Democrats & Liberals Archives

“Without the sympathy and support of those who cannot or will not fight, Terrorists could be easily killed or defeated.”

Well put, Henri. Our job would be a lot easier if they only they understood this in European captitals and the UN.

CIA and State Department officials testified last week that invading Iraq did in fact create new terrorist threats where none had existed before.

The result, according to the senior intelligence analyst, is that the U.S. war on terrorism after Iraq “may transition from defeating a group to fighting a movement.” Black said the spread of bin Laden’s ideology “greatly complicates our task in stamping out al Qaeda and poses a threat in its own right for the foreseeable future.” He described “scores” of extremist groups such as Jemaah Islamiah that have “gravitated to al Qaeda in recent years where before such linkages did not exist.”

“It would be fair to say that we are seeing greater cooperation between al Qaeda and smaller Islamic extremist groups as well as even more localized organizations,” Black said.

In addition, the “Sunni Triangle” in Iraq is now being used as a training ground for international terrorism. Foreign Islamic jihadists are infiltrating the area to test themselves against US forces occupying Iraq. “We will contain and defeat them in Iraq,” Black said, “but they will create a new Rolodex of fellow jihadists and people with whom they can work in the [Persian] Gulf in the future.”

Help me out here. I’m not too smart about this stuff, so maybe you can help me understand your points.

You accuse the adminstration of fighting a “War on Terrorism.” How would you characterize the events that led to this conflict?

You say: “Terrorism has two faces, the face seen by the victims of terrorist acts, and the face seen by the people who believe the story told by the terrorists. Not only are the terrorists already heroes to more than a few of the people in the Middle East.” I have no idea what you are saying here. Can you paraphrase and explain this to the simple minded?

Here’s another statement that confuses me: “Escalating our level of violence is likely to increase the support base for terrorism in the world.” If the “terrorists” already see us as they see the Jews (we do not have the right to exist)exactly what do you propose we do to change their minds? Shall we pay them all reparations? Shall we collectively commit suicide? Shall we dissolve our country and become a subserviant state to their political ideology? Shall we strip women of their education and voting rights and force them to wear burkahs? How shall we appease these people?

You say: “Escalating our level of violence is likely to increase the support base for terrorism in the world.” If the “support base” for the terrorists are not now with them, where are they? Why do they not speak out against the activities of the terrorists? Why do they allow a radical minority to impune the goodness of Islam?

I think Iraq is but the second battle of World War III. A radical minority of the Islamic terrorists, focused on returning Islam to the fifth century, is laying siege to the twenty-first century. Their intent is to enslave or kill all those opposed to them. Your poorly written paragraphs seem to espouse only mindless rhetoric as you leap from one generalization to the next. This is the most important time in the history of this country and, consequently, the forthcoming election may very well determine whether we continue as a liberty loving people willing to stake fortunes and lives to its protection (as our founding fathers did), or a group of self-centered people so focused on ourselves that we won’t see the danger ready to destroy us.

Dear simple minded,

Read this article by Pat Buchanan , http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37884

or click the Pat Buchanan link in the Drudge report since I don’t know how to hyperlink on a blog.

Technically Challenged

Why do you not respond to the questions?
Why do you simply give me a reading assignment?
Can you not think for yourself?

“A fool sees not the same tree as wise man.”

The Pat Buchanan article raises interesting points about the real difficulties we are going to face in Iraq. He is bringing up issues that the Bush Administration and its supporters don’t want to talk about publicly (assuming they talk about them at all). And, tellingly, Buchanan doesn’t advocate either way: neither for being more aggressive nor for pulling out.

It’s stuff we should have talked about, as a nation, before we invaded. We should have contemplated all the possible outcomes: a ten year deadly occupation, a civil war, a new fascist strongman, a fundamentalist islamic regime, or any number of other outcomes besides having flowers thrown at us.

Instead, the Bush Administration did all they could to make it look like it was going to be easy, and those who are gung-ho in the American public bought it without thinking. Even now the Administration is pretending that it is going to be easy, that merely by having “resolve” we will win. Forget the cost in hundreds and eventually thousands of American lives, billions of taxpayer dollars, and the immeasurable loss in the world’s goodwill towards the USA. This kind of blindness, wishful thinking, and blatant misrepresentation on the part of our government is exactly why it’s not a huge stretch to compare the Iraq situation with Vietnam.

