Why are we losing on the battleground of ideas?

[Ordie]

Recently there has been some discussion about the war of ideas in the post 9/11 world. I thought this article is of some interest.

The question: Why are we losing on the battleground of ideas? and what can we do about it? is valid.

What do you think?



International: Losing minds
by Steven Weber and Michael Zielenziger
The next president must ask two fundamental questons: "Why are we losing on the battleground of ideas? What can we do about it?"
In Autumn 2003, Donald Rumsfeld asked his top advisors a now-famous question: "Are we capturing, killing or deterring, and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
http://alumni.berkeley.edu/calmag/200611/images/weber.jpg
Not our friends: Osama bin Laden supporters in
Karachi, Pakistan demonstrate their contempt for
the United States. AP Photo/K. Bangash
It was precisely the right question to ask, lodged within a memo that Rumsfeld wrote to stir new thinking about the long-term prospects for what he labeled the Global War on Terror. If there is some awkwardness in the way the Secretary of Defense posed this question, it is because the first two actions (capturing and killing) result directly from the use of force; while the second two (deterring and dissuading) ultimately rely on appeals to the "hearts and minds" of human beings.
The data accumulated since Rumsfeld asked this question strongly suggest an answer. On September 11, 2001, Americans were utterly shocked by the phenomenon of suicide bombers aimed against us — 19 young men who willingly gave their lives to kill a much larger number of Americans for the cause of al-Qaeda. Five years later, suicide bombings no longer shock: they have become normalized in our expectations. During a typical week in the summer of 2006 in Iraq alone, there were at least a half-dozen suicide bombings, so many that we considered them as newsworthy only in passing. Eighteen months ago, Britons were stunned by the notion that "British citizens" could become suicide bombers on London subways and buses. That this summer’s foiled airplane plot also involved a large number of British subjects was, sadly, less dramatic. If the available pool of suicide bombers is a reasonable proxy by which we can measure the number of terrorists for whom deterrence and dissuasion have utterly failed, then clearly we are losing this war in a very big way.



Source: www.californiamag.org (http://www.californiamag.org)

[PeterG]

We are definetely f*cked, at least in the long term. We are allowing millions of muslims to immigrate to the western world, and we are bending over backwards to accomodate their 'sensibilities' - allowing radical clerics to 'preach' and recruit jihadists here, and building religious schools for them, with our money! We do nothing to encourage cultural assimilation, which is the only way to prevent future parallell societies, civil unrest, and even civil war.

Those who feel that the 'multicultural society' is the most wonderful concept ever, will never be able to convince me that a large muslim minority - and perhaps even a majority one day, is a 'good thing' to be embraced by us all. Al Qaida won't have to smuggle in terrorists with forged papers from Pakistan or afghanistan - there are thousands and thousands of ready and willing recruits right here in our midst, living on the tax money of the people they despise and want to kill. Last week i read in the paper that thousands of 'asylum seekers' had been made citizens of Norway, and had been issued all the relevant papers - passports etc. People we have absolutely no clue who really are! The only thing we can be sure of, is that they all destroyed their original documents, when they arrived here. :cantbeli:

We have become so cowardly and weak that we can't even support our allies in southern AFG when they directly requested it. And we won't put up a fight in our own country either, when that day arrives. The politicians will chant about 'dialogue' as always, and they will go to the nearest mosque the next day so they can hold a press conference and reassure us all that islam is the most peaceful and wonderful religion in the history of human kind. Those that are so outrageously radical that even our authorities react, hire the best lawyers available ( on the taxpayers bill, naturally ) and thereby stall - or more likely prevent completely, any chance of deportation, ever. The media all seem to agree that radical islam isn't all that bad, and really nothing to worry much about - the REALLY horrible stuff, is Guantanamo bay.

[Klepto]

We are definetely f*cked, at least in the long term. We are allowing millions of muslims to immigrate to the western world, and we are bending over backwards to accomodate their 'sensibilities' - allowing radical clerics to 'preach' and recruit jihadists here, and building religious schools for them, with our money! We do nothing to encourage cultural assimilation, which is the only way to prevent future parallell societies, civil unrest, and even civil war.

Those who feel that the 'multicultural society' is the most wonderful concept ever, will never be able to convince me that a large muslim minority - and perhaps even a majority one day, is a 'good thing' to be embraced by us all. Al Qaida won't have to smuggle in terrorists with forged papers from Pakistan or afghanistan - there are thousands and thousands of ready and willing recruits right here in our midst, living on the tax money of the people they despise and want to kill. Last week i read in the paper that thousands of 'asylum seekers' had been made citizens of Norway, and had been issued all the relevant papers - passports etc. People we have absolutely no clue who really are! The only thing we can be sure of, is that they all destroyed their original documents, when they arrived here. :cantbeli:

We have become so cowardly and weak that we can't even support our allies in southern AFG when they directly requested it. And we won't put up a fight in our own country either, when that day arrives. The politicians will chant about 'dialogue' as always, and they will go to the nearest mosque the next day so they can hold a press conference and reassure us all that islam is the most peaceful and wonderful religion in the history of human kind. Those that are so outrageously radical that even our authorities react, hire the best lawyers available ( on the taxpayers bill, naturally ) and thereby stall - or more likely prevent completely, any chance of deportation, ever. The media all seem to agree that radical islam isn't all that bad, and really nothing to worry much about - the REALLY horrible stuff, is Guantanamo bay.


And that folks, is why we are losing on the battleground of ideas.

[Calanen]

I still think most of the West does not 'get it', and perhaps by the time they do, it will be too late. Maybe its too later already.

[b33f]

We are definetely f*cked, at least in the long term. We are allowing millions of muslims to immigrate to the western world, and we are bending over backwards to accomodate their 'sensibilities' - allowing radical clerics to 'preach' and recruit jihadists here, and building religious schools for them, with our money! We do nothing to encourage cultural assimilation, which is the only way to prevent future parallell societies, civil unrest, and even civil war.

