So, I'm watching Obama make in a speech in IOWA in which he tries to explain to all these good,rural, hardworking americans how disenfranchised they are ... And I think to myself, Now there's a way to gain political power .. spread the nigerdom ... "We Are All Nigers!" .... "We Are All Victims!" ... Vote Democrat ... blah
I thought that had two g's, neophyte. Curtis, well written, and cool headed, as usual. You could make billions in some sort of therapy practice...... Rearden, thanks for the typical fatwa update, the paper today "pope apologises to muslims", for f#ks sake. Sudan is one of the worst examples of extremist ideolatry, there are no logical reasons not to take action on the basis of a statement like that-its the same, is it not, to a declaration of war? By someone, like bin laden for example?
Agreed. This is where you lose me. First you admit that advances in technology are what make groups like Al Qaeda dangerous. Then you say not to get "pissed off if Iran wants to build one or two" nuclear weapons. Based on this paradox, one must conclude that you do not consider Iran to be a dangerous country that, if armed with nukes, would hesitate to utilize them against Israel, which the current President and the mullahs before him and now around him say time and time again must be destroyed. Furthermore, Iran is the same country that calls the US the Great Satan, has an official Death to America Day, and sponsors attacks on our troops and interests abroad. So just that we're clear, is it your position that Iran getting nuclear weapons is not a dangerous thing, and that the Iranians in power are reasonable people with whom we can coexist with peacefully? We also subsidize poor countries. Poor Arab countries, i.e. Egypt. The Middle East was a cauldron of tribes and warring factions long before the US got there and before WWII occurred. As for "understanding other cultures," there are experts in the State Department and other agencies, many of them libs and Dems, whose job it is to understand these cultures. Are you saying you're an expert on the Middle East, and that if we simply understand why they hate us, and adjust our foreign policy accordingly, that they will stop hating us? Will the Arab "street" cease with its hatred for us if we simply give their governments more money? I doubt it, because much of the money we give their governments likely goes into the pockets of those government heads, regardless of who is in the Oval Office. And is it the job of the US to single-handledly solve the problems of poverty and illiteracy in the Middle East? How do you propose to do it? What would your foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East consist of? Based on what you have written, my guess is that part of it would be: 1) Cessation of foreign aid to Israel. 2) Increase of foreign aid to Arab countries. 3) Allow Iran to develop nukes. Is that accurate?
Sidenote, bin laden was a member of one of the wealthier upper echelon, and it was/is precisely because of his wealth he became "dangerous". Perhaps the footsoldiers are poor and easily manipulated, but raising the standard of living, given the intrinsic philosophies involved, would in fact, imo make a bigger, more well resourced, more p#ssed off version of the same thing-without some significant changes. But this is the tricky bit, curtis is , (as i interpreted it ) basically, talking about winning hearts and minds. Throughout history, this normally involves rather a lot of torturous brutality, and HUNDREDS of years of subjugation-this is not on the agenda.
Who protects Sharia? <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQg4ftGBKQM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQg4ftGBKQM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Politically, I consider myself quite liberal minded. All annoying political correctness aside, however, I do think there is some cause for concern. When Islamic terrorists perpetrated atrocities against innocent civilians in the name of Allah, the Muslim world responded with, in retrospect, relatively muted disdain regarding these crimes against humanity. However, when a cartoon, or a recitation of historical passages in a speech by the pope upset their sensibilities, the collective outrage and wrath was downright palpable. If you are like me and judge people by their actions rather than by their words, then you, too, are likely to be troubled.
hapaboy, Thunderdog, et al., Thanks for the responses. First let me say that we must compose the problem into its several pieces. I think Thunderdog's comments provide the best place to start. Don't forget that our news media's job is to get us to pay attention, not to relate the actual objective condition in other countries. Knowing the media as we do, would they quote a moderate cleric in Iran saying something reasonable or would they highlight the few followers rioting in the Arab equivalent of east bum%&$. So, first, I would not trust our media to be giving an accurate assessment of the situation there. Would you want the rest of the world to judge the U.S. after hearing Al Jazeira quote the above words from "neophyte321", or Pat Buchanon for that matter? The fact is that there will always be extremist damagogues, we have them they have them. They cater to a certain audience. I am sure that like here they often overstate things for effect and to curry favor with their consituencies. Second, I agree with you, there is much cause for concern here. It is my belief that we are likely to lose some significant cities here in the U.S. before we solve this situation. The question is what do we do about it? Third, I believe that our actions, and the actions of the West in general, make it very difficult politically for moderate Arab leaders to stand up publicly against some of their more vociferous extremist countrymen. This is where the opportunity lies. With our ill-conceived foreign policy we provide a fertile ground for the extremist demagogues to consolidate their contituencies. We provide a lightning rod for the consolidation of their political power. This brings us to the main point I certainly don't believe that Iran having a nuclear bomb is a good thing. It certainly raises the possibility that Israel will get bombed. However, consider the consequences of such a bombing. Judging from their past actions Israel would likely launch an all out nuclear strike against the launching country resulting in its near anihilation. Estimates of Israel's nuclear capabilities range from 75 to 400 warheads, certainly enough to cause any potential button pusher to wonder about the consquences. It's very easy for a cleric, mullah, or other political leader to talk about doing something