blowup should not be discounted!!

Perhaps not, but I kiiinda doubt it. Israel attacking Syria would be like a knight on horseback charging a bog; Syria attacking Israel would be like a bog charging a knight on horseback. The former is obviously a bad idea (even if the knight carries a shovel), the latter isn't physically possible.

[Zaleukos]

Stupid treatment of Ahmadinejad at Columbia. Calling him a dictator before the discussion even starts is not just bad PR vs the outside world, but factually incorrect and displays ignorance. If there is a dictator in Iran it'd be Ayatollah Khamenei. They should just have let him put his foot in his mouth with more statements such as "there are no gays in Iran"... Rude and outright ignorant hosts only play into his hands.

That strikes me as wishful thinking.

What part of it? Ahmadinejad has rather limited power, and his approval ratings are pretty crap atm. He was voted in at least as much on a populist economic agenda as on his foreign policy, and as many populists coming to power he found himself in a bit of a bind once expected to actually do anything. And the person Ahmadinejad is rather overrated, as any Iranian president has to deal with the guardian council and its supreme leader the Ayatollah, who practically have veto power.

The question is whether he'll be replaced by a Mullah man (like Rafsanjani) or by a "reformer" who hasnt been vetted out from the candidate list by the council... And whether it would make a difference (the mullah man would probably head a more effective government). I suspect it would be too much of a loss of face for any Iranian leader to call off their nuclear program, and how sensitive are the supporters of Hezbollah and various Iraqi groups to government directives? Are the intelligence services more reliable and obedient than Pakistan's ISI (that nation's nukes probably run a bigger risk of ending up in the wrong hands).

[Prime Junta]

The thing with the Iranian system is that yes, the president is pretty ineffective if he's pulling in the opposite direction from the Council of Guardians (as happened during Khatami): depending on his mandate, he may be just strong enough to put some limits on the Council's freedom of movement. (The opportunity we lost with Khatami is a topic for a whole another thread.)

But if he's pulling in the *same* direction, the two together can be a potent force. I am assuming that this is the case with Ahmadinejad -- that he is the populist face of the Council in a sense. (I could be wrong about it of course -- the Council plays its cards notoriously close to its chest.)

Therein lies his danger: if he can keep the volatile 18-25 year old male demographic directing its energies against the US and the West rather than the system while implementing the guidelines set by a Council that has decided to take a hard line, he could be trouble.

Re the Hezzies and the Iraqi militias: I don't think they take directives from the Iranian government. However, Iranian groups can exert a great deal of influence over them nevertheless, simply by rewarding them for doing what they want (as well as providing concrete material, logistical, and training assistance for that), and withholding those rewards when they don't. As long as their interests are aligned, the relationship will be smooth; however, if their interests diverge, things could get interesting.

Which intelligence services were you referring to, btw? The Iranian ones? There (and I believe in Pakistan as well, certainly in Syria) the services are to a great degree independent centers of power. Things could change rather quickly if the internal balance of power in any of these countries shifts. (As an aside, IMO we should be trying to play that game, rather than tarring everyone with the same brush.)

[Squeek]

CNN will broadcast an interview tonight at 10:00pm Eastern Time that Christiane Amanpour recently had with Ahmadinejad.

It will be interesting to see if Ahmadinejad will engage Amanpour over his views of the Holocaust and other issues, the same ones Columbia University president Lee Bollinger assailed as "ridiculous" and "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

IMO, it was completely appropriate for Bollinger, the president of the university, to have confronted Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, about the issues he was invited to address, pointing out factual discrepancies like the Holocaust being the most documented event in human history, and encouraging him to show "intellectual courage" with his comments. Had Ahmadinejad stepped up to that challenge, Ahmadinejad's speech would have been more valuable, and progress may even have been made.

It's Amanpour's job to challenge and encourage Ahmadinejad, and I expect her to do just that. I also expect Ahmadinejad to find more "intellectual courage" this time, probably not enough to provide genuine responses, but enough to bandy words with her the same way some would bandy them here.

Bollinger characterized that approach as "dangerous propaganda" for "the illiterate and ignorant." It always just sounds stupid to me. Thankfully, I’m not a university president or a reporter, and so I don’t have to have those conversations.

[dteowner]

Although I'm not really on board with PJ's outlook, I'll agree that Bollinger is looking more and more like a complete tool. The guy's shot right thru "pompous" and on to "baffoon". For such a self-proclaimed genius, Ahm-whatever played him like a penny whistle.

[Squeek]

Although I'm not really on board with PJ's outlook, I'll agree that Bollinger is looking more and more like a complete tool. The guy's shot right thru "pompous" and on to "baffoon". For such a self-proclaimed genius, Ahm-whatever played him like a penny whistle.All I have to say to that is Ahmedinejad was the punchline of jokes all over American TV yesterday and not Bollinger. Not just any jokes, either. He's being referred to as some kind of a nut.

I just heard that Ahmadinejad cancelled his CNN interview but later rescheduled, limiting it to a half hour. But when he showed up, he said he would only answer one question. Amanpour asked about his reception at the university, and he said he thought it must have been influenced by political pressure.

I suppose one could make the argument that he played her like a penny whistle too, but I don't see it. Ahmadinejad is acting in his country's and his own best interest, and that's what presidents do. It's par for the course.

Ahmadinejad cancelled his CNN interview, because he's bright enough to see what's staring him right in the face: There is simply no good reason for him to be coddled over here. Nor is there any good reason to coddle Iran for that matter.

There's just no getting around the fact that Iran is playing by rules that are centuries backward and often criminal by today's world standards. Ahmadinejad can't make sense out of it over here, and he only looks foolish when he tries.

[dteowner]

Pre-emptive rudeness is not the sign of genius and makes Ahm-whatever look like the civilized one, which is why I'm saying he got played (just as PJ points out). Based on other public statements he's made from Iran (calling for the destruction of both Israel and America), I can't say I buy into PJ's thought that we could all sit down with Ahm-whatever and have a Friday poker night. The guy's a screwball, even if he is intelligent and manipulative.

[Prime Junta]

Pre-emptive rudeness is not the sign of genius and makes Ahm-whatever look like the civilized one, which is why I'm saying he got played (just as PJ points out). Based on other public statements he's made from Iran (calling for the destruction of both Israel and America), I can't say I buy into PJ's thought that we could all sit down with Ahm-whatever and have a Friday poker night. The guy's a screwball, even if he is intelligent and manipulative.

Where exactly did I say that "we could all sit down with Ahm-whatever and have a Friday poker night?" For the record, I detest the little monkey, and would much rather stab him in the face than play poker with him.

But that doesn't mean I think he's a harmless buffoon.

[Squeek]

Rude is rude, and we all know it’s not nice. But let's remember who we're talking about first.

Ahmedinejad isn't a friend, neighbor or acquaintance. He's the president of Iran and should be expected to be available to discuss his actions and those of his country. Ahmedinejad can reasonably expect to receive courtesy, but not from everyone. I know I wouldn't be very nice to him if I met him on the street. Frankly, he has a lot of explaining to do, and at times that will be demanded of him. If he doesn't like it, that's just too bad. It's part of his job.

Bollinger isn't a representative of government. He's the president of an Ivy League university -- one of the premier learning institutions in the world. Thinking is the point there. Not children's thinking, the way they think in prison, or the disingenuous repartee that dominates the Middle East -- the kind of thinking we all understand, the kind that requires availability and courage.

[dteowner]

It totally baffles me why the US hasn't tried to drive a wedge between them. It would be about as easy as:

"Hi, Syria/Iran. We'll drop the sanctions on you and start treating you like a civilized country if you'll get out of bed with Iran/Syria."
"Done."@PJ- This is what I was referring to.

@Squeek- thing is, if you're going to extend the invitation, you're obligated to be a proper host. If Bollinger is half as learned and intelligent as he claims, he should know how to behave. I understand that Ahm-whatever should expect a rough crowd when he's cavorting in enemy territory, but in this case he was invited and the rules change. If a stranger comes in your house, he's an intruder and you're welcome to kill him until dead. If you invite that same stranger into your house, you're obligated to treat him with dignity and respect (even if he doesn't deserve it).

[Prime Junta]

@PJ- This is what I was referring to.

I was speaking on a more general level there; countries rather than individuals. It's also within the bounds of possibility that I may have been exaggerating a wee tiny bit.

[Zaleukos]

I just saw the CNN "interview" this morning. Quite amusing. And this time it seems like it would be hard for him to blame the lack of answers on the hosts' rudeness:p

The thing with the Iranian system is that yes, the president is pretty ineffective if he's pulling in the opposite direction from the Council of Guardians (as happened during Khatami): depending on his mandate, he may be just strong enough to put some limits on the Council's freedom of movement. (The opportunity we lost with Khatami is a topic for a whole another thread.)

But if he's pulling in the *same* direction, the two together can be a potent force. I am assuming that this is the case with Ahmadinejad -- that he is the populist face of the Council in a sense. (I could be wrong about it of course -- the Council plays its cards notoriously close to its chest.)

As far as I know the council isnt in synch with Ahmadinejad. IIRC they kept rejecting his ministerial candidates for about six months, trouble that Rafsanjani wouldnt have had. But their disagreements are probably more on domestic policy matters, since the clerics are the establishment that effectively control the oil revenue and thus in part were targets of his populist election campaign. The clerics are probably as interested in getting nukes, and as unfriendly towards the west, as Ahmadinejad, but I dont think that is enough for them to want to keep him when they can have one of their own on the post instead.

And I was referring to the Iranian intelligence service. If it is as independent as the Pakistanian one I doubt it can be used as a constructive force:(

[Zaleukos]

Rude is rude, and we all know it’s not nice. But let's remember who we're talking about first.

Ahmedinejad isn't a friend, neighbor or acquaintance. He's the president of Iran and should be expected to be available to discuss his actions and those of his country. Ahmedinejad can reasonably expect to receive courtesy, but not from everyone. I know I wouldn't be very nice to him if I met him on the street. Frankly, he has a lot of explaining to do, and at times that will be demanded of him. If he doesn't like it, that's just too bad. It's part of his job.

Bollinger isn't a representative of government. He's the president of an Ivy League university -- one of the premier learning institutions in the world. Thinking is the point there. Not children's thinking, the way they think in prison, or the disingenuous repartee that dominates the Middle East -- the kind of thinking we all understand, the kind that requires availability and courage.

I wouldnt be nice to him either. What little I know of his world view seems incompatible with reason and decency. But I am not the representative of an organization that invited him.

Well, the prudent thing would have been to treat him curtly and prepare questions that he would have a hard time answering, something that should be doable for Ivy league minds on issues such as the existance of homosexuals or the treatment of minorities in Iran, making a fool out of him in the debate. And if you want to use less than flattering terms to introduce him, at least make sure they are factually correct. Or at the very least just issue a public statement saying that you as a person dont want to deal with such scum, and let someone else introduce the "dear guest".

[Prime Junta]

As far as I know the council isnt in synch with Ahmadinejad. IIRC they kept rejecting his ministerial candidates for about six months, trouble that Rafsanjani wouldnt have had. But their disagreements are probably more on domestic policy matters, since the clerics are the establishment that effectively control the oil revenue and thus in part were targets of his populist election campaign. The clerics are probably as interested in getting nukes, and as unfriendly towards the west, as Ahmadinejad, but I dont think that is enough for them to want to keep him when they can have one of their own on the post instead.

This assuming they can find one of their own who can keep those very volatile young men fuming in the right direction. Rafsanjani isn't it, whoever it is.

And I was referring to the Iranian intelligence service. If it is as independent as the Pakistanian one I doubt it can be used as a constructive force:(

I doubt *any* intelligence service can be used as a constructive force. I'm not very familiar with the intelligence services in Iran, either, but if they're at all like the ones in Arab countries they'll operate more like semi-independent mafias than organs of central power -- and they will have a vested interest in keeping the system going.

[magerette]

Sorry to be so long in reply Prime J--been away from the machine. I'm not going to get quite so surgical this time.

Ah, I see. So you were actually commenting on the way the American public hasbeen manipulated into conflating A and b-L, and therefore experience the same emotional reaction from either of them visiting Ground Zero?

Pretty much yes, that was indeed what I was trying to say in my somewhat fluffy way--in the group mind, the fear and the anger do not discriminate well between bin-Laden and the individual countries where his followers are abetted and recruited, and this then extends to their leaders.

But it wouldn't be, if you'd just bother getting a tiny bit educated on the people you're actually up against. *That's* my problem with you here.
Valid, more later.

Oh, he certainly doesn't love your country -- quite the contrary. But I do have a feeling he bears little ill will towards you as a people. I'm sure he'd welcome you with open arms if you decided to convert to Shi'ite Islam. ;)
In return, I don't think I bear any ill will toward his country's people, at least those ones who would not actually shoot at me or try to blow me up--and they need not become agnostic pagans, either. :)

How could I, if it's unconscious?
The same way I was supposed to, by having it illuminated for me in the light of another's wisdom. :)

Not exactly, but I would like it if you managed to get halfway to the level of awareness of the external world that most other civilized countries have attained....
Point being -- I believe that most (almost all) of the lethal damage America has inflicted on the world is due to simple ignorance rather than malice. What drives me up the wall is that *still* -- six years into the "Global War on Terror" -- so very few of you, general public, media, and leadership included, are the least bit interested in educating yourself. That's not just dumb, it's derelict.
And believe me, there you *are* behind the rest of the world, badly.

I actually find this to be one of the most valuable and insightful comments you've made, Prime J. It disturbs me too, the refusal to look beneath the surface of the information pablum we're fed, and the --lack of interest, I guess, in world events beyond a short span where they are sensationalized in the media for our entertainment. Why is this??

Well, obviously, there's just the slackness associated with everything being too easy and affluent-- the "throw enough money at it and you'll eventually make it work" mindset we got to see with Katrina and FEMA. Big government is getting paid through the medium of our taxes to take care of all this so none of us has to worry about it.

Then there's the cultural distraction of materialism and personal centricity that drives people to work longer and longer hours to have more and more stuff and spend less and less time actually living and thinking.