Those who feel that the 'multicultural society' is the most wonderful concept ever, will never be able to convince me that a large muslim minority - and perhaps even a majority one day, is a 'good thing' to be embraced by us all. Al Qaida won't have to smuggle in terrorists with forged papers from Pakistan or afghanistan - there are thousands and thousands of ready and willing recruits right here in our midst, living on the tax money of the people they despise and want to kill. Last week i read in the paper that thousands of 'asylum seekers' had been made citizens of Norway, and had been issued all the relevant papers - passports etc. People we have absolutely no clue who really are! The only thing we can be sure of, is that they all destroyed their original documents, when they arrived here. :cantbeli:

We have become so cowardly and weak that we can't even support our allies in southern AFG when they directly requested it. And we won't put up a fight in our own country either, when that day arrives. The politicians will chant about 'dialogue' as always, and they will go to the nearest mosque the next day so they can hold a press conference and reassure us all that islam is the most peaceful and wonderful religion in the history of human kind. Those that are so outrageously radical that even our authorities react, hire the best lawyers available ( on the taxpayers bill, naturally ) and thereby stall - or more likely prevent completely, any chance of deportation, ever. The media all seem to agree that radical islam isn't all that bad, and really nothing to worry much about - the REALLY horrible stuff, is Guantanamo bay.
Great speech man! You're speaking from my heart. Good to see that there are at least SOME fellow Europeans who can see what's going on.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

And that folks, is why we are losing on the battleground of ideas.


No that is not where we are losing the battle of ideas..we are losing the battle because no one really wants to take a look at the conditions that cause the world-wide rise in poverty, death, starvation, and genocide. No one wants to take look at the lack of jobs, constent state of war, and the lack of food and resources in most 3rd world countries. Alot of what is plaugueing the westren countries with the rise in militant islam, stems from the above reasons. (If conditions are bad enough, people look for someone who will provide an easy anwser to all their woes, tell them what they want to hear, and feed off of their misery, and soon, they start to believe what they are being told)

And it is not easy for countries in the west to grasp the magnitude of the problem, and the result is what we are seeing today with the increase of terrorism and radical Islamic attitudes across European and other westren countries.

So, how do you win the war on ideas? Its hard. and there are no easy anwsers. But, one thing for certain, bringing these people over to westren countries to immigrate is not the anwser either. Because, the ideas that have been simmering for generations in the peoples former countries, are now simmering here.

The best way to fight the battle of ideas, is not to attack the idea itsself, but attack the conditions in which the idea came from.

[Dasein]

I do not see how PeterG's suggestions allow us to win a kulturkampf. If anything, he suggests causing further antagonism. He certainly doesn't provide any means by which we could deter and dissuade young Arab and Muslim men from taking up arms and strapping on suicide bomb vests. If anything, he provides greater incentive for them to do so by responding to their provocation with manifestly anti-Muslim measures, thus deepening the rift and further alientating the silent majority of Muslims who do not hate the west and do not subscribe to radical ideologies but simply want to make a life for themselves in Europe and America.

If we find ourselves losing the culture jihad when we're only confronting the radical fringe, how does confronting the moderate majority improve our situation?

[CyberSpec]

If we find ourselves losing the culture jihad when we're only confronting the radical fringe, how does confronting the moderate majority improve our situation?

The "moderate majority" is a myth.....IF and WHEN, push comes to shove, there won't be any so called moderates.

It's a natural human reaction to stick with his own in times of crisis. This applies even more to people who are governmed by a inflexible dogma that leaves no room for compromise. Militant Islam is not simply a religion but an ideology

[LRPV]

A fine start would be a return to traditional values. You can interpret this as assimilation of migrants to the language and culture of their chosen country. Without cultural and legal conflict on the civil battleground...our cities...we defuse a large part of the problem. This approach can be augmented by the repatriation of dissident immigrants. An example would be imams who preach extreme islam with embedded hatred for the people and values of the host country. Return these individuals to their home countries.

The politically correct liberals will whine like jet turbines...but they represent a fifth column and should be accorded no credability. Alternatively let the status quo remain, but bear the price of abdicating social and political responsibility. We do not necessarily need 'new' ideas or dogma, the old values worked. The idea we need most is that we live in a country with one set of values for all, not allowing each community sb-group to create its own values. Multi-culturalism by definition means that all value-systems in the country are equal, this utopian dogma has shown it is divisive and brings instability to our shores.

[Calanen]

Multi culturalism is on the way out in Australia at the Federal level. It was only a policy ever adopted because companies were short of labour, needed it from any source, which meant getting people from overseas. The state was scared of disorder caused by racial, religious and cultural disunity, and invented multiculturalism to try and keep order. This was a reasonable strategy, until you realise the threat that militant islam poses.

Multiculturalism just means the culture that made your country such a great place to live is devalued, and other cultures which made people want to immigrate in the first place are raised on a pedastal.

People can wear whatever clothes, worship whatever religion etc...but do not try and change our national identity with this sharia crap. Don't preach to me about tolerance when you don't even know what the word means.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

The "moderate majority" is a myth.....IF and WHEN, push comes to shove, there won't be any so called moderates.

It's a natural human reaction to stick with his own in times of crisis. This applies even more to people who are governmed by a inflexible dogma that leaves no room for compromise. Militant Islam is not simply a religion but an ideology

Do you speak for the "moderate majority"?

The "moderate majority" is not a myth, it will be a myth if we make it so.

We can either A) Push the moderates to the side of the fanatics or B) Offer our hands as brothers and make sure they are on our side of the fence, because you got one thing right there and that is if and when push comes to shove, you dont want to have fence sitters, you want them on YOUR team, not the other guys.

It is human to stick with his own in times of crisis, but it is even more human to stick with groups whose ideas or ideal that represent his interest rather than merely ethnic, tribal and/or religious allegiance, unless you make it (race, religion) a factor. Your insinuations reeks of the most debased human instinct, that of us and them. Read this, maybe it will broaden your view about what drives people: 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/100-442in.htm).

If you do not offer the "moderate majority" a stake in the future then it will side with the fanatical fringe.

What is happening now is really not that much different from 65 years ago when the world was facing a different type of perverted ideology but the same prejudice and enemy: against fellow humans.

Attitudes like yours will ensure the defeat of the western liberal democracies in this titanic clash of civilization and ideology.

And the kicker is you only got yourself to blame.

[2RHPZ]

Idea is just an idea. The goverments are responsible for their presentation. We are loosing on that battleground due to insufficient psyops and lack of (positive) control and influence to the (so called independent) medias.

[LRPV]

Calanen. Multiculturalism was not adopted because of labour shortages. It was introduced by Federal Labour as a tool to recruit the ethnic votes.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

The "moderate majority" is a myth.....IF and WHEN, push comes to shove, there won't be any so called moderates.

It's a natural human reaction to stick with his own in times of crisis. This applies even more to people who are governmed by a inflexible dogma that leaves no room for compromise. Militant Islam is not simply a religion but an ideology

That is very true. As the old saying goes...why should we hand them an olive branch of peace, when the only thing that does is end up getting us beat with the same branch?

