DescentBB

"This is the fear the middle eastern Islamic fundamentalists have of Western society. They think that we are actively conspiring to wipe them and their culture from the face of the earth."

America won't stop until there are three McDonalds', five Starbucks' and a Wal*Mart in Iraq.

Testiculese wrote:"This is the fear the middle eastern Islamic fundamentalists have of Western society. They think that we are actively conspiring to wipe them and their culture from the face of the earth."

Well, right now I would say "they" have a pretty good bead on things.

America will stop if there's no market for McDonalds, Starbucks, and/or Walmart. If there is, who's to argue? Maybe the Iraqis like Western amenities too? Or are they not good enough to deserve them?

Part joke, part truth. Our culture has invaded most every other country...What about a McSandburger?

Our culture hasn't done any invading. Our culture has mass appeal because it's pleasurable and decadent, appealing to people's desires and greed. And greed is good. Western culture has been adopted and has spread like wildfire because people like it.

But the culture is also dynamic. It's Western, but it's pan-Western. When you take it home you can customize it. When you buy a TV set you buy a pipeline into the Western world. If Easterners didn't like what they saw on Western TV, they would do one of two things:

1) Go the al-Jazeera route and create their OWN TV.
2) Shut it off.

It's a free market of ideas -- we make our ideas available, and people consume them. Other cultures try to make their ideas available, and people keep consuming ours. It's not an invasion -- it's just ideas that people find more appealing. Got a problem with it? Make your ideas more appealing, or market them better.

Testiculese wrote:"This is the fear the middle eastern Islamic fundamentalists have of Western society. They think that we are actively conspiring to wipe them and their culture from the face of the earth."

If (and I do mean *if*) their culture is nothing but terrorism fueled by hate preaching fundamentalists in full jihad against all that isn't their brand of islam...then hell yes, they're right!

Let's remove them!!

They aren't even a semi-complex culture or country who's foriegn policy sometimes results in innocent deaths that we can negotiate with.
They are simply a culture of terror...period!!

They are all Warlords and Victims.
Bleh..that game is so 12th century.

Time for us to hit: Start>Settings>Control Panels>Add Remove Programs> remove: Islamikazi's (and supporting folders)

Psst, Will, that's a quote from me a few posts back... don't attack Testi for something I said.

"Islam, as it exists today in much of the world, is the problem" - Lothar


I think you need to be more careful with your statements.

Islam is the world's largest religion. Do you intend to start the greatest war in all history? Clearly we aren't going to get rid of Islam or conquer it.

What we can do is identify those specific extremists and their groups which perpetrate terrorism. From what I can tell, we have identified (not sure on this number, but the specifics are less important than the scale) less than maybe 10000 people who are Islamic terrorists bent on destroying the US. Last number I remember hearing on the number of Islamic believers is 1.5 billion.

That's quite a population to generalize!

I say we find the specific organizations who have attacked us and destroy those.


"There is more than just muslum extremeist. Saudi Arabia promotes wahabism. Mullahs across all the arab and non arab countries teach children to hate westerners and that killing them is religiously correct" - Woodchip


America has promoted dictactors, sold weapons to two sides in a war, many ignorant parents also probably also teaching forms of islamic bias. My point is not to bash america (I am a citizen, love living here) but simply to illustrate that every country has its dark secrets and skeletons in its closet.


"The hate does not come from anything America has done"


Well, I think that's a rather naive belief. I don't think it was a random act. Not that i'm justifying any sort of terrorist action in any form.


"So, rather than focusing on policy change and blaming ourselves, as Birds' post 3 years ago suggested and as many" - Lothar


Not really what I intended. Our actions have consequences, and that being mindful of our actions abroad will reduce the threat of terrorism. By the way, since my post, terrorism is at its highest level in 20 years (and increasing since 9-11). I didn't say ONLY BLAME US. I blame the people who ATTACKED us. But I think it's naive as hell to think your actions don't shape the minds of others, which in turn triggers their actions.