as there is little consequence for that talk personally. The worst it might do is cause Isreal to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. That would be a significant political win for anyone espousing strong action against Israel. So of course, they talk tough and about anihilating Isreal, that doesn't mean they would do it. The problem is that we are not going to stop Iran from getting the bomb or something equivalent. It will become easier and easier over time for them to obtain the necessary materials. If not by developing it themselves it will be perhaps by paying North Korea a few $ billion or perhaps we'll come up with a new type of bomb that is even easier to make. This is a cat that is already out of the bag, the question becomes one of what to do about it. Here we need to be realistic about our own position in the world. We put Iran in the same group as Iraq by calling them part of "an Axis of Evil". We invaded their neighbor and we deposed the regime running that country by force. Would you be worried if you were the Iranian political leadership? They know they cannot beat us militarily but if they had a nuclear weapon they also know we would be very unlikely to attack them like we did Iraq. We also need to consider that we supported a dictatorial regime in the Shah for many years. The current system, like it or not, is much closer to democracy than the one under the Shah was. So it is natural that those who lived under oppression see much hypocrysy in our actions, making it easy to paint us at the "Great Satan". Again, however, please don't think that there is one unified Iranian perspective that everyone there is like our media paints them. Taking the position that it is fine for the west to have nuclear weapons but not for any Islamic country to have them is taking a position that is insulting to both the moderate and extremist elements of the Middle East. It is a position that does not help us in the long run. How do you think we would feel if only Islamic countries had nuclear bombs and Iran had just taken over Mexico? If you step back and try to pretend for one minute that you are not a Westerner but someone who grew up in the Middle East do you not think it would be insulting if another country said that your country was populated by idiots who could not control their actions enough to be "trusted" with such a responsibility. To summarize this point, trying to stop them by forcing them to discontinue development is only going to postpone the problem and make it far more likely that they remain our enemy for much time to come. It won't lead to stability in the Middle East. It will only provide further fuel for the fires of the radical demagogues who represent the real problem. I am in favor of whatever works. We should stop doing that which does not accomplish our objectives and learn from that which has worked. The private sector and smaller NGO's have much to teach the government here. Large expensive programs that are not constantly reevaluated to determine their effectiveness are just going to increase taxes and bureacracy. History certainly shows that giving money to the governments of developing countries is not the solution to any of this. I propose that we should just act like good neighbors in the world. We are rich and powerful so let us start using that wealth and power to help other countries using whatever works. One potential proposal that eliminates the probable corruption that would result from direct subsidy is that we develop a rapid response disaster team that can fly to anywhere in the world on a moment's notice. If there is an earthquate, mudslide, tsunami or other disaster we make it known to the world community that we will respond to any requests for help anywhere immediately, no questions asked. Yes, this applies to Iran or even North Korea. We might have some other programs administered by our own government to help directly in other areas where we can help without fostering corruption. Medicine and education might be other areas where we could help other countries without having to give money directly to corrupt regimes. I think we need to be realistic and assess what works and what doesn't. This much I know, killing other peoples will be less and less palatable the more integrated the world becomes and the easier it is for us to see immediately the effects of our actions. It also happens to be less and less effective as a technique even if you discard the moral issues. The Hatfield and McCoy approach where each side just keeps killing the others doesn't work but for that cycle to end one side must be willing to stop. With our recent and current policies, we make it so easy for the radical leadership to paint us as a bully that is against Islam, this is just plain dumb. We are only perpetuating the "us versus them" attitude that is the power base of our enemies. The solution is in changing perceptions and it will take time to change those perceptions but we have to start soon or it may be too late. We can't expect the Middle East to treat us like friends when we treat their people like untrustworthy enemies. My proposal for a foreign policy is this: 1) We help other countries (including Arab countries) using our wealth in ways that make a difference and work. Since we have seen that subsidies promote corruption and don't solve problems I am specifically not proposing that we increase subsidies for corrupt regimes. There are many problems that are tractable with money and expertise that can be applied while bypassing corruption but that is a discussion for another topic. 2) We stop all foreign aid to Isreal. They don't need the help and it makes us look like we are taking sides. 3) We treat other countries consistently irrespective of the power bases in our own country. 4) We realize that we are not going to prevent nuclear destruction by legislating against it just like making guns illegal doesn't prevent criminals from using them. These countries have too much wealth and intellectual pride not to pursue this course. To expect otherwise will only make things worse. - Curtis
First you say that, then you say: If you truly believe we are likely "to lose some significant cities here in the US before we resolve this situation," then your foreign policy proposals are terribly off-skew. You're basically saying, "yeah, we're going to lose some major cities, and millions of dead Americans, not to mention the economic devastation this will reap on the US and, by extension, the civilized world. So let's cut aid to Israel, help Arabs in a way that bypasses their governments (and oh, we still have to figure out how), and maybe things will be okay." Is that really your solution?!?