The ONLY way to win the battle of ideas in the war on terror, is to attack the root causes of the problem. And, as I said before, the root causes are there for the seeing....grinding poverty, starvation, constant warfare, genocide, diseases, and when these conditions are rampant, all it takes is one a$$hole to stand up and start singing a tune everyone wants to hear. And, if the conditions are bad enough, people will believe what they want to hear, and whalala, an idea is born(in this case, radical Islam). The only way besides bombing these people back to the stoneage(most of them are already there)is start what is called "Nation Building" , and start getting these countries to stand up for their own.

In this war, giving green cards, pity, and tolerance is just going to get people, and alot of them killed. And, this ideal in the west needs to stop. Lets get these radical ideas changed, and lets start helping these countries start standing up on theor own.

Its going to be a long and brutal fight, but it is a battle we cannot and must not lose.

[LRPV]

Nation building for the entire islamic world? The fiscal cost of this would destroy what you want to save. It would also result, if implemented, in a world where arabs would be catapulted into the nuclear and space age within a generation. Would you feel safe against this background?

Rather than apply one solution across the islamic board, why not attempt nation building where there is a chance of success, eg where a governable country exists? Lebanon needs help, Iraq is a nation-building dream...you can build four nations therep-) As for other less governable entities like tribal afghanistan...leave them to the tribes.

All I see in the proposed nation-building approach is an up-grading of our enemies. Xenophobia? Maybe, but until the islamic world sorts itself and its values out I don't want to see it as a first world equal.

[Loki77]

Those who feel that the 'multicultural society' is the most wonderful concept ever, will never be able to convince me that a large muslim minority - and perhaps even a majority one day, is a 'good thing' to be embraced by us all. Al Qaida won't have to smuggle in terrorists with forged papers from Pakistan or afghanistan - there are thousands and thousands of ready and willing recruits right here in our midst, living on the tax money of the people they despise and want to kill. Last week i read in the paper that thousands of 'asylum seekers' had been made citizens of Norway, and had been issued all the relevant papers - passports etc. People we have absolutely no clue who really are! The only thing we can be sure of, is that they all destroyed their original documents, when they arrived here. :cantbeli:

PeterG, you’re a pessimist. I find possible to have a constructive debate for the sake of common solutions, without fear of Jihad. How should Norway accomodate the new immigrants into your well established society. Norwegians make your laws and in my opinion you should not acommodate those immigrants that reject to assimilate. There is no need to understand them...
...Norwegians must urgently to change the laws of immigration.

[XShipRider]

We are definetely f*cked, at least in the long term. We are allowing millions of muslims to immigrate to the western world, and we are bending over backwards to accomodate their 'sensibilities' - allowing radical clerics to 'preach' and recruit jihadists here, and building religious schools for them, with our money! We do nothing to encourage cultural assimilation, which is the only way to prevent future parallell societies, civil unrest, and even civil war.


Crisis breeds and solidifies government power. Create, or in this case -
allow, the crisis then wait for the people to hand over or cede the power.

I'm not a conspiracy nut but do believe we're slitting our own throats with
our immigration policies. Is there any such thing as an "undesireable"
these days? Are we allowed to classify people in this manner? Or is that
considered "profiling?"

Lord knows we gestate enough of our own native undesireables, we don't
need to allow more to immigrate in.

We may not build the religious schools but they're tax-free just like any
other religious institution.

[Durandal]

I think the problem is that you think you can win a war of "ideas" when you have the leader of the nation leading the fight saying "We want a democratic and transparent nation, we support the ideas of freedom and democracy, and we are in a war against terror" yet his actions do little to support these "ideas".

• We have attack Iraq, regardless of reasons (justified or not), and diluted our struggle against terrorism.

• We have allied ourselves with nations that are in fact the opposite of free and democratic.

• Our government is FAR from transparent, especially when it comes to the Executive Branch.

• Our Legislative Branch signs bills that they have not read and deny civil rights or selectively deny small groups of people rights and protections guaranteed to a majority of the population. Perfect examples are the Patriot Act (no one actually read the things) and the latest Minimum Wage Increase (which denies American Samoans the same rights it guarantees the rest of us because of the Tuna Industry who runs cannery sweatshops and buddies of the Democrats).

• Our judges say its ok to steal property from us to give to other private individuals who can make more money...yet we condemn China's lack of substantial property laws.

• Afghanistan, the very heart of our conflict is also the perfect example of failure since we are unable to financially repair the nation, reign in the warlords, put enough troops on the ground, AND are allied with people that not only hate them, but refuse to TRULY ally themselves with us to solve the problem. In the process they are gobbling up BILLIONS of dollars of tax payers' money (errr debt loans) and in some some sense making this country weaker.

• We have denied people outside this nation the same right we guarantee our people and DEMAND that other nations give our people.

• We have tortured people and treated them as sub humans, regardless of wether they were enemies of us or not.

• Currently we are No. 1 in the world. We consume 40% of the worlds produced goods even though we represent less than 3% of the worlds population. We make lots of demands and people see our troops, our navy, and our influence everywhere. Not criticizing in this case. Its just the way it is. Maybe we will not be No. 1 and the hate will be directed at the new power.

That said...

Why do you think we would win the war of ideas?

If our own people have the common sense to see the hypocrisy and what makes you think the rest of the world does not?

Its sad our citizens do nothing to change the status quo. All they do is bounce between Democrats and Republicans...which changes nothing.

[Ordie]

Excellent comments and opinions.

[c62]

We are definetely f*cked, at least in the long term. We are allowing millions of muslims to immigrate to the western world, and we are bending over backwards to accomodate their 'sensibilities' - allowing radical clerics to 'preach' and ...
<SNIP>
...
Those that are so outrageously radical that even our authorities react, hire the best lawyers available ( on the taxpayers bill, naturally ) and thereby stall - or more likely prevent completely, any chance of deportation, ever.The media all seem to agree that radical islam isn't all that bad, and really nothing to worry much about - the REALLY horrible stuff, is Guantanamo bay.

Nice post PeterG. Thought I'd expand on the last sentence a bit. The news media has made it their most solem duty to drive the Bush Administration into the ground. The news media no longer just reports the news, but has now injected itself into the "battleground of ideas" and choked off any competing thoughts. They would rather see the western(or more precisely "traditional") ideas lose out.



No that is not where we are losing the battle of ideas..we are losing the battle because no one really wants to take a look at the conditions that cause the world-wide rise in poverty, death, starvation, and genocide. No one wants to take look at the lack of jobs, constent state of war, and the lack of food and resources in most 3rd world countries. Alot of what is plaugueing the westren countries with the rise in militant islam, stems from the above reasons. (If conditions are bad enough, people look for someone who will provide an easy anwser to all their woes, tell them what they want to hear, and feed off of their misery, and soon, they start to believe what they are being told)

And it is not easy for countries in the west to grasp the magnitude of the problem, and the result is what we are seeing today with the increase of terrorism and radical Islamic attitudes across European and other westren countries.