"... we should first understand the enemy, and after that, focus our attention properly -- with an appropriate amount of attention paid to making our behavior less offensive, but probably significantly more attention paid toward actually destroying the structure under which terrorism thrives and replacing it with structure under which individuals thrive. " - Lothar

I think you forgot an important factor: Finding out *who* our enemy is. I agree with destroying terrorism and the organizations that commit terrorism...but we have to pinpoint who these people and organizations are, and remove them. I am glad you agree we need to make our behavior less offensive.
Bush has been a nightmare in that regard. Slipping the word "Crusade" while referring to the war in Iraq was very silly.

"if you take the naive view that "they wouldn't hate us if we changed our policies" " - Lothar


What caused them to hate us then? Sure some people will always hate you for being good or powerful...but from what I've read it wasn't just that.. OH naw, american is pristine and clean and perfect

"My argument is that those who were unwilling to hold Saddam accountable for his treaty obligations, international commitments, obeyance of international law, adherence to UN Security Council resolutions, and a long list of other legal and moral boundaries for which he had not a shred of regard, is IN ITSELF a form of appeasement." -Sirian

I just wanted to point out that there is a huge difference between people who were against the war in iraq in all forms unconditionally, and those people who did not see an imminent threat and felt that Saddam was currently contained. Letting saddam sit longer as the whole world breathed down his neck isn't really the same thing as what the original use of appeasement was for, in terms of scale. Yeah, 1441 was broken. Yeah, the UN was being wishy washy. But why not wait for them to come around? Seriously. Think about it in terms of cost of american lives and dollars. Would waiting another year for the UN really have hurt us? Nope. But acting immediately really did.

"When was the last time the Presbyterians beheaded someone, Kai?" - Bash

When was the last time Presbyterians had their country occupied?

"It's coming and we can either be prepared to side with the Islamic reformists in this war with whatever assistance we can provide or fall into bin Laden's trap of an all out war on Islam. " - Bash

Who are the Islamic reformists we are siding with though? Are you referring to the US?

Psst...DCrazy, I knew they weren't Testi's words but I skimmed and couldn't find the source of the quote.
I'm just attacking the premise of the message not the messenger/s.

Obviously we can't really write off all of islam or all of anything but the radicals are getting cover from the rest of the islamic world that doesn't stand up against them!

I know, easy for me to say when I live here with my citizen police force, citizen army, right to carry a handgun etc. etc. etc. Not so easy for them to rise up...

But I'm telling it like it is, americans are getting fed up with the source of these murderous bastages...the rest of islam better take an active role in divorcing themselves of them or my hyperbole will end up to be more reality than rant!

Ok I'll can the whispering.

Birds, what caused them to hate us is not what causes them to continue to hate us, if what caused them to hate us was the spreading of our culture. But unlike other cultures that have been assimilated into the Western blanket, fundamentalist Islamic societies are putting up a resistance. Meaning that there is something in their society that is actively fighting against something in our society. Who's to say the problem isn't with us but with them? It's a valid assumption from both angles, and as such to claim that the problem lies entirely with America is a fallacy. In the cultural conflict, one side has to give, and I'd kinda prefer if it were the side that doesn't advocate public stoning, videotaped beheadings, and strangulation of women in their own clothing.

Birdseye wrote:

Islam, as it exists today in much of the world, is the problem - Lothar

I think you need to be more careful with your statements.

I think you need to be more careful with your selective quoting. I refer you back to my Jun 26, 7:49 PM post, wherein I clarified this statement. In particular, with respect to your questions about wanting to "wipe out Islam" etc. I think those questions have been clearly answered.

Birdseye wrote:Do you intend to start the greatest war in all history?

JRR Tolkien wrote:Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not.

A better question would be, do we want to minimize casualties in this war by finishing it quickly? Do we want to crush the extremists who make war on us, and the governments who support them, while creating an environment in the Middle East where people can grow up with hope rather than hate? Or do we want to let them keep attacking until we have no choice? Do we want to wait for an "imminent threat"?

If you're playing D and somebody in front of you, and you're playing to win... you don't wait for them to find some weapons. You take them down. Now, we're already in a war with the Islamikazes, and I don't see any reason to wait until they've got powerups and are on equal footing. There are times where it's tactically better to be aggressive or tactically better to be passive, just like in Descent -- but there is no time to get up, leave the controls, and make a sandwich while your opponent loads up on weapons and blasts you.