But there is something I think more visceral than this. I can't speak for others, of course, but when I look at my own reasons for this withdrawal from all serious and sustained effort to understand the forces at work in world affairs, it's very vaguely defined and at more of an instinctual level. I think that some of it at least is the remnants of a strong atavistic streak of traditional and mostly unconscious isolationism.

I dimly remember learning in school that the U.S. was a fundamentally isolationist country at one time and wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism#United_States) backs up my failing memory with this quote:

George Washington warned Americans not to "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition"[1] Tom Barry, who is a Senior Analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center, states that this was also the view held by most of America's founding fathers[2] and until the end of the nineteenth century, the U.S. generally turned a blind eye on matters elsewhere in the world. Following World War I, the United States population again turned to isolationism during the 1920s, opposing any action by the government that would drag the country into another European war. This non-interventionist tendency led to the imposition of tariffs. For the most part, American military isolationism came to an end during World War II, particularly following the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941...

So while the government may pursue the policies of imperium under the guise of standing in loco parentis to the less developed countries whose resources they desire, this current batch of capitalistic imperialism which elements in our government have always had, but which now seems more prevalent, more profiteering and mercenary (if that's possible) just feels wrong. Misplaced, threatening and out of my hands. So I turn my face away from what I can't control and say this is not what my country is about, I don't want to identify with it. If I'm not informed, I'm not responsible.

Yes I see the fallacy, and I do appreciate you making me confront it. :)

Last I counted, my country has fought twenty-seven wars and lost every single one. We have no shortage of Pearl Harbors. (I recall reading a newspaper article about a village where everyone is descended from the same guy -- every other male had gone off to war and not come back, so they took him from house to house to sire children to repopulate the place. He had stayed back because he was missing one leg.)

That's definitely something we've been spared here(if you don't count the Civil War-brief but devastating) and has to affect your world view. I can't begin to understand how difficult life is in war torn countries and I won't trivialize the situation by offering an uncomprehending sympathy. I do regret it exists, though, for you and everyone else who has to deal with it.


(Still,you and your hints! I am NOT scouring the internet for data on countries who have lost 27 wars:) )

[curiously undead]

not to detract from the seriousness and non-hostile nature of this thread but my dear prime junta in responese: it is because i am the king of wishful thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry4iwzS4Na0
*never seen the video before or pretty woman for that matter, but liked the song as a kid.

[Prime Junta]

But there is something I think more visceral than this. I can't speak for others, of course, but when I look at my own reasons for this withdrawal from all serious and sustained effort to understand the forces at work in world affairs, it's very vaguely defined and at more of an instinctual level. I think that some of it at least is the remnants of a strong atavistic streak of traditional and mostly unconscious isolationism.

I think you put your finger on it. There's a fundamental cognitive dissonance about America's relationship with the rest of the world. On the one hand, the entire country's founding mythos is about turning your back on the corrupt, bad, nasty, doomed old world to build a brave new one on virgin territory; on the other, there is the reality of being a global superpower deeply involved in and entwined with just about every nook and cranny of the globe.

This creates a vicious cycle of sorts.

First, because of your fundamental lack of interest in the (problems and nature of) the rest of the world, it becomes easy to sell just about any policy or foreign adventure as a moral imperative, a war for liberty, justice, the American Way, or what have you. So, you square your collective shoulders, sigh, and prepare to carry any burden, pay any price, swim any river, and so on.

Then, it backfires, and people become very, very upset and angry with you. To you, it feels like a betrayal: you went all out to *save* them, spend your blood, your treasure, to give them the wonderful things *you* enjoy -- and what do you get? Somebody flying damn planes into your skyscrapers! So... you react with the violence and vengeance that only springs from an unexpected and unprovoked kick in the gonads.

And so the cycle starts again.

I'm not saying 9/11 was justified, mind -- but I am saying that the grievances it sprung from, that make OBL so popular in such a big part of the world, are real, justified, and caused by your policies -- and until you face up to that fact, you'll only be getting more of the same. You can't face up to it without educating yourself, and I don't see many signs of you doing that.

I would hold more hope if the people actually deciding on policy would have a clue, but it seems they regard good management skills more highly than being able to tell piddling little differences between various brown men with beards.

[ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html ]

[dteowner]

II'm not saying 9/11 was justified, mind -- but I am saying that the grievances it sprung from, that make OBL so popular in such a big part of the world, are real, justified, and caused by your policies -- and until you face up to that fact, you'll only be getting more of the same. You can't face up to it without educating yourself, and I don't see many signs of you doing that.
You know, I was more on-board with you than ever before until this point. Exactly what grievances are you referring to? If you point out our "policy of selective allies" where we cuddle up with Iran, cuddle up with Iraq during a war with Iran, than snuggle with the Saudis when Iran and Iraq both piss us off, I'll grant you the point. Unfortunately, the only "wounds" we hear about are being Satan spawn (decadent non-Muslims) and having the nerve to pick the Israeli side in a 2000 year old grudge match. Don't even offer up oil, because we only buy what they're willing to sell at the prices they decide to offer.

My personal, mostly uneducated opinion is that the "brown men with beards" are completely pissed off that we cuddled the Hatfields (Israel) instead of the McCoys and have twisted their religion to create an "us versus Satan" mandate to justify their vengeance.

[Squeek]

I'm not saying 9/11 was justified, mind -- but I am saying that the grievances it sprung from, that make OBL so popular in such a big part of the world, are real, justified, and caused by your policies -- and until you face up to that fact, you'll only be getting more of the same. You can't face up to it without educating yourself, and I don't see many signs of you doing that. [ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html ]That's pure arrogance and naivety. I don't see any signs of you facing the obvious fact that you have a limited and biased point of view. It's too bad, because there's a conversation there that's worth having -- but not with anyone so obnoxious.

[Prime Junta]

You know, I was more on-board with you than ever before until this point. Exactly what grievances are you referring to? If you point out our "policy of selective allies" where we cuddle up with Iran, cuddle up with Iraq during a war with Iran, than snuggle with the Saudis when Iran and Iraq both piss us off, I'll grant you the point. Unfortunately, the only "wounds" we hear about are being Satan spawn (decadent non-Muslims) and having the nerve to pick the Israeli side in a 2000 year old grudge match. Don't even offer up oil, because we only buy what they're willing to sell at the prices they decide to offer.

First off, if that's all you hear, it's not because it's all "they" are saying -- it's because of what your media tells you "they're" saying: "if it bleeds, it leads."

Second, which grievances am I referring to? That would be a very long list, but you got the gist of it. As my wife once put it (from personal experience), completely ordinary, decent people's lives get shattered and all too often taken away because of what some ignoramus in Washington, DC gets into his head.

My personal, mostly uneducated opinion is that the "brown men with beards" are completely pissed off that we cuddled the Hatfields (Israel) instead of the McCoys and have twisted their religion to create an "us versus Satan" mandate to justify their vengeance.

That's not too far off -- but the question you should be asking is why are the brown men with beards so popular even with people who *don't* buy into the 72 virgins line?

[Prime Junta]

That's pure arrogance and naivety. I don't see any signs of you facing the obvious fact that you have a limited and biased point of view. It's too bad, because there's a conversation there that's worth having -- but not with anyone so obnoxious.

Thank your for your valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion. It is much appreciated by everyone participating, I'm sure.

[dteowner]

I'll tackle the last one first. I don't know that it's only the extremists that are buying into "us versus Satan". You're looking at a culture that is incredibly religious. Show me the monarchies and parliaments and prime ministers and I'll show you a theocracy under the turban. Schools are run by the clergy (get em young). Governments are run by the clergy (rule em). Laws are made and enforced by the clergy (keep em in line). That level of indoctrination is very effective--look at how well that same system has worked in the USA to promote a complete lack of personal responsibility.

Now, I would say that much of the "transitory allies" thing is reactive, rather than proactive. We started off in the hole due to the whole Israel thing, but were making inroads (Sadat in Egypt, Shah in Iran). That little hostage thing, led by the religious revolution, sort of put a damper on Iran-USA relations. So we kiss up to Iraq in response. Maybe Arabs blame our support for the rise of Saddam, but it wasn't until he decided to try to annex Kuwait that we turned on Iraq. I don't see where either of those events can really be put on our doorstep, but we certainly get the blame for switching sides in response to them.

Now, our political system in the US certainly isn't doing us any favors in world relations. Every 4 or 8 years, we throw out the baby with the bathwater and do an about-face. That's a result of our political parties not having that many differences. To get elected, you've got to shout "change" from the highest mountain, but in the end very little gets changed domestically because the only prudent policies (regardless of a Democratic or Republican slant) would be very unpopular. The easiest way to march in an exciting new direction is to change foreign policy. After all, most Americans don't understand and couldn't give a hoot what goes on beyond the borders (see your "fundamental lack of interest" paragraph), so those are easier policies to tinker with.

[Prime Junta]

I'll tackle the last one first. I don't know that it's only the extremists that are buying into "us versus Satan". You're looking at a culture that is incredibly religious. Show me the monarchies and parliaments and prime ministers and I'll show you a theocracy under the turban. Schools are run by the clergy (get em young). Governments are run by the clergy (rule em). Laws are made and enforced by the clergy (keep em in line). That level of indoctrination is very effective--look at how well that same system has worked in the USA to promote a complete lack of personal responsibility.

That's correct about some countries -- Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular.

It's completely incorrect about others -- Syria, Egypt, Saddam's Iraq, for example: there, the state is violently anti-clerical. Did you know that Hafez al-Assad massacred 20,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama?

Now, I would say that much of the "transitory allies" thing is reactive, rather than proactive. We started off in the hole due to the whole Israel thing, but were making inroads (Sadat in Egypt, Shah in Iran).

Never mind that the Shah was an unpopular, brutal tyrant with one of the nastiest secret police organizations in the region ever -- the Savak was as bad as they come. Nor that you installed him in power by staging a coup against a popular, genuinely democratically-minded government -- the one of Mohammed Mosaddeq. Look them up.

That little hostage thing, led by the religious revolution, sort of put a damper on Iran-USA relations.

Sure did. Funny thing about the Iranian revolution though -- it was supported by just about everybody, from the Commies to the democrats, the students, the bazaars... everyone. The reason was simple: it was the only game in town. You had run out Mosaddeq and the democratizers, so the only ones left were the Shah and his thugs -- "our son of a bitch" -- and the Islamists. The people picked the Islamists. Once in power, the Islamists massacred, jailed, exiled, or suppressed everyone who didn't think like them, and there we are again.

But, and I repeat, the Iranian Islamist revolution was very much *your* creation -- pretty much the only imaginable consequence of *your* policies. We're seeing a re-run now in Iraq, and we'll see more re-runs in the region in other countries, never fear... and that will be very bad for everyone, but especially you.

[Prime Junta]

As a postscript: I'm not actually condemning the Mosaddeq coup (or indeed much of American Middle East policy during the Cold War) as something irredeemably evil. The US was acting in what it saw to be its national interest. If you need to whack a reformer and install a strongman to keep the oil flowing and stop a country falling into the Soviet orbit, then it's at least a reasonable policy to consider. The Cold War was in one sense a zero-sum game: a loss for America is a win for the Soviets, and vice versa.

But, what I *am* saying is this: that these policies pursued in the name of national interest have hurt a great many people, and have closed a great many avenues they had to channel their hurt and frustration. What we're seeing now is a consequence of these policies. Anti-Americanism isn't some kind of existential, elemental evil always lurking in the shadows; it's reactive, not pro-active.

If you guys realized this, you would be able to keep a cooler head about things, and pursue policies that are not disastrous to all parties concerned. More, if you actually went as far to publicly acknowledge it, you might even be able to hit on a policy that's a win-win scenario rather than a win-lose one. We're no longer in a zero-sum game situation, and there is -- or, rather, was -- potential for slowly evolving a world order that's fairer and less violent than the one we started out with.

But that's all in the past. What we have now is an era of blood, darkness, fear, and confrontation. And yes, you do bear a great part of the responsibility.

[dteowner]

Syria may be more secular than most, but the whole Israel thing pretty much wipes out any hope of normal relations there. You mention Egypt--I agree with you, and strangely enough we have very little problem with Egypt. In fact, the extremists are blowing up people in Egypt because they are friendly with the USA and moderate on the Israeli situation.

I do notice a bit of a pattern, though, if we accept your theory. The Israelis (well, the Jews at least) and Arabs have been killing each other for thousands of years. There's no real sense in it anymore. Both sides are guilty of atrocities and the hatred is ingrained in both sides at birth. Now, in the last 50 years, you're saying that the Arabs and the USA are killing (metaphorically at first, now literally) each other over a laundry list of sins on both sides. Seems that there's a common theme and a common player. Would you say it's the Arab mentality to look for slights and respond violently until the pot boils? "Us against Them" has always been a great population control technique. So is it a case of the Arab power structure (secular or non-secular as the case may be) manufacturing trouble to keep the masses focused on an "outside evil" rather than the fact that they live in a sand dune with oppressive leaders and not a bikini to be found?

[Prime Junta]

Syria may be more secular than most, but the whole Israel thing pretty much wipes out any hope of normal relations there. You mention Egypt--I agree with you, and strangely enough we have very little problem with Egypt. In fact, the extremists are blowing up people in Egypt because they are friendly with the USA and moderate on the Israeli situation.

Quite. You still have your sonofabitch running the show in Egypt. Trouble is, his regime is slowly rotting, and the only organized opposition is, you guessed it, the turbans. Why? Because Mubarak has been systematically jailing, exiling, assassinating, or discrediting the democratic opposition -- and because in the Arab psyche "democracy" has come to mean "occupation" and "Zionism."

I do notice a bit of a pattern, though, if we accept your theory. The Israelis (well, the Jews at least) and Arabs have been killing each other for thousands of years.

Completely untrue. The Arab/Jewish hate is purely a 20th century phenomenon, caused by Zionism. The Jews were doing fine under the Arab and Turkish empires.

There's no real sense in it anymore. Both sides are guilty of atrocities and the hatred is ingrained in both sides at birth.