So, how do you win the war on ideas? Its hard. and there are no easy anwsers. But, one thing for certain, bringing these people over to westren countries to immigrate is not the anwser either. Because, the ideas that have been simmering for generations in the peoples former countries, are now simmering here.

The best way to fight the battle of ideas, is not to attack the idea itsself, but attack the conditions in which the idea came from.
Great, another "root causes" guy. Someone who believes it's big corporate America, IMF, WTO, are really the "root cause" of all this, instead of people making bad decisions. How about a small group of people full of hate, and convinceing other to go along with it? Were you aware that most of the 19 hijacker on 9/11 were from (roughly) middle class homes? Kind of blows away your theory that the poverty is causeing the problems.



We have attack Iraq, regardless of reasons (justified or not), and diluted our struggle against terrorism.
Not really sure how Iraq "diluted" our struggle. I don't mean in troop deployments either, but in our drive and determination.


We have allied ourselves with nations that are in fact the opposite of free and democratic.

Sometimes you don't get to pick the perfect gov't to align yourself with. Sometimes you have to buddy up with a gov't that "isn't the worst", that's not to say that said gov't is perfect, just they're not as bad as the other. A bit of naive thinking on your part to believe we can only align with gov'ts that have perfect track records.


Our government is FAR from transparent, especially when it comes to the Executive Branch.

Common gripe, Republicans said the same thing about B.Clinton when he was in office.


Our judges say its ok to steal property from us to give to other private individuals who can make more money...yet we condemn China's lack of substantial property laws.

Not sure where you're going with this one, buy you're right the Supreme Court blew the call on that [I]Emminent Domain case awhile back.


We have denied people outside this nation the same right we guarantee our people and DEMAND that other nations give our people.

U.S. Constitution only applies to American citizens, others are not entitled to its protection.


We have tortured people and treated them as sub humans, regardless of wether they were enemies of us or not.

Tortured is a pretty strong word. Only thing you really have(outside a few cases)is Abu Grahib. And despite the hysterira created by the news media, it wasn't that bad. Humiliation/Harrassment at worst.


Currently we are No. 1 in the world. We consume 40% of the worlds produced goods even though we represent less than 3% of the worlds population. We make lots of demands and people see our troops, our navy, and our influence everywhere. Not criticizing in this case. Its just the way it is. Maybe we will not be No. 1 and the hate will be directed at the new power.

Kind of like a global "King of the mountain"?

P.S. Sorry to all about my spelling/grammer errors.

[Dasein]

U.S. Constitution only applies to American citizens, others are not entitled to its protection.

The 14th Amendment grants all people equal protection under the law, regardless of citizenship status. All people under the jurisdiction of US law are protected by the Constitution - foreing nationals are routinly tried for criminal and civil violations under US law and are afforded full protection of the Constitution.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

Nice post PeterG. Thought I'd expand on the last sentence a bit. The news media has made it their most solem duty to drive the Bush Administration into the ground. The news media no longer just reports the news, but has now injected itself into the "battleground of ideas" and choked off any competing thoughts. They would rather see the western(or more precisely "traditional") ideas lose out.

I dont know which station you have been tuning into but none of the ones I have seen would rather see the western ideas lose out. Can you provide a video clip of said broacast? The news media has been critical on the way the War On Terror has been prosecuted and they as a free news media has every right to be. You can always tune to Saudia Arabia news, CCTV, or Fox News for wholesome goodness.


Great, another "root causes" guy. Someone who believes it's big corporate America, IMF, WTO, [insert evil capatilist org here] are really the "root cause" of all this, instead of people making bad decisions. How about a small group of people full of hate, and convinceing other to go along with it? Were you aware that most of the 19 hijacker on 9/11 were from (roughly) middle class homes? Kind of blows away your theory that the poverty is causeing the problems.

You must be the "band-aid solution" guy. Yes, it was a small group of people whom were full of hate, and they believed that they know (whether you agree or not, its what those 19 believed) the "root cause" of their peoples suffering and pain, and driven by radical ideology to commit a terrible act.

I am fully aware that most of the 19 hijacker on 9/11 are from middle class homes from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, countries that also happens to have governments friendly towards USA and some might say their legitimacy depends on the support and patronage of the US government and by extension its military.

Do you know anything about struggle and revolutions? The fact that the 19 were all middle class, educated and having no reasons to be angry simply reinforces the theory. Poor and hungry people have no TIME for revolution, they are too busy trying to STAY ALIVE. The middle class, intelluctuals and some higher class people, who believes in "evil triumps when the good stand still" are the ones you need to worry about. They have the brains, resources and time to start a revolution, to light a little fire, a smouldering amber. When the corn fields (ie. the poor, desperate masses who has ABSOLUTELY nothing to lose) finally catches fire, it will be too little too late. Flick through history and see who the major players in the English, French, Russian, American, and Chinese revolutions and get an idea. And observe the actions of contemporary totalitarian governments and see who the people and/or groups they suppress. Its never "starving poor peasant Joe".


Sometimes you don't get to pick the perfect gov't to align yourself with. Sometimes you have to buddy up with a gov't that "isn't the worst", that's not to say that said gov't is perfect, just they're not as bad as the other. A bit of naive thinking on your part to believe we can only align with gov'ts that have perfect track records.

Yes, I am really a good guy, my two best buddies arent rapist or murderers, but they have previously robbed banks and stolen goods. You can trust THEM and ME to look after your house and its contents for you while you are away on vacation.

Durandal is one of the last person I would call naive. But you be right up there kid.


U.S. Constitution only applies to American citizens, others are not entitled to its protection.

Please dont make it as if you knew the answer but really didnt. There are a lot of impressionable young minds out there who might have got the wrong idea had they read your post. Google it, it only takes 7 seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Tortured is a pretty strong word. Only thing you really have(outside a few cases)is Abu Grahib. And despite the hysterira created by the news media, it wasn't that bad. Humiliation/Harrassment at worst.

I take it out sourcing torture to Israel and Egypt dont count. If you dont think Abu Grahib is "that bad", you should book your next family vacation to it and get "humiliation/harassment at worst" which to you isnt really as bad as physical pain.

Pain of the flesh is nothing compared to the pain of the mind/psyche. This I know from personal experience of losing people I care about whether it be death and/or they dont want to know you anymore.

If you really want to hurt someone you dont hurt him you hurt those dear to him and the believes he values. Torture isnt just physical pain.


Kind of like a global "King of the mountain"?

Yes, except we aren't 9yo and the stakes are not just bragging rights at the kindy playtime for a week.