The caricature of Bush as a used-car salesman is starting to look more and more applicable.

-Cf

Sorry if you were offended gizmot2, I wasn’t attacking you personally or you’re writing style.

It was an attempt at irony.

I happen to agree with the article by Pat Buchanan and feel he said it much better than I could’ve.

I think it makes some of the points Henri was making much more succintly.

As to terrorists having two faces, some people call them freedom fighters. Terror is a tactic of war fought by those who are out gunned and out manned.

“Do we have to destroy Iraq to save it?” is to me the paradigm that Henri was trying to analyze.

O.k. one more,

To address your statement that we are at the door to World War III.

I hope you are wrong Gizmot2. The Islamists who want to destroy the west are a minority as you stated. While they have disrupted several nations they do not yet control any nation and have not built an Army and Navy and AirForce as Hitler did.
They have not occupied any nations.

I agree that a policy of strength is needed to counteract any gains they may make. However, a policy that is muddled by personal vendettas or dogmatic or even political calculations could be leading us into an unwinable quagmire that could bring us closer to World War than lead us away from it.

Remember it was Allies versus Axis not U.S. against the rest of the World. Alot of the conditions in the middle east are due to regimes we helped install in the 40’s and 50’s. Perhaps a better understanding of the culture and some long term strategy is needed here.

The taliban was installed only after we failed to support the Afghans after the ouster of the Soviets. Pakistan has been in and out of favor so often it should have a revolving door installed.
Iran is a result of the Shah’s regime. The Saudi Royals were installed by the Bristish and the U.S.

There are legitimate reasons that a large group of western nations did not support the invasion of Iraq.

Germany’s rational for the invasion of it’s neighbors was liberation. That’s always the rational. Even someone like me, who’s not too smart, can see that the need for us to be involved in Iraq was flimsy at best.

I would really like to see some conservative voices address the issues in this post: that the ill-will the terrorists feel towards us has a root cause or causes, and is not simply because they are insane or evil.

Unfortunately, conservatives have a hard time facing up to facts regarding US government intervention in the politics of other countries.
It is common for conservatives to say liberals “hate america” but again, this is simplistic, even cartoonish. Conservatives are generally, i think, ignorant of the evil America has done in the world, they refuse to believe that our great nation could ever do anything wrong. Am i saying i hate america? Am i even saying that America is evil? No, i am not. I am saying that the people in power, in america, at various times, have done some pretty horrible things in other countries, generally in the name of anti-communism (broadly) and US economic interests (more specifically), and that *those things have earned us the ill will of many people in those counries*.

Any examination of the situation HAS to take OUR side’s actions into account. What can we do to reduce the threat of terrorism? It’s an excellent question. I don’t think that the answer is, “be overwhelmingly violent, crush and destroy all hint of threat, in an endless cycle of war and oppression”, but hey, i’m a liberal.

I think the best thing we could possibly do to reduce the threat of terrorism would be to *actually support policies and governments in the middle east that are beneficial to the people who live under them*. The VAST majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and many of them do not support terrorism. However, it is becoming increasingly easy for them to be convinced that America does not have their best interests at heart, and you know why? Because we don’t. And we never have. Plain and Simple.

It is common among conservatives, when they hear arguments along these lines, to say that liberals aren’t outraged or offended by terrorism; that we don’t think the terrorists are wrong or bad; that we even support the enemies of America. I will come out here, and say that I, as a liberal, for one *do* think terrorism is horrible. I *do* think the terrorists are evil and wrong. I do *not* support the enemies of america. However, i would like for a conservative to return the favor: admit that America is not blame-free, guilt-free, innocent of wrongdoing in the world.

I have never seen it done.

Gizmot2
Re:
“You accuse the adminstration of fighting a “War on Terrorism.” How would you characterize the events that led to this conflict?”

I do not accuse the Administration of fighting a war on terrorism, by their own words they are fighting a war on terror. I would be quite content if they understood the difference, much less occupied them selves with such an effort. Instead they have chosen to fight a war against the nation of Iraq which was not a major terrorist haven or a source for terrorist weapons as was Iran. The difference between a stateless enemy which these particular terrorists are and Sadddam Hussein is that Hussein was easy to attack and make an example of for all to see. In regard to the terrorists that example only turns into an opportunity for recruitment. They love to see Saddam punished by us at the same time as we help them recruit supporters.