That's true, but, again, it's a much more recent phenomenon than you think -- and it's only become religious lately.

Now, in the last 50 years, you're saying that the Arabs and the USA are killing (metaphorically at first, now literally) each other over a laundry list of sins on both sides. Seems that there's a common theme and a common player. Would you say it's the Arab mentality to look for slights and respond violently until the pot boils? "Us against Them" has always been a great population control technique. So is it a case of the Arab power structure (secular or non-secular as the case may be) manufacturing trouble to keep the masses focused on an "outside evil" rather than the fact that they live in a sand dune with oppressive leaders and not a bikini to be found?

Would you say it's an American mentality to look for slights and respond violently until the pot boils? "Us agains them" has always been a great population control technique. First it was the English, then it was the Red Indians, then it was the Huns, then it was the Commies, now it's the Islamofascists.

Seriously: that type of response isn't typically Arab or typically American. It's typically human. We're a social species of primate. Primates form bands that are hostile to other bands. However, there is a way to combat it, which is education and knowledge. The better you understand "the other," the harder it is to think of him as a faceless evil. There is evidence of this approach actually working, at least in a small way.

Here's how the world looks from the Arab point of view right now (and me trying to step into both the Arab and the American psyche at the same time:)

Fifty years ago, Saudi Arabia gave New York State to the Zoroastrians, who have now set up a rich, military, nuclear-armed country there. They're occupying New Jersey and have walled off Manhattan Island. Manhattan Island is run by hard-line Baptists who lob home-made rockets into the rest of NYC, while in New Jersey the "Pan-Americans" are in power. The Zoroastrians maintain some kind of contact with the Pan-Americans; their current leader is considered to be their puppet, but is unfortunately pretty ineffective.

There are Saudi military bases housing tens of thousands of soldiers as well as strike fighter and bomber wings, in California, Florida, Colorado, Montana, Texas, and South Carolina.

Canada has a theocratic, authoritarian, Russian Orthodox "Old Believer" regime. They got into power by overthrowing a highly unpopular and brutal Communist government that had in turn been installed through a coup and then lavishly supported militarily and economically by the Saudis. The Canadians are notorious for covertly messing with other countries, are set for regional dominance, and appear to be well on their way to acquiring the nuclear bomb.

There are nuclear-armed Saudi carrier groups patrolling the American coasts both on the Atlantic and the Pacific side.

The President-For-Life of America is the Rev. Fred Phelps. Homosexuality, abortion, selling contraceptives, blasphemy, insulting the President, un-American activities, and a quite a few other things capital offenses. Pre- and extra-marital sex are punished by lashing. A strict public dress code is enforced -- women have to wear skirts down to the ankle with loose blouses that cover their arms and neck; men are allowed knee-length shorts and T-shirts. A cadre of truncheon-armed Virtue Police does the enforcing.

President Phelps got his job from his father. The administration is staffed entirely by family members, with his son Jerry being groomed to be the next president.

President Phelps has a very close relationship with the Saudi head of state; in fact, his son Greg is considered one of his closest personal friends. The basis of the close relationship is a deal that allows Saudis preferred access to American natural resources; the Saudi-American Coal and Uranium Company has consequently strip-mined much of the Rocky Mountains. Consequently, Phelps gets a lot of military (and other) aid from the Saudis. The relationship has begun to show some cracks lately, but is still very close.

Mexico is in civil war, following a disastrous Saudi invasion and occupation four years ago, with about 160,000 Arab Coalition troops in the country. The Mexican president, Ricardo Calderon, is supported by huge amounts of money but manages to really control only a walled-off section of Mexico City. The Zapatistas run the Chiapas region much to their liking and has a de-facto independent state there. Texas and California have been flooded by about 2,000,000 Mexican refugees. President Calderon is trying to maintain good relations with Rev. Phelps's government and has contacts with the Russian Orthodox regime in Canada, but Saudi Arabia has recently been threatening them with invasion or attack.

OK, do you hate the Saudis yet? I could go on for a while, but perhaps you get the picture.

[dteowner]

A valiant effort, but I just couldn't put the shoe on the other foot. I could tell easily who was who, and that pretty well voided your intent. Sorry.

Now, I'll grant you that the USA has their finger in everyone's pie, but I'm not sure it's fair to blame us for all of it. Every time a fly farts in some backwater country, there's much wailing about how the USA should have been there to catch the fly before it happened and how the USA needs to keep new flies from growing up and how the USA should be humanitarian enough to replace all the country's air since somehow the entire country now smells of stale McDonalds.

Everyone's looking for a free ride on the USA's dime. Unfortunately, it's a package deal--if you take our money, you get our meddling.

And let's talk about the whole resources thing for a moment. OPEC decides how much they're going to sell and what price they're going to sell it for. Sure, we might get "a friend in the diamond business" (sorry, local commercial), but in the end the cartel is still going to get the last laugh. And drop the whole "raping our resources" thing. They sell it. Why? Because we pay dearly for it. It's not out of any arm twisting. Without oil income, the whole region would still be riding camels from oasis to oasis. The almighty petroleum dollar buys a lot of Bentleys with really good air conditioning.

[Prime Junta]

A valiant effort, but I just couldn't put the shoe on the other foot. I could tell easily who was who, and that pretty well voided your intent. Sorry.

I didn't intend to conceal who was who, and I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't even attempt to look at things from the other point of view.

Now, I'll grant you that the USA has their finger in everyone's pie, but I'm not sure it's fair to blame us for all of it. Every time a fly farts in some backwater country, there's much wailing about how the USA should have been there to catch the fly before it happened and how the USA needs to keep new flies from growing up and how the USA should be humanitarian enough to replace all the country's air since somehow the entire country now smells of stale McDonalds.

Everyone's looking for a free ride on the USA's dime. Unfortunately, it's a package deal--if you take our money, you get our meddling.

That's not true, although you folks sure appear to like to think it is.

And let's talk about the whole resources thing for a moment. OPEC decides how much they're going to sell and what price they're going to sell it for. Sure, we might get "a friend in the diamond business" (sorry, local commercial), but in the end the cartel is still going to get the last laugh. And drop the whole "raping our resources" thing. They sell it. Why? Because we pay dearly for it. It's not out of any arm twisting. Without oil income, the whole region would still be riding camels from oasis to oasis. The almighty petroleum dollar buys a lot of Bentleys with really good air conditioning.

There you go -- I made a "valiant effort" to paint the picture from the other point of view, and your reaction is to point fingers. I don't think this conversation is likely to go anywhere fast. And since I have no hope of convincing you, all that's left to me is opposing you, and taking a small amount of pleasure in your setbacks.

[dteowner]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I tried, but failed. I couldn't ignore the reality and it slanted my perception of your construction. Totally my failing.

I'm not sure how you dismiss the help/meddling point. It's not like you can claim media-slant, since numerous world leaders are on video saying things to that effect. And that's not confined to the Arab nations either. We're getting internationally hammered for not doing something about Somalia. Why is that our problem? And if we did step in, look me in the eye and tell me there wouldn't be much wailing and resentment about the USA meddling in an African problem.

How am I pointing fingers? You brought up the whole "resource rape" issue in your story, and it's coming from real world complaints. I'm addressing your point and I'm being practical about it. Yeah, the camel comment might have been a bit over the top, but there's no mindless fingerpointing in the point raised.

You're probably right about the futility of one of us "converting", but I don't know that the conversation is without value. After all, you're the one shouting "education" from the highest mountain and there's no way for that to happen without an exchange of ideas.

[magerette]

Interesting and informative discussion with very little of the personal and accusatory from either party IMO. Well done on both your parts. I appreciate the "exchange of ideas", and while I agree that nobody is about to be converted, at least we all get some insight into the mindsets of others with divergent cultural perspectives. That makes it in my mind anyway far from a valueless discussion. (Also, I'm no longer wracking my brain cells to force them into unnaturally logical and analytical paths, so many thanks to dte from a selfish perspective. :whew:)

I'm just pissed that Prime Junta hasn't let slide any more hints about his country of residence for my detective work on the subject.>:O I feel it's very remiss of you, Prime J as it would provide important context for your arguments.(Falling for that one? No, huh...worth a try, anyway.)

[curiously undead]

dte- the only people looking for a free ride on america's dime are some of the folks in this country. if it weren't for some other investor's country i think our country might soon become that backwater country. (america has/had clout which doesn't cost us anything if used correctly. that was our most powerful tool but its been dropped into the salton sea, and beaten against the ground 'til its a nice purty piece of slag) also our "dime" has dwindled to shit in comparison to other countries over that past decade or even more recently. meanwhile the dime of the rich/wall street continues to shine, and they certainly aren't going to be forking if over for anything that doesn't make their pizzathehut's asses any larger.
and that local commercial is here is well. shane co?

personally i think prime junta is from another planet. which means he's from france.

i tried to understand prime juntas exercise, but altough some of it seemed like genius my own failings prevented me from being able to get a grasp of what was going on.

[dteowner]

@CU- God help us, Tom Shane is everywhere... While I agree that the US is standing on a house of cards, I'm not so sure the rest of the world really sees that yet. Our country may be rotting from the inside out, but we can still bring the big stick. At some point in the future, we might become a belligerent sham just like the Arabs are now.

@magerette- glad I could help

[Prime Junta]

I'm not sure how you dismiss the help/meddling point. It's not like you can claim media-slant, since numerous world leaders are on video saying things to that effect. And that's not confined to the Arab nations either. We're getting internationally hammered for not doing something about Somalia. Why is that our problem? And if we did step in, look me in the eye and tell me there wouldn't be much wailing and resentment about the USA meddling in an African problem.

Who's hammering you internationally for not doing something about Somalia?

How am I pointing fingers? You brought up the whole "resource rape" issue in your story, and it's coming from real world complaints. I'm addressing your point and I'm being practical about it. Yeah, the camel comment might have been a bit over the top, but there's no mindless fingerpointing in the point raised.

That wasn't the point. I don't want to debate every single grievance individually; I know my attempt at "mirror history" was sketchy and flawed in many ways. I was trying to get across some kind of answer, in broad strokes, to your question about "which grievances would these be?" Some of the grievances are certainly less justified than others; in many, the countries and the people of those countries certainly bear their share of responsibility (if *you* feel frustrated and powerless about *your* system, just imagine how the average Syrian, Egyptian, or Saudi feels).

The point is that you *have* in a very real, very concrete way been making life worse for a lot of people, either through direct action -- bombing, shelling, occupying, invading, embargoing -- or indirect action, by propping up brutal, unpopular regimes friendly to you, or giving carte blanche to countries friendly to you to do whatever they like to their own or neighboring populations. *That* was the picture I was painting.

You're probably right about the futility of one of us "converting", but I don't know that the conversation is without value. After all, you're the one shouting "education" from the highest mountain and there's no way for that to happen without an exchange of ideas.

But the feeling I get is that I'm talking to a wall. If I try to get my case across diplomatically (OK, I haven't tried it much on this forum, but believe me I have elsewhere), you think I'm whispering sweet nothings and miss what I'm saying. If I try to get it across directly, you dismiss me as knee-jerk anti-American. If I try to get it across metaphorically, you dismiss it as fiction. If I try to get it across by reasoned argument based on well-grounded facts I source, you don't bother reading to the end, or dismiss me as a pseudo-intellectual windbag.

It. Is. Fucking. FRUSTRATING!

[Prime Junta]

I'm just pissed that Prime Junta hasn't let slide any more hints about his country of residence for my detective work on the subject.>:O I feel it's very remiss of you, Prime J as it would provide important context for your arguments.(Falling for that one? No, huh...worth a try, anyway.)

It wasn't actually my intention to make my nationality a huge mystery; I just didn't want to answer it in the context of that particular discussion: in my experience, things tend to slide into a stupid "my country's better than you're country" kind of pissing contest. And now it's sort of been blown all out of proportion.

If you really wanted to know, though, it wouldn't be hard at all to track me down. I haven't tried the least bit to cover my tracks; the site admins will know my real name from my registration anyway. I've dropped more than enough hints about not only my country of residence but also my identity that a very small amount of Google-work could answer your questions.

Thing is, I think it's beside the point. I don't identify very closely with any country, despite my ethnicity and nationality; I grew up moving between them and have lived or spent extended periods of time in over a half-dozen, between Kathmandu and San Francisco. My wife and her family are even more multicultural than I am.

So I'd be quite happy to be considered the wandering goy. It's as good an identity as any.

[magerette]

Prime Junta wrote:
..in my experience, things tend to slide into a stupid "my country's better than you're country" kind of pissing contest. And now it's sort of been blown all out of proportion.

Very true indeed--if you said, for instance, France, or most any Mid East nation, it would undoubtedly derail your arguments and reroute them through a perception of national prejudice, taking the discussion further off target, and if you said Britain, Tony Blair and the Royals would no doubt get drug into it. One could go on and on. Certainly more of a distraction than an aid to understanding. (btw, I only want to know because I can't. :) )

This could be the reason why so little is settled in the world by diplomacy, and so often by threat of thermonuclear fisticuffs or just plain war instead.

I understand how frustrating it is to argue these issues( since I've tried and made my head throb ) but human beings are seldom able to change a deeply rooted belief without the kind of existential proof that words seldom adequately provide. IOW, you can argue and elucidate with the silver tongue of reason til the cows come home, but until an actual experience comes along to back up your argument, no one's real ethos is in danger. At best, you can get people to think about what they're saying and examine what they believe. I think you've been successful in that here.

How successful the other side has been in making you do the same is questionable, but as I truly don't believe there's a winning side in discussions that focus on identifying civilians with military leadership or asking why the peons don't rise up and change the policies of the most powerful entrenched military/industrial complex in the world, the point is moot.

So I'd be quite happy to be considered the wandering goy. It's as good an identity as any.

Fair enough. And I hope you don't ever share any of the infinite travails and sufferings of the original Wandering Jew as portrayed by Eugene Sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Sue) (Le Juif Errant) which I read in translation many years ago. It's a tale guaranteed to indelibly etch horrors on the brain, with that somber talent which some French authors--Dumas and Hugo come to mind --have in abundance, to vividly portray man's unfailing inhumanity to man.