[Lazy Lob]

We are losing the on the battleground of ideas because our own governments are resorting to bully tactics and surreptitiously stifling freedom of expression. Here are a couple of quotes:

Frederick Forsyth

"I loathe and despise political correctness; basically because it is a lie. It is a lie because it purports to be one thing while being the opposite. It began as a philosophy begging for greater tolerance and no right-minded person could object to that. Tolerance of other people, of minorities, of different appearances, habits and views is the angel dust that marks the difference between a barbaric and a civilised society. But political correctness has changed. From its original plea for tolerance of variables in what Malraux called ‘the human condition’, it soon began to adopt a conviction of rigid self-righteousness. Long since, it has developed into a new and intolerant bigotry, the very thing it was supposed to oppose. Political Correctness now tolerates no dissent from its grinding uniformity, from its party-line-toeing orthodoxy. It smacks of Orwell’s 1984, or former East Germany; it has become the new fascism."

And

Anthony Browne
"The most worrying aspect of political correctness is its success in stifling opposing beliefs. At its most basic, the censorship is self-imposed. Political correctness succeeds by attaching a sense of moral superiority to itself, and a sense of shame to opposing beliefs. This sense of shame becomes internalised, so that people feel ashamed if they publicly state politically incorrect beliefs, even if they believe them. Likewise, people feel morally superior opposing political incorrectness, and so feel righteousness in trying to silence the politically incorrect. While the politically incorrect preface themselves with: ‘I know I shouldn’t say this, but...’, the politically correct respond: ‘You shouldn’t say that!’ The politically correct enforce the censorship with powerfully silencing accusations of ‘bigotry’, ‘homophobia’, ‘racism’ and ‘fascism’. They are widely inappropriately applied, because the aim is not an accurate analysis, but merely to silence opposing views."

What has the world come to when members of the public, academics, journalists and recently bloggers are afraid of thinking certain thoughts? People are vilified if they publicly diverge from accepted beliefs, sacked or even investigated by police for crimes against received wisdom. Whole areas of debate have been closed down by the crushing dominance of the moralistic ideology of political correctness.

Eventually we have a society where no one knows what’s what or where they stand as the law is not applied because of political expediency.

[Loki77]

Frederick Forsyth

"I loathe and despise political correctness; basically because it is a lie. It is a lie because it purports to be one thing while being the opposite. It began as a philosophy begging for greater tolerance and no right-minded person could object to that. Tolerance of other people, of minorities, of different appearances, habits and views is the angel dust that marks the difference between a barbaric and a civilised society. But political correctness has changed. From its original plea for tolerance of variables in what Malraux called ‘the human condition’, it soon began to adopt a conviction of rigid self-righteousness. Long since, it has developed into a new and intolerant bigotry, the very thing it was supposed to oppose. Political Correctness now tolerates no dissent from its grinding uniformity, from its party-line-toeing orthodoxy. It smacks of Orwell’s 1984, or former East Germany; it has become the new fascism."
Frederick Forsyth is right how Political Correctness has hobbled the West.



...But, I'm optimist and think the West has awake. Western civilization have ability to think quick, create new technologies and capable of effective responses to new situations. We aren't losing on the battleground of ideas.

[alfigel]

They would rather see the western(or more precisely "traditional") ideas lose out.

Since the term "traditional values" has been mentioned several times, I have to ask: _what_ are traditional values? Can you name any? Who defines what is a traditional value and what is not? Since many of the postings in this thread center around this term, this question must be answered first before the discussion can be continued in a meaningful way.

[Loki77]

Since the term "traditional values" has been mentioned several times, I have to ask: _what_ are traditional values? Can you name any? Who defines what is a traditional value and what is not? Since many of the postings in this thread center around this term, this question must be answered first before the discussion can be continued in a meaningful way.
traditional values:
http://www.answers.com/topic/traditional-values (http://www.answers.com/topic/traditional-values)




...Since 60's our Western Civilization has replaced traditional values by relativism. Consequently, the West is in danger of loss of identity...

[Dasein]

Or we've traded one set of absoutes for another.

[alfigel]

...Since 60's our Western Civilization has replaced traditional values by relativism. Consequently, the West is in danger of loss of identity...

What is the Western identity? In my opinion, what makes the West so different from other societies is the acceptance of pluralism, that it's possible for non-conformists to live within the system, without having to fear any consequences (as long it is within the borders of the law, of course). That was exactly what the West made so different from the Eastern Bloc countries (non-conformists were persecuted and punished for being "counter-revolutionaries" or "nihilists"), and that's also what it makes different from countries who base their law on rigid rules taken from the Quran (the rules imposed on women in e.g. Saudi Arabia comes to mind, or the discrimination and punishment of homo******s up to death sentences in many Muslim countries).

So stepping back to Western "traditional values" would effectively give up those things, undermining what makes our society unique. Giving the freedom that define our society to all people who live in it is only a logical consequence, which is unfortunately denied by many members on this forum.

Again: please name concrete "traditional values". Everybody's using this catchy phrase, but nobody can really define what it is. And no, I won't accept simple links to some articles on the web.

[Lazy Lob]

What is the Western identity? In my opinion, what makes the West so different from other societies is the acceptance of pluralism, that it's possible for non-conformists to live within the system, without having to fear any consequences (as long it is within the borders of the law, of course). That was exactly what the West made so different from the Eastern Bloc countries (non-conformists were persecuted and punished for being "counter-revolutionaries" or "nihilists"), and that's also what it makes different from countries who base their law on rigid rules taken from the Quran (the rules imposed on women in e.g. Saudi Arabia comes to mind, or the discrimination and punishment of homo******s up to death sentences in many Muslim countries).

So stepping back to Western "traditional values" would effectively give up those things, undermining what makes our society unique. Giving the freedom that define our society to all people who live in it is only a logical consequence, which is unfortunately denied by many members on this forum.

Again: please name concrete "traditional values". Everybody's using this catchy phrase, but nobody can really define what it is. And no, I won't accept simple links to some articles on the web.

You don't have to shun the "many members on this forum" you just defined "tarditional values" on yer tod. You answered your own question, so to speak.

[Loki77]

What is the Western identity? In my opinion, what makes the West so different from other societies is the acceptance of pluralism, that it's possible for non-conformists to live within the system, without having to fear any consequences (as long it is within the borders of the law, of course). That was exactly what the West made so different from the Eastern Bloc countries (non-conformists were persecuted and punished for being "counter-revolutionaries" or "nihilists"), and that's also what it makes different from countries who base their law on rigid rules taken from the Quran (the rules imposed on women in e.g. Saudi Arabia comes to mind, or the discrimination and punishment of homo******s up to death sentences in many Muslim countries).
...Whichever civilization around the world built your traditional values. Western civilization is different from other civilizations in two aspects, individual rights and technology innovation.
The West has ability to create new technologies that changes the way of life and the Democracy promote individual rights in ultimate goal.
You're wrong, because the objective of the West is not pluralism but individualism and technological progress. However, Relativism is a danger to Western Civilization.