Birdseye wrote:Not really what I intended [3 years ago]. Our actions have consequences, and that being mindful of our actions abroad will reduce the threat of terrorism.

Of course. But then, if you follow the link, you'll see that the actions you suggested we be mindful of were, for the most part, irrelevant -- while the actions I suggested we be aware of are the ones the extremists hate us for, and they're actions that should not change much.

terrorism is at its highest level in 20 years

Short-term.

I think you forgot an important factor: Finding out *who* our enemy is.

We already know who the enemy is, for the most part. But yes, we should keep researching this to discover the specifics. And we should take a page out of Israel's textbook. Did you know terrorism over there has dropped significantly in the last few months?

Birds wrote:

"if you take the naive view that "they wouldn't hate us if we changed our policies" " - Lothar

What caused them to hate us then?

A lot of things -- our culture, our support of Israel, penith envy, etc. Again, I refer you to my 9/18/2001 post on the IDL forum. We can change some policies, and they might hate us only 80% as much -- but they'll still hate us enough to want to kill us, so policy change is not the main goal here. Policy change is a secondary thing -- the primary goal is disrupting and destroying the terror network, and that's the only thing that'll really win the war. Policy change might make it a little easier -- like the surprise transfer of power will make it a little easier -- but the way to win is to crush the terror networks, and make them hard to replace and unlikely to form again.

Birdseye wrote:Islam is the world's largest religion.

The last statistics I saw had the Christians totalled at 2.7bil, the Muslims right at 2 bil, and the Hindus just under 1 bil, in that order.

You undersold the Muslims by half a bil, and EVEN THEN, unless about 0.8 billion Christians kicked the bucket in the last year and a half, or China went All Islam All The Time, I think you got that point wrong.

Statistics are the most dangerous things out there. Be careful with them! (I speak from experience. A lot of potentially good positions went to waste when based on faulty or distorted or incomplete stats.)

Birdseye wrote:Yeah, 1441 was broken. Yeah, the UN was being wishy washy. But why not wait for them to come around? Seriously. Think about it in terms of cost of american lives and dollars. Would waiting another year for the UN really have hurt us? Nope. But acting immediately really did.

That's a fair point. There are several answers to your question, because there were several reasons combining to lead us to the action we took. Here are a few to chew on.

1) Twelve years was enough "waiting for them to come around." Ever read the play "Waiting for Godot"?

2) Saddam lived like a king, so he didn't care about the sanctions. It was the Iraqi people who suffered, and the reason they suffered is because their fellow Arabs insisted we stop at the Kuwaiti border in 1991 instead of marching up the Highway of Death and removing that evil regime back then. I won't call that a mistake. We gave diplomacy a chance! But at some point, enough is enough. Second chances, fifth chances, thirtieth chances... When do we stop retreating and start meaning what we say?

3) Our intelligence services believed he had active WMD programs and COULD NOT BE TRUSTED to behave with them. The USA need not provide proof that he had these programs, etc, when the burden of proof lay upon him to assure us that he did not. (Why did that burden lie with him? He agreed to it as a condition of not having his regime wiped out by the coalition who liberated Kuwait!) Saddam never tried to uphold that commitment, to reassure us that he had disarmed. He always pushed the envelope. One day he pushed too far.

4) The USA is often accused around the world (wrongly) of valuing American lives more than the lives of others. You cite the cost in American lives (hundreds) but give no weight to Iraqi lives (tens of thousands saved and 26 million freed from oppression). Fact is, the action we took WAS COSTLY. A dear price has been paid. Nevertheless, from a human standpoint rather than an American-only standpoint, the costs we paid are far less than the costs the Iraqis have been paying and paying and paying without end for thirty years. That's a trade some Americans are willing to make on behalf of liberating others, when we've tried diplomacy and are sure that it has failed, AND ON TOP OF THAT, we feel threatened by the regime in question. (How hard would it have been for Saddam to pass chem/bio weapons to terrorists if he chose? Worse, his regime was decaying. Even if Saddam didn't authorize it, some Al Qaeda yahoo might have infiltrated his government and stolen such weapons!)