[Prime Junta]

As a postscript, I just ran across this piece today: [ http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/on-the-other-ha.html ]. It describes my frustration in debating this topic to a T.

(Also for the record, I think that it's at least as important to find practicable ways to cope with climate change than it is to find ways to slow it down and, preferably, stop it. I don't think hybrid cars are the answer either -- they're a Band-Aid when we need to lance the boil and take a course of antibiotics.)

[Prime Junta]

We're getting internationally hammered for not doing something about Somalia. Why is that our problem? And if we did step in, look me in the eye and tell me there wouldn't be much wailing and resentment about the USA meddling in an African problem.

Something just occurred to me, dte. You've brought up this argument at least twice before -- that "they" are clamoring for "you" to solve every one of the world's problems. The funny thing being, I haven't noticed any such clamor.

I think I just discovered who "they" are.

"They" are your conscience.

You feel that America *should* be living up to its self-image as the land of the free, the protector of the innocent, the liberator of the oppressed, and *should* be addressing all these problems. When she isn't/can't/won't, you resolve the cognitive dissonance by externalizing it -- inventing a "them" who simultaneously hate you and want you to solve their problems.

How does this sound? Could there be any truth to it?

[dteowner]

Since my tendencies are isolationist, I don't think my inner voice is speaking to me, PJ. A handful of quotes you might find supportive.
----------------------------------
This explains why three years (and counting) after pronouncing Darfur a genocide, Washington has failed to lead the world in ending the catastrophe.

It also explains why the genocide will be prolonged until caring Americans develop the tough attitude needed for change. Once developed, that tough attitude must be used to force the U.S. government to change its priorities and make ending genocide a greater concern than secret cooperation with Sudan's brutal regime.


Until last month, Nii Akuetteh was the Executive Director of Africa Action in Washington DC. He is an analyst for Foriegn Policy In Focus.
---------------------------------------
Galvanizing international financial support requires that the U.S. government take the leading role, both in giving its own money and in raising funds from others. Only the United States has the credibility and capability to provide such leadership. Without such effort, the necessary support will simply not be forthcoming. Arafat will be unable to improve Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians will be prompted to turn to the extremist groups, particularly Hamas, in part because these organizations will offer financial support, and in part because they will hold out the prospect of bringing about radical change. Hamas and Islamic Jihad will escalate terror and work with rogue states to generate Arab antagonism to Israel, thereby pressuring Arab and other governments to cut ties with Israel. This will weaken and isolate Israel and return it to the kind of pariah-state status it had before the Rabin administration held out real prospects for a successful peace process in 1992. This in turn creates more threats to Israel's security and places more strain on its economy, forcing Washington to carry more of the burden in the Middle East.
----------------------------------------------
The State Department says the Lebanese government has asked the United States for additional military aid amid the fighting between its forces and Islamic militants near the northern port city of Tripoli. U.S. security aid to Lebanon has increased sharply in recent years. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.
------------------------------------------------
Somalia is asking the U.S. government for help in building efficient police, military and intelligence organizations as it attempts to overcome years of strife and impoverishment.
The requests were contained in a three-page memo submitted to the State Department by Dahir Mirreh Jibreel, a U.S. representative of the Transition Federal Government in Somalia that took power recently after the ouster of radical Islamists by Ethiopian troops.
---------------------------------------------------
Perhaps that's a sampler? I just did a Yahoo search on "X requests american aid" and attempted to pull a reputable link out of the results.

[Prime Junta]

I'm sure you'll get hits for just about any search string you'd like -- try "rejects American aid" for kicks. I'd also wager that most of those quotes are by Americans, from American media, or from interviews given to American media. Nicholas Kristof, for example, is a very vocal and widely disseminated proponent of active American aid in places like Darfur.

Second, those examples aren't about solving the world's problems from the kindness of your hearts.

Lebanon: You wanted Syria out of Lebanon, and gave a group of Lebanese politicians assurances that you'd support them if they acted to do that. They did. US aid to Lebanon is tied to that particular power play, not about "solving the world's problems." (Of course, you then screwed it up by leaving those very people hanging and supporting the Israeli attack last summer. That pretty much undermined any local support they had, and has pushed the country very close to civil war.)

Somalia: the so-called "Islamic Courts," essentially a loose organization of (not terribly hard-line) Islamist militias, was about to take over the country. For certain pretty obvious reasons, you didn't want this to happen. So you threw a big wad of dollars at the Somali government-in-exile (which consists essentially of common or garden non-ideological thugs). Again, you're not out to solve their problems -- you're supporting one gang of toughs against another.

Palestine... let's not go there. Please.

dte, you would do yourself a great favor by looking behind these headlines a bit. They're really not about "the world" begging for US hand-outs. They're about exercising American economic, political, and military power -- usually by supporting one group of people against another, for any of a number of reasons. Sure, you'll find plenty of people willing to be bought, and making a quite a good public show of it too -- but that's not "the world" demanding that you solve "the world's" problems.

Edit: however, thank you for the examples. I can see where you got your misconception -- if you have it to start with, it's easy to see how stories like this would reflexively reinforce it.

[dteowner]

BEIJING - North Korea agreed to provide a "complete and correct declaration" of its nuclear programs and will disable its facilities at its main reactor complex by Dec. 31 under an agreement reached by North Korea and five other countries released Wednesday.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei said as part of the agreement, the U.S. will take the lead in seeing that the facilities are disabled and will fund those initial activities.
---------------------------------
The USA has no direct interest in this--DPRK missles can't reach US territory. It's really the other 4 countries at the summit that have the most to gain from regional stability. So how come we get to lead and pay the bill?

[Prime Junta]

Actually, the Taepodong-2 may already be able to loft a nuclear warhead all the way to the US West Coast. If the DPRK continues their missile and atomic weapons research, it will certainly be able to do that by the time they have a practical, deployable warhead available. It may even be accurate enough to hit the right state most of the time.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2 ]

But that's sort of beside the point, as I entirely agree with you -- the US should get the hell out of East Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of the world. That, in fact, is the entire, exact extent of my self-declared anti-Americanism.

Edit: however, I also feel that this whole DPRK question is a bit beside the point. You feel that the world beats you up if you do nothing, and the world beats you up if you do something; North Korea is an example of the US doing something and not getting beaten up over it. Whether the US (and the other countries) would be better off not doing it is another question.

[Prime Junta]

Can't help myself, gotta add just one more thing about the DPRK question: I believe the US is more worried about the proliferation issue than any direct North Korean attack. The DPRK is a known proliferator: the Pakistani bomb is based on DPRK technology.

IOW, the scenario worrying the US is that North Korea starts producing nukes, they sell one to some brown guy with a beard, and he sticks it in a shipping container and DHL's it to New York.

[dteowner]

It was the call by China that we would lead and bankroll that tweaked me the most. While I agree with you that the USA will gain something from this, it seems the Beijing is the biggest winner but has managed to get all the benefits without any responsibility nor investment. Now, I suppose you could chalk it up to Chinese brilliance, but it looks like yet another international screw job to me.

[Prime Junta]

It was the call by China that we would lead and bankroll that tweaked me the most. While I agree with you that the USA will gain something from this, it seems the Beijing is the biggest winner but has managed to get all the benefits without any responsibility nor investment. Now, I suppose you could chalk it up to Chinese brilliance, but it looks like yet another international screw job to me.

There are many ways of reading it. One is "If it bothers you, then you do something about it, we don't care." China doesn't have anything much to fear from a North Korean nuke; they're unlikely to drop one on Beijing or sell one to the Tibetans. So why would they do anything about the DPRK?

But, again, I think we're going off on a bit of a tangent, even if it could be an interesting one. I for one have no ready answers to what, if anything, should be done about North Korea, and who, if anyone, should be the one doing it.

[magerette]

Here's an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/id/2175310/nav/ais/) from Slate on the departure of the last of the generals appointed by former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Peter Pace. I post it for this particular observation, which harks back to an earlier point Prime Junta and I were discussing, where he pointed out the need to make distinctions between terrorists and nations.

From Pace's farewell address(my bold):
..As for "where we need to be," Pace said, "I just want everyone to understand that this dialogue is not about 'Can we vote our way out of a war?' We have an enemy who declared war on us. We are in a war. They want to stop us from living the way we want to live our lives."

There it was—pure Rumsfeld, which is to say pure Bush, though a bit less eloquent. All criticism of the war is motivated by partisan venom; the war in Iraq is the global war on terror; Sept. 11, Bin Laden, the insurgents in Iraq—they're all fundamentally the same.

There, by the way, was also pure Pace. Woodward writes in State of Denial that when he asked the general if he had any doubts about the war in Iraq, Pace replied, "I have no doubts at all. None. Zero. … We did not do this. When we were sitting home minding our own business, we got attacked on 9/11."

Pace's successor, Adm. Michael Mullen, seems more capable of drawing distinctions. At Pace's farewell ceremony, the admiral said: "The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will one day end. We must be ready for who and what comes next." The same day, before the Senate armed services committee, he expressed concerns about the war in Iraq. "I worry," he said, "about the toll this pace of operations is taking on [our troops], our equipment, and on our ability to respond to other crises and contingencies."

Adm. Mullen was the officer who testified, at his confirmation hearing back in August, that the "surge" would have to end in mid-2008 because the surge troops' tours of duty would expire, and we simply had no more to replace them.

He, like Gates, seems to possess a finer-tuned—a more realistic—view of the world, its threats, and our available courses of action than Rumsfeld or Pace ever articulated. The question for the next 15 months is this: If pressures build to attack Iran, will Adm. Mullen give his unvarnished military advice to Secretary Gates, and will both of them present their conclusions to President Bush? Or will they sail with the winds and say what the masters want them to say? That's the ultimate test of whether anything has really changed, of whether Peter Pace might as well have stayed around.

[dteowner]

In Iraq, the Iraqis are killing each other with sectarian violence FAR faster than the US military could manage short of a flat earth policy. When bombs are strapped on little children who get pushed in the street and detonated (heard from the mother of a front line US soldier that saw it happen to a kid ~6 years old) and when markets and mosques get bombed with regularity, it gets much more difficult to find the innocents among the monsters.

[magerette]

No argument about the difficulty of knowing who is trying to kill who and why in the MidEast. Every newscast I see leaves me shaking my head and trying to imagine what people--like the ones utilizing children as you describe, dte--are thinking to be able to do these things to themselves and each other.

The article above on Pace leaving the war and the quoted remarks of Mullen I thought showed at least a bit of a changing of the guard in the military approach (which no one can truthfully say is working there)and also of how our military leaders look at Iraq and the area which might influence what they decide to do next. It may not be all that significant, but at least it shows that there is an emerging possibility for a change in policies.

[curiously undead]

its called war weariness, try to imagine curfews, lack of facilities, etc all. secterian violence wasn't a problem initially in iraq, much like here where most people (suckers) were in support of the war from the begining. many iraqi were joyful when the americans first came. but just like here where most people are against the war, over there where's its happening most people are scared, sick and don't have a lot of options. only an oppresive fool would say that given a similar scenario they too would do what ever it takes to protect whatever family they have left. its not just about the mentality of islam and the willingness to be a martyr, its about the will to not lay down an die that most people have. iran obviously isn't helping the situation but they sure haven't done nearly as much harm as foriegn troops and mercenaries. the warmongers really f'd up with this one, and the lack of an initial exit strategy is going to be remember as one of the worst mistakes in history. this isn't vietnam, and communism is a far less unifying belief than islam, and i really hope we leave the area sooner than later, while still managing to not leave a mess behind, because what the middle east needs is healing, and a chance to rebuild their culture. taking that away and supporting one regime to topple another "worse" one will only help further the warlord mentality and end up hurting more civilians. you can't prevent and prepare for war at the same time! give enough people "nothing left to lose" and you'll get exactly whatever selffulfing prophecy that can be concocted.

ah well, i guess i'll shut up now:)

[dteowner]

I'm weary of the mortgage company on my old house wanting to get paid and feeling quite powerless to improve my situation, but I'm not quite ready to strap a bunch of C-4 to one of the Twinkies and blow her up in CCO's parking lot. I'd love to hear how you really even attempt to justify that sort of thinking or lay it at "the warmongers' feet", CU.

[curiously undead]

even homeless people in america have it better than the average person in iraq. do you worry about being picked off by a sniper when your going to get food? hopefully dte, you or i will never have to come even close to being those peoples shoes. and again i'm not justifying (or ever will) anything that suicide bombers do, but most iraqis are not suicide bombers. and there's more murders and serial killers in america(by far) than there probably are children with bombs strapped to them in the middle east. its all that kind of sensationalism that is used to mask the suffering that innocent people endure.

dte, i know you and i aren't going to agree on certain things and i have no desire to prove a point or argue, but i'm going to jump into any conversation that in my opinion is damning of innocent people.

[dteowner]

No biggie, CU. I just have real heartburn with the propaganda machines that seek to paint Ahab al-Iraqi as the poor, innocent victim that would be planting flowers and singing Kumbaya if only the mean old Americans would get out. It's not GI Joe's fault that Ahab blew up his kid and that twisted mentality isn't going to disappear just because Joe goes home to Little Rock and that twisted mentality didn't magically appear the day Joe stepped foot in Baghdad. I imagine PJ could somehow come up with some logical sounding rationale where I personally strapped on the bomb belt, but for now I'm going to balance on my small sliver of moral high ground.

[Prime Junta]

I'm weary of the mortgage company on my old house wanting to get paid and feeling quite powerless to improve my situation, but I'm not quite ready to strap a bunch of C-4 to one of the Twinkies and blow her up in CCO's parking lot. I'd love to hear how you really even attempt to justify that sort of thinking or lay it at "the warmongers' feet", CU.

@dteowner, do you have any idea how offensive that comparison is?

Having to take care of a mortgage is not the same thing as having to live in daily fear of your life, from thugs, militias, air strikes, trigger-happy mercenaries, or trigger-happy military convoys.