Re:
“Here’s another statement that confuses me: “Escalating our level of violence is likely to increase the support base for terrorism in the world.” If the “terrorists” already see us as they see the Jews (we do not have the right to exist)exactly what do you propose we do to change their minds? Shall we pay them all reparations? Shall we collectively commit suicide? Shall we dissolve our country and become a subserviant state to their political ideology? Shall we strip women of their education and voting rights and force them to wear burkahs? How shall we appease these people?”

I have no desire to appease the terrorists, given the opportunity I would gladly tear their hearts out and feed them to them while I watched them die. You mistake me for another kind of human being if you think my study and analysis of these issues leads me toward appeasement. I simply do not believe that falling into their easily discerned traps will win this war for us.

The war is not between us and the states of the Middle East as yet but the Neocons are working to make that happen. If it does happen we will have lost ground without atttaining one of our desired ends in this effort. One desired end is to kill and weaken the terrorist activists, which creating a generalized war with Islam will not do. Another desired end is to weaken their support base in the Islamic world which will not happen as long as we are attacking Islamic nations. A third desired end is to stabalize the main nations supplying oil to the Western world. This will not be the result of expanded attacks on Middle Eastern Nations. We mostly need to fight the terrorists where they are in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan today, not Iraq or Iran.

Re:
“You say: “Escalating our level of violence is likely to increase the support base for terrorism in the world.” If the “support base” for the terrorists are not now with them, where are they? Why do they not speak out against the activities of the terrorists? Why do they allow a radical minority to impune the goodness of Islam?”

These are some interesting questions because they reveal how you have been taught to think by our press and our leadership. Most people in the Middle East would commit them selves to great effort for a chance to live in a nation where jobs are as plentiful as they are here. Most of them would love to have one chance to change things in their nation in their lifetime albeit they do not see democracy in the same light that we do. There are some great books on Iraq available I recommend that you read one of them.

If they are more inspired by Bin Laden than they are by the Saudi Princes or Saddam both of whom we helped bring to power it would not surprise you had you read about Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Most of the people remain to be persuaded that we are really interested in establishing Democracy in their nations. Reasonably so after decades of the worst governments on earth supported by us. We supported those governments because their leaders sold us the oil under their nation and stole most of the money for themselves. We also supported them because they were anti-communist. Most of the people there still do not want the terrorists in power but they do see them as a force counterbalancing our power which looks good to them.

Re:
“I think Iraq is but the second battle of World War III. A radical minority of the Islamic terrorists, focused on returning Islam to the fifth century, is laying siege to the twenty-first century. Their intent is to enslave or kill all those opposed to them. Your poorly written paragraphs seem to espouse only mindless rhetoric as you leap from one generalization to the next. This is the most important time in the history of this country and, consequently, the forthcoming election may very well determine whether we continue as a liberty loving people willing to stake fortunes and lives to its protection (as our founding fathers did), or a group of self-centered people so focused on ourselves that we won’t see the danger ready to destroy us.”

Gizmot2,
We can make this war in Iraq the beginning of WWIV if we continue blindly following Cold War doctrines to their logical extremes. You are missing the Cold War in your count which was WWIII and is now over. It has been over for over one decade and our strategic plan for world subordination to our interests is now up and running but the brick wall is just ahead.

As to your characterization of this election, if you love liberty why do you support a man for President who has supported the passage of laws that take away significant amounts of liberty in the name of fighting terror? Are you perhaps as confused as you appear to be when you read paragraphs that deliniate where he has made egregious errors in the conduct of our nation’s business. It is clearly Bush and his support base in the industries he favors over the vast majority of our people that are the most self serving of those in our nation today. By the way I have staked my life and fortune both on the future of this nation in the past and I will do so again in the future if it becomes necessary. When I do I prefer to be led by men who have fought and bled for this nation not those who had no need to do so because daddy got them a safe post in Texas and Alabama. Much less being led by this batch of Chicken Hawks in our Defense Department and elsewhere in this Administration. Now is always the most critical time in our nations history everything else is past or future.
Henri

You’re way out in left field here, Henri. Bush has rejected the cold war way. It really doesn’t matter who put who in power when. Those days are over and we’re dealing with the consequences now. We could have dumped Saddam and replaced him with another maybe kinder despot. But we’re not doing that.