[Dasein]

Relativism as a philosophical concept has been around since the pre-Socratics, and Western civilization has done just fine. You overstate the danger presented by 'relativism' while assuming it has had no part in promoting technological progress and individual liberty.

[Loki77]

Relativism as a philosophical concept has been around since the pre-Socratics, and Western civilization has done just fine. You overstate the danger presented by 'relativism' while assuming it has had no part in promoting technological progress and individual liberty.

...Relativism is anti-individualistic in the sense that it expects each person to agree with the perceptions, thoughts, and values of another group in order for his own perceptions, thoughts, and values to be legitimate.

For example, most Muslim immigrants in Europe who live in ghetto-like areas don't want western values in your life. However, they take advantage with the moral relativism running in the Europe at present. Unfortunately, in the not so distant future the Europeans go to start to feel the collateral damage of this issue.

[Indiana Jones]

...Relativism is anti-individualistic in the sense that it expects each person to agree with the perceptions, thoughts, and values of another group in order for his own perceptions, thoughts, and values to be legitimate.

:-(
Stirner....Nietzsche....Protagoras.....Schopenhauer...Oberkalauer. After several years of academic philosophy I finally got it!

[Loki77]

:-(
Stirner....Nietzsche....Protagoras.....Schopenhauer...Oberkalauer. After several years of academic philosophy I finally got it!
I love Philosophy. but, I’m studying Software Systems Development...

[Durandal]

Or maybe, we are losing the war of ideas because our leader cannot properly articulate the "idea"...

I mean when your President says "half glass full" when he meant "glass half full" things get lost.

[Indiana Jones]

I love Philosophy. but, I’m studying Software Systems Development...1 Hour Ago 06:44 PM
Sic transit gloria mundi. We can´t all be perfect. ;) Philosophy was and is my secondary discipline...
No, seriously, your assessment generally is not so far off the mark, even though specific representatives of what today is branded "Relativism" diametrally contradict your observations concerning the supposed antagonism of individualism and relativism.

[alfigel]

You're wrong, because the objective of the West is not pluralism but individualism and technological progress.

Pluralism implicitly arises from the acceptance of individualism. Pluralism is in fact the affirmation that individuals in a free society go many different ways in expressing their individualism. As soon as you accept individualism, and recognize that there is more than one e.g. social peer group with its own values, ideas and ways of expressing, then you have a pluralistic society. And since you mentioned that scientific progress is also a distinct "feature" of Western society, pluralism is also inherent in a modern scientific context, by allowing that different scientific methods, theories or viewpoints can be legitimate and/or plausible.

[Jobu]

Or maybe, we are losing the war of ideas because our leader cannot properly articulate the "idea"...

I mean when your President says "half glass full" when he meant "glass half full" things get lost.

It wouldn't matter if he were Abraham Lincoln, today's media would never let us win the battle of ideas.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It wouldn't matter if he were Abraham Lincoln, today's media would never let us win the battle of ideas.

Ah yes the continuing 'left wing' (but actually owned by big capitalist corporations) media conspiracy theory :cantbeli:

[alfigel]

Ah yes the continuing 'left wing' (but actually owned by big capitalist corporations) media conspiracy theory :cantbeli:

We can clearly see that disguised Commie propaganda TV stations like Fox take part in that conspiracy!!!!11!
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.gif

[rb132]

traditional values:
http://www.answers.com/topic/traditional-values (http://www.answers.com/topic/traditional-values)

...Since 60's our Western Civilization has replaced traditional values by relativism. Consequently, the West is in danger of loss of identity...


if we all lived by traditional values (which basically means christian/muslim/jewish values) we'd be back to enslaveing and colonising the 'natives' of whatever faraway country we decided the next crusade was going to free from godlessness.

America has already returned to these traditional values with the rise of evangelical christianity. So far its produced a president whose made some terrible decisions , held up scientific development and fostered corrupt politicians.

im not sure the traditional values people speak of are really very helpful anymore. Values that transcend holy scriptures and cultures are the only things able to stop islamic terrorism and corruption in its tracks.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Or maybe, we are losing the war of ideas because our leader cannot properly articulate the "idea"...

I mean when your President says "half glass full" when he meant "glass half full" things get lost.

Yup - that about sums it up.
Unfortunately the British PM is almost as vacuous as your Chickenhawk-in-Chief so I wouldn't expect much thinking outside the box until both of our glorious war leaders have been binned.

[Mastermind]

Excellent debate here...lots of ideas and observations. This thread should be sent to the heads of gvts involved, especially western...but it would do no good.

I think we are not really seeing the real problems associated with this "War on Terror". First, I question events in both iraq and Afghanistan and wonder, with so much seemingly at stake, why have we let this drag on for so damn long? We quite honestly could turn both countries into little brown streaks if we wanted to. Oil? Presence? Second, just about anyone can see that what we have done is utterly insane if you really wanted to stop expanding the universe of Muslim Terrorists influence around the world. The west has had a very long experience in dealing with radical Islam. We know what makes them tick and what pushes their buttons (Remember ..."shores of Tripoli" and the battles around Khartum?). Why would we make so many seemingly 'school kid" mistakes in dealing with them now? And, "It's all bushes fault!" dosent fly on this one.

No...something else is going on. We, the idiotic and very ill informed public are fed a soupy pablum of sound bites and zaney "news Magazine" crap but the real objectives and missions of this event are well hidden. All that utter nonsense about "prisoners tortured with panties on their heads and forced to make human pyramyids"...what crap. Guantanimo? Who the hell cares about a bunch of bearded nut case thugs being kept like princes in cuba? All of that is nothing but distraction.

I am not falling for it. digging a bit deeper we see this massive rift forming between the Muslims, not only in sectarian violence, but also, now over oil. The ever escalating price of oil has finally reversed...why? Nuclear Iran and Saudi Kings? Are the Muslims being led to the slaughter ring and they are both victims and executioners?

Nothing so big as what has happened since 9/11 is allowed to go balls-up as we have suggested. Yes, when you look at the tiny aspects and the distracting "newsy" things, it really looks messy...and no doubt it is. But, I am seeing some pretty big trends falling together as the Bush admin comes to a closing curtain. I just think it is far too early to condemn this thing until all the pieces fall together.

MM

[Loki77]

Pluralism implicitly arises from the acceptance of individualism. Pluralism is in fact the affirmation that individuals in a free society go many different ways in expressing their individualism.
...That's somewhat self-contradictory don't you think?