I would really like you to try, just for once, to see things from another point of view than yours. You refused point-blank when I tried to show to you how the world looks from the Arab POV. Would you just try it from a war zone POV?

Like, try imagining that you live in a Baghdad neighborhood. You've lost several friends and family members to truck bombs, stray (?) bullets, bombs, sectarian militias. You still have an Internet connection, though, and while browsing the Net, you come across some smug American with an avatar like a muppet Bin Laden comparing your situation to his piddling little mortgage.

For some people, that alone could be enough to get them to march straight to the Al Qaeda in Iraq recruiting office.

[Prime Junta]

For now I'm going to balance on my small sliver of moral high ground.

Very small indeed, and crumbling as we speak.

[dteowner]

Like, try imagining that you live in a Baghdad neighborhood. You've lost several friends and family members to truck bombs, stray (?) bullets, bombs, sectarian militias. You still have an Internet connection, though, and while browsing the Net, you come across some smug American with an avatar like a muppet Bin Laden comparing your situation to his piddling little mortgage.This actually reinforces my point, PJ. The USA doesn't use truck bombs. The USA doesn't form sectarian militias. The USA isn't to blame for the bomber mentality. The hell those folks are living in is largely self-inflicted. Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites were killing each other long before we set foot on the sand and they've continued while we're there and they'll continue after we're gone. And yet somehow you're convinced it's our fault. And if we packed up today, the ensuing chaos would be our fault. And if we'd let Saddam annex Kuwait back in 91, the new balance of power would be our fault.

[txa1265]

This actually reinforces my point, PJ. The USA doesn't use truck bombs. The USA doesn't form sectarian militias. The USA isn't to blame for the bomber mentality. The hell those folks are living in is largely self-inflicted. Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites were killing each other long before we set foot on the sand and they've continued while we're there and they'll continue after we're gone. And yet somehow you're convinced it's our fault. And if we packed up today, the ensuing chaos would be our fault. And if we'd let Saddam annex Kuwait back in 91, the new balance of power would be our fault.

I guess the question would then become whether secret killings under a dictator are better or worse than videotaped killings in a civil war.

[dteowner]

Spent a little time going back. While it wasn't my intent to equate the severity of the two, I can see where my mortgage example could piss people off. My apologies for that. The point is that everyone has choices, even the most powerless person in the deepest darkest hell hole in the Sadr City slums. The Iraqis are choosing to kill each other in remarkably indescriminent ways. Even if the USA is at the root of it all, beyond even PJ's worst accusations, there's still a choice to be made. Some guy is sitting there saying, "My world sucks and the absolute most appropriate response is to strap a bomb to my 6 year old and blow her to bits to kill as many people in the market as I can." That anyone could make that choice and that anyone could even remotely say, "yeah, but if you see it from his side"...it's just beyond comprehension for me.

BTW, PJ, you flogged me again over not being willing to try on the other shoe. It wasn't a case of not trying. I honestly did make the attempt, but I simply couldn't make it work. You handed me a left shoe for my right foot and I just couldn't get past that enough to force my foot in.

[Squeek]

That anyone could make that choice and that anyone could even remotely say, "yeah, but if you see it from his side"...it's just beyond comprehension for me.Exactly, and not because there's anything complicated about it. It's just so foolish and so wrong, and that's something everyone understands.

Here's what Albert Einstein had to say about that whole way of thinking: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

[Prime Junta]

This actually reinforces my point, PJ. The USA doesn't use truck bombs.

Nope, you drop them from C-130's instead. (See MOAB.)

The USA doesn't form sectarian militias.

This isn't even funny, dte. During most of the Iraq occupation, the USA has been doing nothing *but* forming or funding sectarian militias -- it started with the Pesh Merga, now it's everywhere.

The USA isn't to blame for the bomber mentality.

The USA *embodies* the bomber mentality. Your first reaction to any problem is to lob high explosives at it. The bigger the problem, the bigger the explosive -- up to and including 15 kilotons worth of uranium.

The hell those folks are living in is largely self-inflicted. Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites were killing each other long before we set foot on the sand and they've continued while we're there and they'll continue after we're gone. And yet somehow you're convinced it's our fault. And if we packed up today, the ensuing chaos would be our fault. And if we'd let Saddam annex Kuwait back in 91, the new balance of power would be our fault.

Are you fucking SERIOUS??? Now you're saying that the Iraq mess has nothing to do with you?

[Prime Junta]

BTW, PJ, you flogged me again over not being willing to try on the other shoe. It wasn't a case of not trying. I honestly did make the attempt, but I simply couldn't make it work. You handed me a left shoe for my right foot and I just couldn't get past that enough to force my foot in.

So now that's my fault too?

Damn, dte -- is there *anything* you're willing to take responsibility for? Not Iraq, not Arab anger, not the failings of your political system, not even your fucking mortgage.

That is totally pathetic.

[dteowner]

Nope, not your fault at all, and I believe you can find text to that effect in a couple of my posts. I take full responsibility for that failure, and a failure is exactly what it is.

Are you denying that the Iraqis were killing each other before we got there? Are you denying that the Iraqis are killing each other right now? Do you actually believe the Iraqis will stop killing each other after we leave? No matter how you look at it, that behavior can't be laid solely at the USA's feet.

Now, I need some clarification on one point--are you claiming that the USA is responsible for the Shiite death squads?

[curiously undead]

america is much more estranged from each other on a personal level than most other nations. we are the melting pot. so it only seems natural that since we aren't finding are selves in the hellish conditions of many other countries and we are much more individualistic are responses to stress are much different. we may not have suicide bombers blowing up temples, but we still have plenty of hate crimes toward non christian temples and we lead the world in serial killers, and other lunatics.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21181488/?GT1=10450
i'm much more cautious of getting taken out by some rambo, or being run down by some goon in a beefed up 4x4 with road rage(i was hit by one, accidently in junior high with the license plate boozetoy, no joke). terriost attacks in this country are still much less of a threat that from our own crazy people, but between all the cop shops that induce a fear state, but also make you feel safe at the same time, along with the over exeretion on terrorist threats its hard to know what to be fearful of. by the way i think i'm going to start refraining from the term warmongers and replace it with warhuggers:)

[Prime Junta]

Nope, not your fault at all, and I believe you can find text to that effect in a couple of my posts. I take full responsibility for that failure, and a failure is exactly what it is.

But you're not! You just blamed me for it -- "offering a left shoe for your right foot."

Are you denying that the Iraqis were killing each other before we got there?

I am -- at the scale we're talking about now. Americans are killing each other now at the rate of about 17,000 a year. If that suddenly went up to 17,000,000 a year, "are you denying that Americans were killing each other before" would be a pretty lame excuse for whatever caused the rate to go up by a factor of 1,000.

Are you denying that the Iraqis are killing each other right now?

/me rolls eyes

Do you actually believe the Iraqis will stop killing each other after we leave? No matter how you look at it, that behavior can't be laid solely at the USA's feet.

Only in the sense that very few events or situations only have one single reason for them. However, *take away* American involvement in Iraq, and about a million (or more?) Iraqis would not have died violently. To my mind, that's good enough reason to lay the blame at USA's feet.

Now, I need some clarification on one point--are you claiming that the USA is responsible for the Shiite death squads?

It's totally responsible for the Shi'ite death squads. You know all those little news bits about death squads "in Iraqi police uniform" committing massacres? Guess where they got those uniforms? Yup, they go to work in them.

What you have been doing is handing out new uniforms (and guns) to any number of militias. Sure, there are non-American-bankrolled Shi'ite death squads in Iraq too; you certainly don't have the monopoly on them (if you did, there wouldn't be a civil war) -- but lots of them are your little bearded brown babies.

Your recent successes in Anbar province, remember them? When "tribal leaders" agreed to kick out Al Qaeda on your behalf? Guess how you did that?

Yup: sectarian militias. You handed out a big wad of dollars and guns to whatever Sunni strongman was willing to talk the talk, never mind if it means running a few Shi'ites out of town (in a box, most likely).

Come to think of it, you're the ones who trained and equipped Osama bin Laden too. Afghanistan, Soviet occupation, mujahideen, ring a bell?

[magerette]

Well, apparently my little attempt to inject a (small) drop of hope into the situation was in vain.:S

I'm not going to try to speak for anyone else, especially dte, but the blurry point being made about the motivations of suicide bombers being extended across the board to all of Iraq is actually on topic to the Pace article a bit and definitely to the idea we discussed earlier of how terrorists, civilian inhabitants, Arab world leaders and muslim extremists are all put in one bag.

People in America are repeatedly stunned by the lengths to which extremists are willing to go in this war. It IS genuinely difficult for individuals who have never experienced war or even serious confrontational violence, to imagine why anyone would do these things, let alone be proud of them. I *know* as a human being that these people must be going through an unbelievably difficult hell to bring themselves to the point where these decisions seem right, but that doesn't mean I understand it. Also as in any war, we have anger, both justified and irrational, hate and fear from both sides, and all that is just as blinding to a 9-11 survivor or a Kansas farm kid in uniform as to a radical Islamic fundamentalist.

So in the mix that makes it almost impossible to understand the other side from here, ingredient # 1 is flat incomprehension. Ingredient # 2 is reactive--when you are attacked, you have to defend yourself. In the world theatre, this means you have to trust your government and your military to do this for you. The difference for the Iraqis is that they have no real structure to use for self dense or attack except themselves and their individual adherence to a system of belief which offers them the terrorist and guerrilla options (out of necessity, one supposes) and whatever bankroll they can lay their hands on from foreign sources.

Again, though, incomprehension rears its head because it seems these tactics damage the people who live there as much or more than they do the occupiers.

All this leads to being dismissive and repelled, and defensive about what we're doing there and why. If the enemy is alien enough, and different enough from you, you can distance your guilt for killing him. I think this mental acrobatic is pretty universal in war.

I'm not saying that's the right response or that I agree with it, but that's where a lot of people are here, and it's coming from the top down. That's why I thought it a good sign to see the media for once doing its job in that article by pointing out how the originators and implementors of Iraq policies may be responding to the need to fundamentally change the way they see the region. That's the first step in ending this fiasco.

[Prime Junta]

^
|
+-- What she said.

[dteowner]

I guess I don't buy your million casualty number, PJ. Even the most biased reports I've seen top out around 400,000. Saddam gassed a significant percentage of that number in a single well-documented event, so I guess I don't buy your escalation hypothesis either.

As for the militia thing, let's say we take your claims as truth. You blame the USA for the chaos and insist we should do something to stabilize the nation that we trashed. Sounds like police to me. Next, the Arab world has said time and again there's too much resentment using "US occupiers" as police and we're supposed to be preparing Iraq to stand on it's own. OK, looks like we've got to hire Iraqis even if they're all Brown Men with Beards in our book. Now, the Iraqis claim they could do the job just fine if they had half the armament of the terrorists (hell it would be nice if the US military had half the armament of the terrorists) and it's just plain wrong to send them out without proper equipment. OK, here's your gun and send the bill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And for some reason the guys that become police want to get paid for it! Cheeky bastards! I guess they're on the US payroll since I don't see any other checkbooks open. Well hell, now PJ's saying we're funding the death squads. All we did was what we were asked to do to stop the complaints and we get more complaints for doing it. It's a nice circular argument that can justify about any complaint you want.

So it seems to me that the only solution is to find us a guy that can tell the good BMwB from the bad BMwB (wanna volunteer?). OK Ahab al-Iraqi, you da man! Oh, I don't know why he's picking only Shiites (or Sunnis or Kurds) for the "good" pile. Maybe it's because he happens to be a Shiite (or Sunni or Kurd) and he's got a sectarian axe to grind because those people have been killing each other for frickin decades!

[Prime Junta]

I guess I don't buy your million casualty number, PJ. Even the most biased reports I've seen top out around 400,000. Saddam gassed a significant percentage of that number in a single well-documented event, so I guess I don't buy your escalation hypothesis either.

And, of course, any report with numbers like that must be biased by definition. What a surprise.

Seriously, the only -- and I mean *only* -- real attempts at getting at the true casualty figures in Iraq were published in The Lancet between 2004 and this time last year-- that's a very, very highly respected trade magazine, by the way, not some party rag.

According to those numbers, this time last year the casualties were between about 390,000 and 940,000, with a 95% statistical confidence interval. Extrapolating from that it's pretty safe to assume that "a million or more" is within the ballpark.

As for the militia thing, let's say we take your claims as truth. You blame the USA for the chaos and insist we should do something to stabilize the nation that we trashed.

On the contrary, I insist that you should get the fuck out *now.* You can do absolutely nothing there that is not worse than leaving.

But if you did get out now, I would not consider you absolved of going in there in the first place -- nor of any of the death and suffering that happen after you leave. That blood is on your head, no matter what you do, and I believe it will haunt you for a long, long time.

And no, I don't consider "but we didn't mean to" or "but we didn't know any better" or even "but I didn't vote for it" as valid excuses -- merely mitigating circumstances.

[Squeek]

...its hard to know what to be fearful of.That may be the most literal comment in this entire thread.

There's only so much that any of us are capable of knowing firsthand. The rest we decide. It isn’t always easy, even in places like the US. But in Iraq right now, there's a lot that's beyond our ability to know with any kind of real certainty. It's important then to keep what we do know straight.

Murdering innocent people at random is altogether wrong. Compromise, as attractive a solution as it often is, just isn't the right idea here. For example, we don't offer empathy to child molesters, so why would we want to empathize with child killers?

Right now the Middle East needs to stop blaming Jews, the US and anyone else for its overabundance of problems. There are solutions available to solve them, but they’re real solutions – not convenient phony ones – and they involve taking responsibility.

Terrorism is the antithesis of that and will only lead to more suffering.