5) Conservative estimates place the number of Iraqi dead at the hands of their own government in excess of 300,000 people. But of course who on the left, among the so-called humanitarians, gives a care about them? Their sister wasn't dragged out and gang raped by the Fedayeen Saddam because their father somehow offended some thug in the government. Their brother didn't disappear without a trace. Their entire religious denomination did not have its sacred rituals suppressed, its pilgrimages suspended, its members persecuted. Yeah, sure, who cares about any of these forms of suffering. Let's wait and wait AND WAIT AND WAIT FOREVER for some high brows in Europe and North America to "come around".


That last point tends to get singled out by many leftists and dealt with in isolation, on the faulty logic of "if we go to take out one dictator, we have to go in and take them all out everywhere," followed by the non sequitur of "and we can't do that, so let's sit on our fat @$$3$ and do nothing at all!"

Can a home builder build a house for every human being on the planet? No. Can he build a house for somebody? Yes. How does he pick for whom to build a house? There are many valid ways.

Our inability to right every wrong is not just cause to sit paralyzed and do nothing. Nor does it make us hypocritical to right one wrong but not another. We've got to start somewhere, and the reason we started there is Gulf War One. Saddam was not only a dictator, he was a loose cannon. He attacked Iran, he attacked Kuwait, and then despite all diplomatic measures from sanctions to inspections to you name it, he remained defiant. He's sitting on riches, raking in billions that he converts into WMD research, or would have if not for the partially effective inspections, sanctions, and pressures, which did reduce but did not eliminate his ability to pursue deadly weapons.


THE ONLY LEGITIMATE REASON TO WAIT LONGER WAS IF THERE WAS A BONA FIDE HOPE OF DIPLOMATIC RESOLUTION.

Since any such resolution depended on Saddam's cooperation, his decision to uphold his commitments -- and even Dr. Blix found he had made no such choice despite 1441 -- it's beyond folly to suggest that waiting any longer had any purpose whatsoever other than to kiss the @$$3$ of those who had no interest in holding Saddam accountable or resolving the issue.

No thanks. I like the way we responded much better.

Next time, they (whoever they happen to be) will take us more seriously. That's how real diplomacy works: if your words and warnings are believed, people may decide to respond favorably when you draw a line in the sand. Qaddafi, for instance. The day we rolled into Iraq, he initiated an overture. That's not entirely from fear, but rather an understanding that the USA "is getting serious now" and that playing at brinkmanship instead of seeking honest dealings with us had just become a much more dangerous venture. For some folks, that will tip the scale to where they find making deals more attractive than defiance.

Credibility is the key to diplomacy and negotiation. The UN has squandered its credibility, and thereby that of the "civilized world" at large, including the USA. We had to reverse that trend.

The diplomacy had failed, kid. Admit it. Sanctions had done nothing to Saddam. UN resolutions had done nothing. Inspections helped contain him, but could not remove his will to pursue NBC weapons -- and in the post 9-11 world, "we probably have him contained" ain't good enough any more! We needed open cooperation and firm assurances -- and we were going to get them one way or another, come Hell or high water! That Saddam failed to accurately gauge this shift in American resolve was his final mistake.


- Sirian

Well said, Sirian!

To add to Sirian's post in relation to the liberals much vaunted U.N.; waiting for the U.N. to decide would never had happened. France, Germany, Russia and even Koki's own family were taking grease money under the table by uncle Saddie with the implicit guarantee that no U.N. action would ever be approved. Perhaps Bush knew this when he called the U.N. "irrelevent". The end result was Iraq was given more than enough time to comply.

Oh and MehYam...heres a T.S. chit to go see the chaplan.

"Birds, what caused them to hate us is not what causes them to continue to hate us, if what caused them to hate us was the spreading of our culture." - Lothar DCrazy (edited by Lothar to refer to the right person)

Can we really say that it was the spreading of our culture? In the letter from "Osama" (easily enough a large viewpoint from that section of thinking) there were many points that weren't about culture. I also want to point out I don't think the problem lies entirely with america. I don't think that at ALL. My point about hatred prevention is to simply prevent terrorism. NOT that we necessarily are blame worthy for any terrorism committed against us.