It sees how the Europeans has difficulty coexisting with Muslim immigrants. They're come from of different societies and they're trying to coexist only because of economic necessities.


As soon as you accept individualism, and recognize that there is more than one e.g. social peer group with its own values, ideas and ways of expressing, then you have a pluralistic society.
...This does not solve the problem of ethnic differences as opposed to the different values, ideas and ways of expressing. So pluralism do not solve the problem of conflicts among people because pluralism emphasize the ideas differences while ignoring their ethnic conflicts...



And since you mentioned that scientific progress is also a distinct "feature" of Western society, pluralism is also inherent in a modern scientific context, by allowing that different scientific methods, theories or viewpoints can be legitimate and/or plausible.
...Scientific progress in Western society is not connected with pluralism, Western scientific progress is characterized by empirism. The empirism defends that our theories must be based on our individual observation of the world. Of course, different opinions are important.

[Ordie]

"The chief reason why we are at a serious disadvantage compared with the Nazi over the business of big ideas is that for everything for which they stand for is novel and dynamic, whereas the excellent things for which we claim to be fighting for may seem dull and uninspiring."
-British Directorate of Army Education Nov. 1944

Even the allies were challenged at the latter years of WW2.

[KevinNardelle]

the REALLY horrible stuff, is Guantanamo bay.



Well do you want them? We will send them to your country and you can do what ever you like with them ROFL!

I bet you would not want them over there and we dont want them here SO... Rethink what you are saying there big daddy.. Seriously..

What is wrong with Guantanamo bay...

Inside the USA + Terrorist = :slap:

Guantanamo bay + Terrorist = :-*$

Any questions?

[rb132]

Well do you want them? We will send them to your country and you can do what ever you like with them ROFL!

I bet you would not want them over there and we dont want them here SO... Rethink what you are saying there big daddy.. Seriously..

What is wrong with Guantanamo bay...

Inside the USA + Terrorist = :slap:

Guantanamo bay + Terrorist = :-*$

Any questions?


none of us even know the circumstances of any of inmates at guantanamo. We dont know why they are there or what reasons we have for keeping them there. Its assumed that most of them are the worst of the worst or captured fighters from enduring freedom and a.q as thats what the media constantly tells us.

Im not saying there arent prisoners in there who dont deserve to be locked up forever but judging by some of the inmates that have been released such as the british ones, there are probably people in there that we the US can't lawfully hold due to lack of evidence and even some that may not be guilty of anything.


The U.S's lack of transparency of the goings on within the facility as well as the legal processes used in bringing the suspects to trial is highly dubious. The prisoners who are being kept there deserve to be treated as any prisoner should be kept: safe from torture, fed, clothed and allowed to exercise.

If we lose that, we lose what seperates the western civilised world from the savages. The terrorists have to be dealt with properly if we are going to defeat them.

[krasnayaarmiya]

"The post-911 world" implies that Uncle Sam's troubles with Muslim people began then. Don't we arm Israel for bear, and doesn't that country abuse the Muslims that have lived on the territory Israel expropriated through coercion? Did we not bombard Lebanon in the 80's with shells the size of VW Bugs, shot from a BATTLESHIP? I remember that and I was in the third grade. Didn't we impose a 12-year siege on Iraq through the "no-fly zones" and embargo, that sent Iraq into destitution and desperation? Didn't WE keep silent on the massacre of Chechens and Bosniaks for years? Haven't we (and France) supported the Algerian governments bloody business against equally bloody Islamists for over a decade? Didn't we support Israel after its bloody invasion of Lebanon, where they used US-supplied (intended for the USN, by the way) cluster munitions against the RESIDENTIAL highrises of Beirut? AD NAUSEUM...
So why, again, did the conflict "begin" on September 11, 2001? I say remember September 10, 2001. How much more Orwellian should we make this argument? I AM NOT SAYING THE UMMA (Islamic world "community") DOESN'T HAVE A LOT TO REFLECT ON. THEY DO. THEY WERE AN EXPANSIONIST POWER, AS WELL. THEY ENSLAVED, MASSACRED, ETC. SAWING OFF PEOPLE'S HEADS? IT SUCKS. But I live in the United States of America, so I cannot speak to their dirty laundry as much as to our own. We lost the war of ideas in the Indian Wars (blood), the Phillipines (blood- same fighters vs. Indians), Haiti (debt slavery- awesome), Nicaragua in the 30's (no leg to stand on- read Marine Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler about this), the initiation of nuclear warfare (Did Japan REALLY have to be invaded if they had no resources and no navy left? Did 6500 Marines have to die on Iwo to save the lives of a few hundred B-29 pilots?) Guatemala in 1954 (overthrow of DEMOCRATICALLY-elected government), Iran (overthrow of DEMOCRATICALLY-elected government), the Dominican Republic (invaded to appoint a leader), Vietnam (invaded and never called it an invasion), Cambodia (bombed, but pretended we didn't), El Salvador (the original death squads), Nicaragua in the 80's (cocaine-dealing, non-muzzle-discipline-having terrorist Contras), Panama (invade a country to oust a guy who used to be on the CIA payroll?), and Iraq (to dictate energy terms to China, EU, and Japan and to eliminate a main enemy of Israel- good thing gas prices are so reasonable, huh). It would be nice to rest on the laurels of the defeat of Nazism, but let's admit it, the Soviet Union did that; we just helped. Democracy and capitalism are not ALWAYS compatible. The empire and the republic CANNOT occupy the same space.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

"The chief reason why we are at a serious disadvantage compared with the Nazi over the business of big ideas is that for everything for which they stand for is novel and dynamic, whereas the excellent things for which we claim to be fighting for may seem dull and uninspiring."
-British Directorate of Army Education Nov. 1944

Even the allies were challenged at the latter years of WW2.

Excellent point.
We have to remain dull and uninspiring in order to win this one I'm afraid. Urges to become a 'dynamic' 'security' state that infringes on our dull and uninspiring liberal values have to be resisted at all costs. If we go down that road in the West we will be becoming what the islamists want us to be.

[Loki77]

Democracy and capitalism are not ALWAYS compatible.
Democracy DOES NOT EXIST without Capitalism. Democracy is the process by which Western civilization get organized to perform capitalism.

...Democracy does allow for whatever people vote for and in every democracy, people have chosen free market. No guarantee of achieving them, but the guarantee of the free choice. Freedom is the point.

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
the REALLY horrible stuff, is Guantanamo bay.


Well do you want them? We will send them to your country and you can do what ever you like with them ROFL!

I bet you would not want them over there and we dont want them here SO... Rethink what you are saying there big daddy.. Seriously..