[dteowner]

According to those numbers, this time last year the casualties were between about 390,000 and 940,000, with a 95% statistical confidence interval. Extrapolating from that it's pretty safe to assume that "a million or more" is within the ballpark.Jeezuz, PJ, we've got a more precise count of the stars in the sky. There's a rather huge difference between 390,000 and 940,000. Why not make it somewhere between 12 and a billion and then we could say we wiped out India and a sliver of rural China with 98% certainty? You're own "best source" pretty much proves that nobody's got a frickin clue what the casualty number is, but I notice you grabbed the top number in a real hurry and called it fact. And we've had the debate before about whether all the sectarian violence is on the "USA's count" or not. I patently refuse to take "the blame" for 100 deaths because Ahab the Sunni thought this would be a great opportunity to blow up a mosque full of "godless Shiites" and al-Sadr thought it would be a good time for his goons to cleanse the slums of the "godless Sunnis".

[Prime Junta]

Jeezuz, PJ, we've got a more precise count of the stars in the sky. There's a rather huge difference between 390,000 and 940,000. Why not make it somewhere between 12 and a billion and then we could say we wiped out India and a sliver of rural China with 98% certainty?

You're not very good with statistics, I take it? That is, you don't understand the meaning of "95% uncertainty interval" or other similar technical terms? In layman's terms, it means that according to the people who made that research, it's 95% certain that the number falls somewhere between the two. IOW, not "somewhere between 12 and a billion."

Or perhaps you're just not comfortable with uncertainties? You prefer a nice clear world-view where the good guys where white hats and the bad guys wear black hats, and if some nigger accidentally gets hit by a stray bullet, nobody complains. Hmm?

You're own "best source" pretty much proves that nobody's got a frickin clue what the casualty number is, but I notice you grabbed the top number in a real hurry and called it fact.

I did not grab the top number and called it fact. I extrapolated another year from those numbers and rounded it off. At the current rate of escalation, another year would add, say, 25% on top of that number. That would put it between about 500,000 and about 1,200,000.

But never mind. I don't have much interest in talking to someone who clearly feels that dead Arabs only matter once the number hits seven figures.

And we've had the debate before about whether all the sectarian violence is on the "USA's count" or not. I patently refuse to take "the blame" for 100 deaths because Ahab the Sunni thought this would be a great opportunity to blow up a mosque full of "godless Shiites" and al-Sadr thought it would be a good time for his goons to cleanse the slums of the "godless Sunnis".

I bet that made you feel *good.* All that moral high ground and such. Tell me, if I went and set fire to a forest and then said that I only take responsibility for the one bush I lit, that it's not my fault nobody cleared the dry underbrush that let the flames get out of control and burn down a summer camp with the kids inside, would you consider that a valid excuse?

But guess what? It doesn't matter one bit. What matters is that Ahab the Sunni -- and Hussein the Shi'ite -- do blame you, as do Jean-Francois, Günther, Zhu Wei, and Ivan Vassilievich Zhubov. So the next time Ahab (or Hussein) flies a plane into one of your skyscrapers, there won't be much sympathy (or help) forthcoming.

Translation: you're on your own, buddy.

[dteowner]

Actually, I have a fairly good grasp of confidence intervals, which is why I increased the range and showed the requisite increase in the area under the bell curve. Realistically a billion probably would probably put me into an 8 sigma range or so, but I can only guess without knowing the population standard deviation (which I could back out based on your range and confidence interval, but I don't know that the effort is necessary to prove the point). Forgive me a little hyperbole, but we're both throwing it around like confetti so I didn't expect to have to defend it.

To extend your forest fire analogy, I couldn't blame you for the whole mess if a couple punks dropped napalm on the other end of the woods after you lit up your single bush. Now, it's hard to differentiate whose fire burned what, and the crispy kids aren't really going to care at that point which flames did the deed (see, I get Arab anger better than you think), but the fact remains that you would not be solely responsible. Unless you're American, and then the punks get a free pass (and labelled as powerless victims of circumstance) and you get a mother-big bill and an extended stay in the pokey.

And yes, I fully agree that we're on our own. In fact, that was one of the original points I made, which you disputed as paranoid delusions I might add.

[Squeek]

This may be the right opportunity to pause and remember Columbia President Lee Bollinger's controversial opening remarks where he lambasted Ahmadinejad, telling him he was "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated" and challenged him to show "intellectual courage."

IMO, Bollinger wanted to raise the bar, because he knows the bar must be raised. He wanted to avoid this stuff. He was brutally frank and saying, "the standard mantra is just a waste of time to us."

[dteowner]

You know, PJ, I'll go ahead and come clean on something. I've mentioned this before, but it might have been part of the debates over at the Dot which you might not have seen.

Shortly after 9-11, the media had a video of a bunch of BMwB's in Lebanon quite literally dancing in the streets. Now, you can give me the spiel about Arab anger and victory for the downtrodden, but the fact is you've got people celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocents. And we're not talking sitting around the campfire having a little chuckle about the infidels finally getting a little of what they've got coming...no, we're talking full-on, get out of your chair and dance your butt off in front of the camera happy.

That was pretty much the end of my compassion. There's been a few more events that tightened my narrow view, but that was the defining moment for me.

[Prime Junta]

You know, PJ, I'll go ahead and come clean on something. I've mentioned this before, but it might have been part of the debates over at the Dot which you might not have seen.

Shortly after 9-11, the media had a video of a bunch of BMwB's in Lebanon quite literally dancing in the streets. Now, you can give me the spiel about Arab anger and victory for the downtrodden, but the fact is you've got people celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocents. And we're not talking sitting around the campfire having a little chuckle about the infidels finally getting a little of what they've got coming...no, we're talking full-on, get out of your chair and dance your butt off in front of the camera happy.

That was pretty much the end of my compassion. There's been a few more events that tightened my narrow view, but that was the defining moment for me.

So, because some Palestinians have a party in Lebanon it's OK to kill a million (give or take a few hundred thousand) Iraqis?

And then *you* pretend to hold the moral high ground? Ch'yeah.

[Prime Junta]

To extend your forest fire analogy, I couldn't blame you for the whole mess if a couple punks dropped napalm on the other end of the woods after you lit up your single bush. Now, it's hard to differentiate whose fire burned what, and the crispy kids aren't really going to care at that point which flames did the deed (see, I get Arab anger better than you think), but the fact remains that you would not be solely responsible.

There's a problem with this analogy: the punks and the napalm are presented as two events with no connection between each other. With America and the Arab world, that ain't so -- you both let out the punks and provided the napalm.

So let's take a better analogy. Suppose you got elected mayor and decided it was a good idea to open the doors of a maximum-security clink housing several thousand violent psychopaths. Then, when the violent psychopaths go on a rampage of rape and murder, you would claim "I didn't do anything, it's those scary black people! Must be in their culture or something, gee!"

Or would you?

Unless you're American, and then the punks get a free pass (and labelled as powerless victims of circumstance) and you get a mother-big bill and an extended stay in the pokey.

Yeah, we all know how soft America is on criminals. /me rolls eyes

And yes, I fully agree that we're on our own. In fact, that was one of the original points I made, which you disputed as paranoid delusions I might add.

Quote, please. Where did I dispute it as "paranoid delusions?" In your mind?

If you're on your own, it's due to your choice. It's been too long since 9/11, and too much has happened since, that I could accurately recall my emotional reaction to it. I do remember, though, that the first thing I did when it sank in was phone up my American friends (very far from the scene) and express my sympathy.

If it happened again, I would find it much harder to do that.

[Prime Junta]

Finally... I'm afraid I'm going to have to drop out of this discussion. I have a very busy (and stressful) week at work, and although I hate to admit it, this is taking an emotional toll that I'd rather not deal with at the moment.

I also think it's not doing much good. I'm clearly not getting across to you, and you haven't (thus far) said anything I haven't heard before. I'm just hating you (individually, not collectively) more by the minute, and I've no doubt the feeling is mutual. I can't see what useful purpose *that* serves. We are at war, you and I are on different sides, and in that context, we hate each other. In some circumstances, we'd probably be doing our level best to kill each other. That's a simple fact, and there's no simple way around it. One day, the war will be over and the survivors will be peeking out of the trenches, perhaps wondering whether the critters on the other side might be human beings after all.

The only ray of hope I can see is that there are other contexts, and other subjects, that we can talk about without fanning these flames. Role-playing games, for example.

So, I'm going to stop following the Politics & Religion forum for the time being.

I also just got warned by Corwin on taking issue with your avatar. It's good to see what the policy is here. I think I'll change mine to something a bit more... pointy, and see how that goes down. Pity I don't have a Ku Klux Klan muppet around...

[Corwin]

Your comments PJ were about far more than just his Avatar!!

[Jaz]

Play nice and keep your calm.

[curiously undead]

i'm not saying september 11th wasn't one of the worst tragedies this country has ever faced but the attack was never about attacking civilians. it was an attack at the wealth and military stength of the country. in their minds the lives of the civilians loss was irrelevent just like the ones they sacrifice as well. i don't agree with the mentality at all but it misses the bigger picture to say the september 11th attack was an attack on innocent civilians when that wasn't the goal at all. their victory dance was in their eyes a grand moment of their ideals smashing ours. its symbology just like when we toppled the saddam statue which we cared, but the iraqi's showed little enthusiam. there's plenty of times when american or any other soldiers level a building or city and rejoice, boomboom. but maybe not so much when they find out it was full of women and children, but are they to blame for faulty intel? thats the inherit problem in games of death and war, when blame become unplaceable, it makes it harder to reach and ending situation and in the end its the grunts and civilians that pay all the costs.

[dteowner]

Just for the record, PJ, I don't hate you at all. We've got a rather significant difference of opinion about a very serious set of topics, but that in itself isn't a problem. While we both are disputing the basic foundations of the other's opinion, I'd like to think we've both made a reasonably logical defense of our positions. You're still wrong, of course ;) , but it's clear that you've given it significant thought and I can see where, given the foundations you accept, your reasoning is sound. You've got my respect, which I'm sure is terribly important to you ;) .

Anyway, it hasn't exactly been fun and we're both way too set to budge, but if our catfight gave "our readers" some food for thought, I'd say it wasn't all for naught.

[Squeek]

it was an attack at the wealth and military stength of the country. in their minds the lives of the civilians loss was irrelevent just like the ones they sacrifice as well.With respect, I think that's too generous. September 11th was mass murder of innocent people, and I think you lose the benefit of the doubt when you commit crimes so deplorable.

That's not to say we shouldn't try to understand the terrorist mindset. Of course we should. There's obvious value there, and I don't think anyone's disputing that. But not the value some would believe. There are no gems in that cesspool.

As far as the American mindset, maybe supporters of terrorism should consider examples like this one. At the conclusion of our Civil War, one of the terms of surrender called for General Robert E. Lee's men to hand over their weapons. As the Confederate soldiers carried and stacked their guns, they held their heads high and looked their Union counterparts in the eye. They maintained their dignity and respect. It was evident to everyone present that they were men worth welcoming back into the fold -- grave enemies no longer -- they were Americans once again.

Americans will never respect the terrorist mindset. Attempts to justify it are only going to sound foolish here. Ahmadinejad didn't understand that, and that's why he became a laughingstock after he delivered his address at Columbia University.

[Corwin]

Squeek, how can we understand the terrorist mindset? As I think Magerette pointed out, for most people it's beyond our comprehension. I'm not American, and I grew up in Canada where deflating American egos is an art form, but to deliberately fly a plane into a building and kill thousands on innocent people is just beyond anything I can ever understand. While I dislike war, I can at least appreciate that soldiers fight and kill other soldiers. Terrorism is far different.

[Squeek]

It's beyond my comprehension too and beyond the comprehension of all right-thinking people, IMO. But this is what we're stuck with, that and annoying Canadians (hehe).

There's a cause-and-effect relationship, and we can understand that. There are differences of opinion and a variety of religious and philosophical beliefs that we can also understand. But if we were to be honest, we’d have to say we don't actually know what we're doing, trying to completely understand this stuff.

[mudsling3]

How about those Vietnamese monks and Americans who set themselves on fire during the war?

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews2/selfimmolation.htm

[Corwin]

Your point?? While I can understand, though not agree with suicide, setting yourself on fire as a form of protest also fails to fall within the bounds of my belief system!!

[mudsling3]

Or you can look through the eye of the Christ...

[Squeek]

I'm completely missing the point of your last two posts, mudsling3. How does self immolation connect with what we've been discussing here? And the eye of Christ stuff is lost on me as well. Sorry, I just don't get it.

[Jaz]

Well, I think I do understand.

[Corwin]

Then please explain to we lesser mortals Jaz!! :)

[magerette]

If you read his link, the point is pretty clear. Self-sacrifice for an ideal. Dying for others so they may live( the eye of Christ point, I believe) In the immolation cases of the Buddhist monks and the Quaker farmer, believing that peace is more important than your life, or your personal pain or suffering. By giving your life, you atone for the lives taken by others, your own moral guilt for the murder that is war because you are part of a human machine that embraces war, and by dying you refuse to participate.

Things like that.

I have to admit though that I don't quite see the tie in to suicide bombers who are deliberately trying to kill as many other people as possible, but there may be one. I don't understand those aspects of religion.

[JemyM]

Deeply recommended seminar of biological psychology, suicidal behavior and warfare, the difference between female and male suicide bombers, the nature of male violence etc. Well worth watching regardless of your religion since it will tell you a few things about yourself and whats going on in the other side of the world. It's not limited to muslims, it takes examples from many different societies/cultures, both secular and religious, giving you a perspective of how natural human biology in all humans regardless of race can be programmed for sinister ideas.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uuipt15s08c
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0iyCPDHplq8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t_Sda8oMjaI

[Squeek]

Terrorists sacrifice themselves the way Cho Seung-hui sacrificed himself at Virginia Tech; they do it in the process of murdering innocent people.

Had Cho set himself on fire instead, I imagine there would have been kind words for him amid all the head scratching about his stated cause. His family undoubtedly would have cried for him.

Instead, Cho murdered dozens of innocents before turning a gun on himself. Hundreds of millions of people talked about Cho afterwards, and as far as I can tell, there wasn't one kind word. No tears were shed for him. Nor should there have been.

The terrorist's cause isn't the point any more than Cho's cause was the point. It's not the point, because murder is the point. To ignore the value of victims' lives in consideration of their murderer's self-sacrifice is ludicrous and in my opinion morally shocking.