"Do we want to crush the extremists who make war on us, and the governments who support them, while creating an environment in the Middle East where people can grow up with hope rather than hate?" -lothar

Yes, I think so. Iraq did not make war on us. Other countries are also clearly more dangerous to us. I think the Bush administration and the PNAC folks want to democrotize the middle east by force. I am all for helping democracy flourish, but preemptive occupation on a non threating enemy is not how I would go about it.

"If you're playing D and somebody in front of you, and you're playing to win... you don't wait for them to find some weapons. You take them down" - L

True, but in D the threat is clearly defined. In D, that person in front of my quite clearly attacked me in the game at some point. Saddam did not, and in fact its the simple truth that other countries are far more dangerous to our safety. We went for the stronghold in the middle east, and to make a few million on defense contracts (not the primary reason to go, but a sort of while-we-are-at it type thing).
------

Response to sirian:

"Statistics are the most dangerous things out there. Be careful with them!"

Well, I wasn't completely sure but I thought I had heard it was. It really didn't change my point, so I wasn't worried about it. I have taken several college statistics courses, so I know what you mean.
"1) Twelve years was enough "waiting for them to come around." Ever read the play "Waiting for Godot"? "

No. Perhaps you could explain your point.

"2) Saddam lived like a king, so he didn't care about the sanctions. It was the Iraqi people who suffered, and the reason they suffered is because their fellow Arabs insisted we stop at the Kuwaiti border in 1991 instead of marching up the Highway of Death and removing that evil regime back then. I won't call that a mistake. We gave diplomacy a chance! But at some point, enough is enough. Second chances, fifth chances, thirtieth chances... When do we stop retreating and start meaning what we say?"

How can you say it was not a mistake to take him out then when we already had the troops and a small rebellion brewing? The Iraqi people also suffered when we told the rebels to go fight, we'd help, and we didn't.

"3) The USA need not provide proof that he had these programs, etc, when the burden of proof lay upon him to assure us that he did not."

I actually agreed pre-war that he probably had weapons. Whether they were planned to be used on the USA was something that was never linked.

" we feel threatened by the regime in question."

Who is we? Who was talking about feeling threated by Iraq before bush pulled it out his ass? Sorry, I'm not threatened by countries that have the entire international community breathing down their neck.

"You cite the cost in American lives (hundreds) but give no weight to Iraqi lives (tens of thousands saved and 26 million freed from oppression). "

Frequently in debates I mention the Iraqi deathtoll as being a terrible thing. It's already above those that died in the WTC.

"Even if Saddam didn't authorize it, some Al Qaeda yahoo might have infiltrated his government and stolen such weapons!) "

Sounds like you would now like to invade every country that is susceptable to weapons theft, or am I reading you wrong? There's PLENTY of countries that have WMD that could be theft susceptabel.

"But of course who on the left, among the so-called humanitarians, gives a care about them?"

Life is brutal and ugly. Again, by your logic you'd like to invade tens of countries. Where were we in the Hutu-Tutsi massacre of hundreds of thousands of people? Jump off your moral high ground, cuz we aren't in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis!

"THE ONLY LEGITIMATE REASON TO WAIT LONGER WAS IF THERE WAS A BONA FIDE HOPE OF DIPLOMATIC RESOLUTION. "

Wrong. Waiting longer could have built a larger coalition of the willing. That could have spread the costs of hundreds of billions of dollars we're going to be spending Iraq. Money we don't have. We can't even provide health care adequitly for our own citizens, we're trillions of dollars in debt, we have record deficits; We needed to spread the cost out. There was no need to take the brunt of the cost in dollars, but also in american hatred.

Remember how after 9-11 the world sympathized with us? Sure, the islamic extremists did not, but now we not only have them but a whole new set of people around the world pissed off at us. I for one value our opinion internaitonally.

"it's beyond folly to suggest that waiting any longer had any purpose whatsoever other than to kiss the @$$3$ of those who had no interest in holding Saddam accountable or resolving the issue. "

I believe I've made a valid argument otherwise.