What is wrong with Guantanamo bay...

Inside the USA + Terrorist = :slap:

Guantanamo bay + Terrorist = :-*$

Any questions?

Yes. Are you retarded? I stated that THE MEDIA seemed to consider Guantanamo bay 'horrible', instead of terrorism/radical islam itself.

[krasnayaarmiya]

Democracy DOES NOT EXIST without Capitalism. Democracy is the process by which Western civilization get organized to perform capitalism.

...Democracy does allow for whatever people vote for and in every democracy, people have chosen free market. No guarantee of achieving them, but the guarantee of the free choice. Freedom is the point.
Many in my country would regard the welfare states of Western Europe, particularly Scandinavia, as socialist. I have heard that many times from my Republican friends. SO, did the democracy of Sweden or France or Germany choose a "free market" in the eyes of the market fanatics of America? They may say no. Venezuela seems to be choosing socialism as a democracy. Guatemala and Chile chose socialism as democracies, in 1954 and 1973 (Until Pinochet's CIA-sponsored coup of SEPTEMBER 11), respectively. Iran democratically elected Mohamed Mosadeqh in 1954, and he was nationalizing the oil, till MI6 and the CIA overthrew him. By the nature of their multitude, these examples casually written here cannot be anomalies.

Oakland, California,
Home of the Rock;
Eight woofers in your trunk
Beatin down your block

[Mastermind]

So, once again we see it does not matter what nations and people do...it is Big Business, namely for our era, Big Oil Business, that really controls everything. Very much like the East India Company controlled much of the foregin affairs of Great Britian in the centuries past. Business empire is, afterall, what all empires are about. You can call them Socialists, Communists, Democracies, of Fascists...they still all come down to just doing business. MM

[Loki77]

Many in my country would regard the welfare states of Western Europe, particularly Scandinavia, as socialist. I have heard that many times from my Republican friends.
..They are not socialist economies, based on state ownership and planning. But "social welfare" economies, based on private ownership and markets, with public provision of social protection (high taxes!!). welfare state is not socialism..

Venezuela seems to be choosing socialism as a democracy.
...Seriously! Venezuela is becoming more and more a Totalitarian State. Hugo Chavez has prestige among Venezuela's population by his populist policies. However, he need of high prices of Oil. As long as oil prices are strong, Chavez has power. But when oil prices fall, he is finished...

Iran democratically elected Mohamed Mosadeqh in 1954, and he was nationalizing the oil, till MI6 and the CIA overthrew him. By the nature of their multitude, these examples casually written here cannot be anomalies.
..About Mohamed Mosadeqh incident. Sorry but, you only mentioned American imperialism...
Why you don't talk about Soviet imperialism in incident? If you want to provide balance, you should to review Soviet(KGB) actions at the time.

Oakland, California,
Home of the Rock;
Eight woofers in your trunk
Beatin down your block
...Just wondering, is California a Welfare State?
Because, I did read about California, one quarter of families receive Welfare Benefits.

[krasnayaarmiya]

..They are not socialist economies, based on state ownership and planning. But "social welfare" economies, based on private ownership and markets, with public provision of social protection (high taxes!!). welfare state is not socialism..

...Seriously! Venezuela is becoming more and more a Totalitarian State. Hugo Chavez has prestige among Venezuela's population by his populist policies. However, he need of high prices of Oil. As long as oil prices are strong, Chavez has power. But when oil prices fall, he is finished...

..About Mohamed Mosadeqh incident. Sorry but, you only mentioned American imperialism...
Why you don't talk about Soviet imperialism in incident? If you want to provide balance, you should to review Soviet(KGB) actions at the time.

...Just wondering, is California a Welfare State?
Because, I did read about California, one quarter of families receive Welfare Benefits.


I was referring to the perception amongst American conservatives that European welfare states are quasi-socialist, that democracies with vibrant civil rights don't necessarily choose unfettered capitalism. The free market is a non-existent ideal the way communism, as envisioned by Karl Marx, is a non-existent ideal. Somalia is a free market. The United States in not a free market, otherwise we wouldn't consistently bail out corrupt and dying defense contractors or we wouldn't dole out welfare to agribusiness...

[One?]

Clear and simple.

The US supports the wrong people. And no I don't mean they should be supporting bin laden. But instead of:

Saudi royalty
husni mubarak
king of jordan
ghaddafi
musharaf
other arab dictators
african dictators

they can support other presidents who can work for the people, and at the same time help the US in its interests. But when citizens of lets say pakistan are being oppressed and they see that their leader is in power because a foreign nation wants him, then they will hate you.

The US supported saddam for 20 years, and then forgot about him after 1990..Iran's shah? What did that bring...you know where im going with this.

[Hollis]

The US supported saddam for 20 years, and then forgot about him after 1990..Iran's shah? What did that bring...you know where im going with this.


Jeepers that is BS, France and the Soviets (later the Russians) Supported Saddam, Why don't you look at the weapons and system employed by the Iraqis.

Ok show a picture of Saddam and Chaney, BFD.... I can show you a picture of President Eisenhower and Khrushchev together too. That does not mean the USA and USSR were in bed together.

[sir-chimp]

Jeepers that is BS, France and the Soviets (later the Russians) Supported Saddam, Why don't you look at the weapons and system employed by the Iraqis.

Ok show a picture of Saddam and Chaney, BFD.... I can show you a picture of President Eisenhower and Khrushchev together too. That does not mean the USA and USSR were in bed together.

I do like the one of Kofi and Saddam

[krasnayaarmiya]

Jeepers that is BS, France and the Soviets (later the Russians) Supported Saddam, Why don't you look at the weapons and system employed by the Iraqis.

Ok show a picture of Saddam and Chaney, BFD.... I can show you a picture of President Eisenhower and Khrushchev together too. That does not mean the USA and USSR were in bed together.
RUMSFELD and Hussein met in 1983 because the Reagan Administation was asking the Baathists for permission to open the US Embassy, at the time Iraq was using Weapons of Mass Destruction to kill and maim tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers. The United States gave satellite images, target suggestions and other S-2 advice to Saddam's military for the purposes of deploying chemical weapons more efficaciously. The United States really did not need to sell APC's and planes and missiles to Iraq. The gulf states, ie our allies, were providing tens of billions of dollars for that purpose. We gave Iraq in the 80's diplomatic cover against Iran, maintaining a party line that Iran was the aggressor nation, although Iraq invaded Iran unprovoked. Also, when an Iraqi fighter fired an exocet missile into the USS Stark, the Reagan administration completely downplayed Iraqi culpability and blamed Iran for the incidence. A loyal friend, indeed. It was a "BFD".