[magerette]

Well, Squeek, I've said several times I don't understand the mindset of a suicide bomber, but I don't think it's fair to compare it to a sociopath who killed a bunch of his peers for reasons that had no political or religious base.

If murder was the only point, I think it would be isolated to a few deranged individuals and not widespread among so many. I think it's entirely possible and indeed likely, that an extremist who expects to die in the execution of his mission has different motivations than a thwarted adolescent who goes on a shooting spree to revenge a perceived rejection or slight.

I don't want to speak for mudsling3 and his immolation point, but the idea of sacrifice in a political cause, to change the world and protest against your place in it with your death, is probably closer to what's going on with the terrorist mentality. And while the Buddhist religion is non-violent, radical Islam doesn't share that same perspective, so killing others on your way can and is frequently religiously justified by extremists.

Like I said, I really don't know. I'm not ignoring the value of the victim's lives. I could never sanction doing these things or reconciling them to my own beliefs about human life but I just feel that until we understand what's going on, we have little hope of dealing with it effectively. Moral outrage is not much of a tool for stopping the deaths.

[JemyM]

Dan Dennett: Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/116)
About ideas people are willing to die for.

[Squeek]

...but the idea of sacrifice in a political cause, to change the world and protest against your place in it with your death, is probably closer to what's going on with the terrorist mentality. And while the Buddhist religion is non-violent, radical Islam doesn't share that same perspective, so killing others on your way can and is frequently religiously justified by extremists.It's not that murder is the only point; it's that murder is the point whenever innocent people are killed. That's the lesson of The Holocaust, and it shouldn't be forgotten. That's where to start.

The idea that murder becomes something else when it's inspired by devotion to a cause or belief is how the Nazis looked at it and said so during their post-war trials. That's very dangerous thinking. It's wrong, and every major religion in the world denounces it.

From a Buddhist perspective the perceived value of self sacrifice is at polar opposites with the perceived effects of murdering innocent people. Combining them makes no sense at all.

Radical Islam isn't genuine Islam any more than the KKK's brand of Christianity is genuine Christianity. Just ask real Muslims (http://www.freemuslims.org/) and real Christians. The first thing they'll point out is the killings and how they have nothing to do with their beliefs.

The irony about all this is that the terrorists might have had their opinions heard and their views considered if they'd gone about it differently. But like Cho, they committed murder instead; and when you do that you've simply gone too far -- way too far.

[Ubereil]

Another, more important (IMO) lesson learnt (well, we can argue about that :D) from the holocaust is that lumping pepole together (jews, communists etc) and generalizeing about them (all jews are greedy etc) is dangerous. It eventually leads you to believe that you are worth more than those groups of pepole, and therefore that you have a right to go ahead of them, exploit them etc and in the end, to kill them so that they won't burden society anymore.

Useing the same line of thinking (generalization is dangerous) we can learn that we should respect other pepole, especially pepole from other cultures since we're more prone to mistake their actions for bad actions (since their minds might work different (not better nor worse, just different) from ours, we might mistake ourself on their motivations). Because if we don't, we might end up with another holocaust (and as Squeek pointed out, holocausts are murder, allways).

And that goes for those suicidebombers too ;).

Übereil

[JemyM]

Free Muslims, Muslims against terrorism and extremism (http://www.freemuslims.org)

[magerette]

It's not that murder is the only point; it's that murder is the point whenever innocent people are killed. That's the lesson of The Holocaust, and it shouldn't be forgotten. That's where to start.

The idea that murder becomes something else when it's inspired by devotion to a cause or belief is how the Nazis looked at it and said so during their post-war trials. That's very dangerous thinking. It's wrong, and every major religion in the world denounces it.


So that's why war is wrong, correct? Their war, our war, now or then--innocent people are murdered every day in all wars no matter if you call it terrorism or Cortes 'converting' the Aztecs or Blitzkreig or Operation Desert Storm.

Wars are fought for profit and power, and rationalized with emotion. IMO it all needs to stop, and until people understand what makes it start, it won't. I'm not disputing your points, Squeek--terrorism is just one face of war, and is a terrible evil and not a viable solution to anything. Hopefully we can agree on that.

Let me close my soapbox presentation with the words of a very great American:

" If you want to end war and stuff, ya gotta sing loud"
Arlo Guthre, Alice's Restaurant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZt1jS6du38).parts 1 and 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiPj7OLEzaM&mode=related&search=) :)

[Corwin]

I doubt we'll ever end war; history teaches/illustrates that. However, in the past war was usually conducted following certain rules (not always obviously ). It didn't make war any better, but it did help limit the killing of innocents. Now those rules/safeguards have been thrown out. I think once, soldiers had respect for their enemy; it wasn't personal. Now, there is no respect for anyone, and it has become very personal!!

[Squeek]

So that's why war is wrong, correct? Yes. It's absolutely wrong, and there seems to be no end to it. About the only thing worse is terrorism. I honestly don't have any trouble seeing the difference. Here's one reason why:

My wife and I own a home in Orange County, right? We're not far from Disneyland, so we bought season passes and go there whenever we want. You see, we don't have any kids or grandkids, and we like to go there to be with the children. There's thousands of them there; and they're always so happy, so excited to be there with their families, just like we were when we were kids.

You may remember that, shortly after September 11, intelligence experts discovered and announced Osama bin Laden's list of prime targets. Disneyland was right there near the top. He intends to kill them -- and if we happen to be there that day -- my wife and me as well. In fact, it's a priority of his.

I'm a peaceful man, but I know what I would do if I ran into old Osama in a dark alley, somewhere. None of it makes much sense. But that's how it is, anyway.

[curiously undead]

actually disney is on the top of my prime target list too, along with walmart and others that i'd wouldn't mind their collapse. of course i'm not refering to anyone being hurt mearly the demise of the companies. but as far as my actions they are limited to boycott, and oratory digustment when they come up in a conversation. my fiance's mother loves disneyland and makes a pilgrimage more than once a year and why i would hate to take her love away from her i would love to see disney changed into a wildlife (not a zoo) park. ain't going to happen anytime soon though to the golden mouse. i have many reasons for not liking disney but the most emotional is seeing the movie "David" as a kid where a boy is burned to near death by his father, and all the kid wanted to do was go see disneyland. so coupled with the "corporate" disney who grooms young women into being shiny empty husks and producing pornographic films, i certainly won't be taking my unborn children to that "happiest place on earth"
too much information, i hope so:)

[curiously undead]

to me war and terrorism are one in the same. sure they have their differences but so do to tires on the same bicycle. generally the only difference is that wars are comminited by governments, usually with some "authority", where as terrorist acts are commited by hidden groups or often indviduals. but all of that really boils down to strategy. a terrorist attack could destroy the world tommorrow and it still would have claimed far less innocent lives than all wars through history. i try not to live in fear at all, but its not the flash of terrorist acts i think that needs the attention but slow and grinding tyranny that only governments are capable of unleashing. i think its much more realistic to try and solve peaceful relations with other nations than trying to weed out every terrorist in the world, which isn't possible. even in a happy society there's always someone who will feel gyped and there's nothing that can provent an attack from them. getting people with blood on their mind together though is much more preventable when they live in a society with plenty of options. that's one of the great things and really the cornerstone of the united states promise. many countries lack this and in many cases our efforts are counter productive, even if unintentional. still the warhuggers will always find something worth fighting for and justifying if they have their way, and terrorism is just the flavor of the _____.

[JemyM]

I doubt we'll ever end war; history teaches/illustrates that. However, in the past war was usually conducted following certain rules (not always obviously ). It didn't make war any better, but it did help limit the killing of innocents. Now those rules/safeguards have been thrown out. I think once, soldiers had respect for their enemy; it wasn't personal. Now, there is no respect for anyone, and it has become very personal!!

I think we will be able to stop wars eventually but not in this generation.
History shows positive signs (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163). Violence is naturally human, but like all unwanted behavior it can be trained away or sublimed. It should be no surprise to you that most of Europe is extremely critical to war, this is because condemning war is now a part of our culture. When both schools and media condemns war, the people do not want war. Our history is indoctrinated to us from childhood up. When children are indoctrinated to respect eachother the few that dont are treated as deviants.
Democracy is the way to go, but free communication, getting the economy up and exchanging goods and services is important as well. When you understand that another country is like your country you are less willing to attack that country. Most of the western world consider ourselves to be a band of brothers today and it's not uncommon that youngsters travel around, study at universities and work around the globe. The world is getting smaller and therefore less scary and we feel less eager to attack when we feel safe and secure.

[magerette]

Dan Dennett: Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/116)
About ideas people are willing to die for.

Just had time to listen to that JemyM--very interesting and thought provoking presentation, and the comparison between the 'germs' that were spread by the first European visitors to the New world and their effect on the native population and the spread of the cultural touchstones of current western nations to other parts of the world and their impact was very effective. Thanks for the link.

[txa1265]

to me war and terrorism are one in the same.
Because dead is dead? Because innocents dying by accident when a bomb is dropped is to me quite different than kids in a school being rounded up and shot in the face in front of their parents.

[magerette]

And it's just as bad for the kids--NBC Nightly News (http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=c1b5752e-441d-46d9-96c3-a1625a32f2e0) had a story about some ungodly high number of Iraqi children who'd seen their parents blown up in front of them, or siblings, teachers, classmates, etc..you can only imagine what kind of trauma they are dealing with, and the story was told by the one Iraqi child psychologist in Baghdad who was treating them. One. He said something like "I'm afraid this will be a bad generation."

Sometimes surviving is the hardest part of war.

[curiously undead]

yes because dead is dead mike. life is a vaulable thing, and there is obvious different levels of suffering for how someone kind die, or not die in some cases, but torture is a whole different topic.

every one of the 24 members of the iraqi soccer (football) team has lost at least one relative in the iraq war.

interesting clip JemyM, definately some good thoughts in there. read a couple of dawkings books (including the selfish gene) a few years back, during my 5 year stint with biology/entomology though mainly beetles not ants. i'm down with the whole meme thing and think its fascinating but i disagree with his and many peoples thoughts on sacrafice. to me there are very few true unbiased sacrafices. suicide is a tricky subject because post humously you could even turn around jesus's suicide as just another suicide because so few people have failed to follow his examples. but i suppose if anyone else has or does benefit from a suicide than it can be seen as a noble sacrafice and not just a woe as me i can't hack it any more i'll kurt cobain myself. to me i find it useful to figure out polarities in life to help tune my grey lenses. i've always found the dichotomy of murder versus martyr two interesting roles. both roles/actions are strongly based but one solves the problem through sacrafice and the other through destruction. terrorists acts though involving sacrafice are still all the way to the edge of the murder scale, while the same could be said of the murder of war that does require a little sacrafice. niether of those actions admirable, but quite the norm, as long as society fails to teach sacrafice, and does its best to crush those who display it. some people may believe there are "bad men" sitting in guantanemo, but why would a murderer go on a self-inflicted hunger strike when he could give in, and sufferless, much like someone gives into the bloodlust or murder? islam has many faults, just like any other religion, but the lessons of sacrafice that are taught and followed by muslims i believe are far more "righteous" than their jewish and christian neighbors who don't place quite as high importance on sacrafice. this could be an unfair comparrison and example but if you look at yom kippur, lent, and ramadan i think its obvious which one is a difficult lesson in sacrafice. note i'm not saying that makes islam better, just that it is a better teacher of what sacrafice means, which doesn't mean a whole lot necessarily because a ritual doesn't necessarily breed understanding.

[JemyM]

Are you refering to the Daniel Dennet clip or the 3-part seminar on violence and suicides?

[curiously undead]

the first. i didn't watch the 2nd 'til now, of which i find little to value in though i still have 5 or so minutes left. i'm not a big fan of theorys and ideas that are based mainly on statistics which can usually be presented to usually support anything. he doesn't seem to regard natives to highly which makes the hatchet man unhappy. regardless of whether "civilized" people are killing less. the fact that matters to me is that classes haven't changed much at all and those on top have and will never have to violent kill anyone when they can control others to do it.

it ended slightly better, i guess i'm just not used to seeing discussion so bent towards the optimism that we are doing things right, since there's so much to be fixed, but if its a matter of "ok we've come this far, good job, now lets get back to it" then i can see its value.

[JemyM]

Personally I have respect for secular muslims, even if I do not share the belief in a power higher than human compassion, I can even look up to some of their beliefs and their moral tradition. Helping the poor is an even stronger tradition within Islam than it ever was in Christianity. In Christianity you can MAYBE interpret that Jesus is nice to poor but Jesus is not vocal when it comes to actually helping them out. The Quaran is very direct about helping the less fortunate. Also the muslim rules against drugs and alcohol is missing from the new testament that simply floods with wine. An alcoholic muslim is a rare thing indeed.

What both seminars say to me is that humans have natural instincs that can be triggered if you feed them specific ideas and then push them long enough. Religions and some secular ideologies offers an almost complete world-view and the more you read it, the more you can become convinced it's the real deal.

Regardless of ideology, there's a strong distinction between living in a free country and a country controlled exclusively by an ideology. When everyone in your country are indoctrinated to only see one point of view, society will start to take thoose ideas for granted. When I grew up, two ideologies was spoonfed to me: Christianity and Socialism. I was told that certain things were evil, and I was taught many things that made sense to me then because I knew nothing else. When I started to learn more about the world, I started to see the holes in both, and now when I question them my own family and some of my past friends tell me the same hollow arguments I was taught when I was young. Everybody knows them and some of them are wrong.

But here's the deal: I live in a free country. I am allowed to express my ideas in public and if I do not want to join the march on 1st of may like this one (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:1maj2006soc.dem.sthlm.jpg) I wont have to. Neither do I have to go to church and im even allowed to question the bible.

A christian or muslim who lives in Sweden blends the ideas of their religion with the values of the country. Things that are far removed from the values of the country (burning witches or treating non-musslims like cattle) are completely ignored, instead values like compassion to the less fortunate is taught by both religions. Meantime, even them who consider themselves "faithful" have normal lives with normal jobs, living in peace with neighbours from all religions and without religion. Even if they drill themselves with ideas, they pick just the good ones, not the bad ones.