"Credibility is the key to diplomacy and negotiation"

Yeah, something we lack these days in the international commmunity. You look at us as having mounds of credability for attacking Iraq, but take a world survey and you'll probably get results otherwise. It's mainly the USA and britain who think the UN lacks credbility. To other countries, after the whopper Bush told:
"Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. (than al qaeda)"
Iraq a more clearly defined threat than al qaeda? An outright lie by Mr. Bush.

"Our inability to right every wrong is not just cause to sit paralyzed and do nothing. Nor does it make us hypocritical to right one wrong but not another"

True. But I just still don't see any reason for USA in a massive budget crisis to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to invade a country that poses no serious threat to us, setting a new doctrine of pre-emptive strike. It was an inefficient war. We're no safer from terrorism now than we were before saddam was removed. I find the pre-emptive strike to be a decent idea, but ONLY if the threat against you is clearly defined, which it was not as bush claimed.



"The diplomacy had failed, kid. Admit it. Sanctions had done nothing to Saddam. UN resolutions had done nothing. Inspections helped contain him, but could not remove his will to pursue NBC weapons -- and in the post 9-11 world, "we probably have him contained" ain't good enough any more! "

Still using the condescending kid remark eh lil buddy I take it with love.
I definitely think weapons inspections were a waste of time, but I don't see why we had to act right when we did. There was no imminent danger, as the bush administration claimed. There was no clearly defined enemy of the USA, as the bush administraion claimed. We should have waited for others to get frustrated as well if we really wanted to go so badly. Why? Because we've further fueled the american hatred fire, spent hundreds of american lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have.

If we had gone in with greater international support, it wouldn't have been the USA vs. Islam as many extremists think of it. It would be the UN vs. Islam.

I just think of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq, and how many amazing things we could have done with the money at home.

We look silly internationally, we've spent billions of dollars and hundreds of american lives. And we're no safer from terrorism than we were before.

Speakign of billions, why are we paying for Iraq reconstruction? Why arne't we billing that country for the services? US industry is making a killing on these contracts, which is essentially just laundering tax dollars from the public to the corporate, with kickbacks to the political.

Testiculese wrote:Speakign of billions, why are we paying for Iraq reconstruction? Why arne't we billing that country for the services?

I'm not sure, it's a good question and point about the taxpayers paying to fix Saddams mess.

One answer I've heard which seems to make some sense to me is, we don't want to break their economy which is fragile at best and we don't want to have them think we invaded and then took their oil which is the only way they can pay.

Bush and Powell have been pushing hard for Russia, France, Germany etc. to forgive Iraq of the billions of dollars in debts they owed for the same reason.

Testiculese wrote:Speakign of billions, why are we paying for Iraq reconstruction? Why arne't we billing that country for the services? US industry is making a killing on these contracts, which is essentially just laundering tax dollars from the public to the corporate, with kickbacks to the political.

Same reason we didn't charge Japan and Germany for reconstruction post-WWII. Or would you rather we charge them like we did to Germany post-WWI (which was one of the leading causes of WWII)?

Testiculese wrote:Speakign of billions, why are we paying for Iraq reconstruction? Why arne't we billing that country for the services? US industry is making a killing on these contracts, which is essentially just laundering tax dollars from the public to the corporate, with kickbacks to the political.

The object lesson was Germany after the first world war. The victorious nations bled Germany dry with the result WW2 occured.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. Stresseman had introduced the Rentenmark to stave off the inflation of the Deutschemark (so bad that 1 trillion DM was equal to 1 Rentenmark). By then the German economy had begun to see a bit more balance, as it had already been exhausted by the war. I'd argue that the bigger/est problem was that Versailles was dictated to the Germans, and the Nazi party was able to focus German hatred on the dysfunctional Weimarr government and convince the people and the chancellor to allow a Nazi takeover (which was, as far as electoral proceedings, entirely legal BTW).

Birdseye wrote:When was the last time Presbyterians had their country occupied?

When was the last time presbyterians (or any Christian denomination, for that matter) had a country to be invaded? As an aside, arguing that the U.S. is Christian is pointless.. it might be the major religion, but we have freedom of religion...

Isn't Eratriea mostly christian, and the same for East Timor?