Now think about Iran or Saudi-Arabia, countries controlled by religion. The rules is that everyone have to follow the religion, they are expected by everyone to pray five times per day and the Quaran should be read from cover to cover several times per year. You really have two choices; 1 is to shut up and do what you are told, no freedom to question it. 2 is to believe and get your brain drilled with every line of the holy book, no matter how outdated it is. I have been in Turkey, and it's not bad for a tourist. You are free to believe what ever you like and run little risk if you express your feelings, even if there are mosques everywhere.

There are one more thing. There's a great difference between Shia, Sunni and Sufist muslims. Shia Islam is sometimes refered to as the "religion of sorrow". Most of, if not all of the suicide bombers are shia muslims. Selfbeating and martyrdom is important. If you live up within a society where such values is expected by everyone, there's no surprise that someone can be convinced that they can kill themselves for "good" values.

[curiously undead]

yes but often times their are 3 forces in these muslim countries as in others. one based on theology, one power of the government, and one power of the people. i heard an interesting discussion yesterday about egypt yesterday. the pro democracy people there are actually being hindered by efforts from the us which support the goverment of egypt, who is also allied with many other middle east countries, and since they also have control of most of the media sources there as well. then there's the churches who have access to their views through nearly everyone who goes to the mosques. the pro democracy people though have little power, money, resources then to have their voices and opinons heard. many countries have this kind of setup up though, where outside "help" from other countries nearly always is funneled into the hands of the government who's priorities aren't usually those of the people, at least those who believe in democracy. but in the case of the us, progressive thoughts rarely get the support of our own goverment, so its unlikely that the first priority of helping other countries especially in tactical areas is ever going to be with helping the people achieve democracy but rather back who ever has the most ability to control the area, and hope we don't choose wrong and have them turn out to be not such "good guys". the religious (not extremists necessarily) portion of the country then ramps up their mantra once their is an outside influence country which against the now beefed up government can lead to violence, and the few voices of democracy can either be caught in the crossfire or squashed as dissendents for speaking unfavorabley about they government. women in nearly all these cases as well are the biggest losers.

[Geist]

So that's why war is wrong, correct? Their war, our war, now or then--innocent people are murdered every day in all wars no matter if you call it terrorism or Cortes 'converting' the Aztecs or Blitzkreig or Operation Desert Storm.

I always find it curious when people try to draw moral distinctions between war and terrorism. Suppose, instead of employing suicide bombers, Bin Laden had been elected president of a country with interballistic missile capabilities and ordered strikes on the Pentagon and the WTC. Now it would be called an act of war rather than terrorism. Does that change the moral aspect of the deed?
Differentiating between war and terrorism implies that political leaders and military officers, purely by virtue of the positions they hold, aren't capable of behaving like terrorists (specifically targeting civilians). We know that this isn't the case. War and terrorism may not be the same by definition, but war is every bit the moral equivalent of terrorism - albeit on a much larger scale.

[txa1265]

I always find it curious when people try to draw moral distinctions between war and terrorism.
That is a large scale example and is harder to fit - I consider the Pentagon a very valid military target and everyone would think of NYC as a primary bombing site.

The distinction is the use of innocents not as 'collateral damage' but as delivery techniques.
- Armies and bombs would drop bombs on NYC and the Pentagon, terrorists use innocent people to cause the destruction.
- Armies and bombs would maim and kill babies accidentally as part of a campaign. Terrorists would leave a crying baby in a carriage filled with explosives to kill as many people as possible.
- Armies and bombs would kill school children by accident in bombings or shootouts. Terrorists use children as bullet shields and take over schools and film themselves beheading children and blowing their heads off and release them to spread fear.

So while I think that war is brutal and the absolute wrong thing to do, I don't see that I need to 'try' to draw the distinction - the terrorists do it just fine themselves.

[mudsling3]

War, state sponsored terrorism.

[magerette]

I wonder if anybody can help me out with the truth of this; has war been officially declared by anybody towards anybody in the Iraq conflict? I heard in conversation that there's been no official declaration from the U.S. side because Congress is reluctant to put that much power into the hands of the President as Commander-in-Chief. I don't know where to go to verify this, but I certainly can't remember any headlines reflecting an official declaration.

[dteowner]

So why is the Arab response different when the USA drops a smart bomb on a suspected terrorist hideout, killing the target but also 4 innocents versus a bomber in the market blowing up a hundred innocents? The US is an indescriminate murderer, while the bomber is a martyr. Sounds like a pretty big difference between war and terrorism to me, although not the difference I'd expect.

@magerette- We're there under UN sanction (although that's gotten lost in the furor over "Bush's war"). Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since there's no recognized government to declare war against.

[magerette]

Thanks, dte. That makes sense. The conversation in question was full of shaky facts and now that I've have been taught to verify statements by my lessons here in international debate, I find it carries over and I don't believe anybody anymore ;)

[dteowner]

I should clarify, since we're all striving to be accurate here--we have formally recognized the new government of Iraq. The "no government" I was referring to was terrorists in general, such as al-Qaida.

[Dez]

what about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during ww2? I'm not 100% sure about the numbers, but atleast 140000 dead In Hiroshima and 80000 in Nagasaki. And thats doesn't include what damage radiation did to civilians afterwards. Objective was only to kill as many japs as possible.

[curiously undead]

exactly, if those bombings weren't the zenith of terrorism then the world truly is flat.

actually dte you may want to check your facts. the us was not authorized to use force when they went into iraq. timing was everything apparently (unlike you know letting bin laden have plenty of time to escape) and the us refused to wait for more inspections for the non existence weapons of mass destructions that they conjured up...so they went in. it was only later i believe and with the fact that the un has become a laughable puppet of the us in many cases, that some resolutions were passed that washed our hands so to speak. if that's authorization for attacking iraq than i hearby authorize you to shoot me in the face.

[dteowner]

Can't deny the facts of Truman's choice, but I think you'll find that nobody did "nice wars" back in the WW2 days. It was flat earth for both sides, and damn the innocents (see bombing of London, see bombing of many German cities).

Saddam refused to give complete access to the UN inspectors authorized to look for a variety of sins, not just WMD's. While Europe wrung its hands and shook its finger, the US took an aggressive posture, forcing Saddam's hand. While I would disagree with a few points, I think this Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441) is a reasonably accurate timeline. France openly refused to give any teeth to the resolution, which put the entire process on the skids.

[Squeek]

So why is the Arab response different when the USA drops a smart bomb on a suspected terrorist hideout, killing the target but also 4 innocents versus a bomber in the market blowing up a hundred innocents? The US is an indiscriminate murderer, while the bomber is a martyr.There's no defending killing innocent people who aren't involved in the fighting, but we can try our best to understand how it’s happening. In fact, I'd suggest this stuff is especially important to understand correctly.

The US military’s strategy is to try to avoid killing innocent people. That should be obvious, because it’s the reason the war has become so difficult. It’s equally obvious that they keep failing at that – not completely or anything even close to it. It’s occasional failure. But how many innocent deaths are acceptable?

Of course, terrorists base themselves around hospitals, schools and residential areas; because it’s their strategy to manipulate US public opinion into thinking its military forces are terrorists too.

It’s convenient to bolster anti-war sentiment with casual judgments and sweeping statements about this whole mess being equally to blame and equally wrong. But characterizing US forces as indiscriminate murderers is outrageous.

[dteowner]

It’s convenient to bolster anti-war sentiment with casual judgments and sweeping statements about this whole mess being equally to blame and equally wrong. But characterizing US forces as indiscriminate murderers is outrageous.I agree completely, but somehow the Arab world (and many others, to a lesser extent) has bought into the spin doctoring. It's hypocrisy thru and thru, but they're still celebrating the martyrs.

[mudsling3]

dte, put yourself in a pair of Arab shoes or imagine that some chinese military forces armed to the teeth landing on your backyard to "secure their oil". There are always individuals in any collective group, even in armies engaging in wars. You can't see the forest for its trees...then there are those "trees" in Abu Ghraib prison. Everyone hates wars except those profiteers and warmongers.

[Squeek]

That seems convenient. So people who disagree with your point of view are either profiteers or warmongers?

[mudsling3]

You know what, Squeek, I don't often make blanket statement like this. However, I challenge you to find one figure in history who enjoyed wars and yet not a profiteer or warmonger. Then my statement would fall by itself. It's "convenient" to alter my standpoint in stead of addressing my statement. I don't think you dare say you "like" wars unless...

[txa1265]

I think that there are also those who consider that wars are occasionally a necessary evil, but wouldn't necessary say they 'like' them. Which is probably most people.

[dteowner]

Man is a violent and jealous critter by nature, so it's only natural that the occasional war is going to break out. As Mike says, you don't have to "like" them to accept them.

[mudsling3]

I don't care if Dubya and Ahmadinejad/Osama duke it out in the ring mano-y-mano. The problem is why drag all these people into wars. Violent indicates fearful, jealous means insecure. Above all, we are selfish...But on both side of the war, self scrifice is esteemed. Something happens in between to alter human nature in war.

here is a quote from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials after WWII:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

I might add it works the same in any time.
Check this out http://foxattacks.com/blog/10777-fox-attacks-iran?play=1

[Squeek]

I really don't mean to be clever, but now you seem to be saying people who don't hate war must like it. We can all see which is better, so that puts you on the moral high ground. That's convenient.

My honest opinion is that I probably hate war more than you. It's just that I also hate terrorism more than you, and that's even worse. Your willingness to rationalize terrorism sounds like something other than peace-loving to me. And doing it in the context of anti-war rhetoric seems like a contradiction.

[mudsling3]

Yep, I don't think I can be indifferent about war. And if someone dare to do that in my backyard, you bet my guns will do the talking. Call it whatever you want. Ask yourself this question, "is this war reducing terrorism or multiplying it?" Terrorism is a strategy.

[txa1265]

Yep, I don't think I can be indifferent about war. And if someone dare to do that in my backyard, you bet my guns will do the talking. Call it whatever you want.

And I think the 'in my backyard' part makes a difference ... there is an easy distinction between the bombing of Pearl Harbor, driving invaders back from Korea / Kuwait, and destabilizing a region due to potential WMD's.

[mudsling3]

Mike, I no longer look at official "history" at face value now. Before 9/11, intelligence raised all the red lights and warnnings enough to have prevented it from happening. But we found no evident of Elkaida or WMD in Iraq when actions were taken that costed trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

[txa1265]

Mike, I no longer look at official "history" at face value now.

I'm not sure what that means in the context of what I said:
- Pearl Harbor was a direct attack on the US.
- Kuwait was driving back an attacking force that had designs on taking over the region.
- The current war is a personal agenda.

[curiously undead]

this is directed at anyone but i thought this was a relevant take on in my backyard. check out the audio documentary "dirty harry". listened to it on my way to work this morning.
http://www.radioproject.org/

making contact is one of my favourite radio programs that i listen to, an am grateful that kdvs airs them.

they played part of this song which i'd never heard before. its quite good, the guy sounds like jonny cash, and is another song that would be great to listen to in bioshock 2 or fallout 3.
http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/atom.html

[dteowner]

That might a bit of over-simplification, Mike. Taking out Saddam (even if you totally throw out the WMD fiasco) had more benefit to the world than just a big middle finger from Dubya and Daddy Bush.

[txa1265]

That might a bit of over-simplification, Mike. Taking out Saddam (even if you totally throw out the WMD fiasco) had more benefit to the world than just a big middle finger from Dubya and Daddy Bush.

Whatever the outcome, the lead-in doesn't show the same clear line of unavoidable conflict that the others do - and that should always be the burden of responsibility of proof for a leader.

[dteowner]

While the WMD was the spoonful of sugar, I'd think removing a loon with bad history (see Kuwait) from power before he got well-and-truly crazy would come pretty close to the clear line you're looking for. The world-class FU was just gravy for Dubya.

[txa1265]

While the WMD was the spoonful of sugar, I'd think removing a loon with bad history (see Kuwait) from power before he got well-and-truly crazy would come pretty close to the clear line you're looking for. The world-class FU was just gravy for Dubya.

If we went in for a quick hit, that would be one thing - but at the cost of thousands of civilian Iraqis, 4000 US soldiers, and hundreds of billions of $$ ... I just don't begin to see that a unilateral invasion based on 'probable cause' is justified.

[Squeek]

Well, I remember WMD being our justification for invading Iraq, and it turns out there weren't any. Against all common sense, Saddam Hussein allowed thousands of Iraqi citizens to suffer by defying the UN for what amounts to no apparent reason other than he felt like it.

Who knew? Not us, that's for sure.

Before 9/11 there were plenty of people urging the Bush administration to do something about Saddam Hussein. Horror stories were pouring out of that place. Iraqis living over here were the most outspoken about it, assuring everyone who would listen that their people would jump at the chance to be out from under the thumb of Middle Eastern madness.

And they were completely wrong too.

[dteowner]

I'm not completely convinced that there aren't some nasty weapons under a sand dune somewhere since it's not like the "bad guys" are going to notice our tanks and jets and decide to hang a billboard pointing to the stuff to help us out. But I'm perfectly willing to admit I expect the worst from Saddam lacking any evidence to the contrary.

If we went in for a quick hit, that would be one thing - but at the cost of thousands of civilian Iraqis, 4000 US soldiers, and hundreds of billions of $$ ... I just don't begin to see that a unilateral invasion based on 'probable cause' is justified.The quick hit would be frowned upon even more than what we ended up with--that would be called political assassination of a world leader and then Dubya would be in front of a war crimes council. And it would be justified to boot, unlike the misguided calls for that sort of silliness right now.

[curiously undead]

hopefully no one comes looking for wmd under our sand dunes then eh?

[dteowner]

I'd say the vast majority of our "nasty in a crate" is public knowledge. I'll grant you a tinfoil hat moment and agree there's probably a few "deep dark double extra secret" programs that are off the books, but by and large I'd say the enterprising investigator (or shall we call him a UN investigator, just to tie it all back to topic) could gain access to most of our weapons and relevant records.