The Arab world already hates us…has for a long time. It’s their style. Read Bernard Lewis if you want to learn about those famous ‘root causes’. Democracy in Iraq, no matter how hard it is to get going and how long it takes, is the only viable longterm solution to the Islamic problem. Even Al Qaeda knows this and they wrote a book about it.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/printTaheri20030905.shtml

And it’s odd, but even though anti-Americanism is extremely strong in the Arab world, since Iraq it’s actually lessened. Hmmmmm. Perhaps our show of strength and resolve has actually heartened those who hope for reform for themselves.

It’s not a war on terror (that’s what Clinton called it and Bush just continued it) it’s a war on Islamofascism, on Islamic jihad. But you know darn well Bush can’t say that publicly. We have to change the society in which this breeds. We can’t call this fundamentalist Islam because that implies there’s a liberal, more tolerant, form also. There is not. There are only muslims who don’t (yet) have the will to jihad.

I do believe there are more muslims who wish to be peaceful and have freedom than there are those who have turned angry and joined the jihad. You can see it in Iraq from the polls. Sadr is a very very minor figure.

This is about longterm goals as well as shortterm ones. If we narrow our focus to only existing terrorist groups (if we can find them before they strike) we will only knock one down here to find another pop up there for decades. We of course are doing that also but that’s not enough.

As for Vietnam, that was entirely different. We didn’t go there because Southeast Asian society had attacked us on our soil. The stakes for US are much much higher now.

Besides which Kerry helped us LOSE Vietnam. I don’t want him to lose us our current war.

Oh boy, where to begin.

Interesting your take on things …that was then this is now approach to politics.

Where exactly does one find “kinder despots”? Is that like plug and play vdeo games? Remember the saw absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Was the Shah a kinder despot? Are the Saudi Royals? Perhaps the Kuwaiti Royals?

Do you think our support of Israel with weapons which have killed many Arabs could have anything to do with Anti Americanism?

Have you ever spoken to a Muslim? Do the majority of Muslims support terror? The Muslims I know, have well educated wives and believe in equality. They do not support anything Al Qaeda spouts. That does not mean they don’t recognize the damage American Policies have inflicted on the reqion nor that they hate Americans.

What is the basis for your statement that Anti- Americanism has lessened since the invasion of Iraq?

As for Vietnam, do you have any idea why we were there? How did John Kerry lose the war for us in Vietnam, by reading flight manuals in Missippi? By the way as I recall Richard Nixon called it peace with dignity.
And exactly how many Iraqis attacked the U.S.? Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia?

Bernard Lewis discussed the ignorance in which many Islamist fundamentalist base there “Jihad”. He was not,as I read him, condeming Islam as a religion
Perhaps you should read him again and stop listening to and repeating right wing, ill informed rants.

“Interesting your take on things …that was then this is now approach to politics.”

No, that was then this is now approach to a certain aspect of foreign policy.

“Where exactly does one find “kinder despots”? Is that like plug and play vdeo games? Remember the saw absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I was being sarcastic.

“Do you think our support of Israel with weapons which have killed many Arabs could have anything to do with Anti Americanism?”

Certainly. And? Israel is fighting for her existence. Whether we agree or disagree on all the methods she uses, no settlement can be reached until the terrorism stops….especially when Arafat has stated many times, and the Hamas covenant states, that the total destruction of Israel is their goal. Not two-states, not peace, not co-existence.

“Have you ever spoken to a Muslim? Do the majority of Muslims support terror?”

I did not say they do. Read again.

“The Muslims I know, have well educated wives and believe in equality. They do not support anything Al Qaeda spouts. That does not mean they don’t recognize the damage American Policies have inflicted on the reqion nor that they hate Americans.”

What does this have to do with Bush? We support Israel. We will not change that position. The sanctions on Iraq have been lifted. :) We no longer have boots on Saudi soil. America has helped more muslims than any nation on earth. Wringing our hands and weeping because they hate us is, quite frankly, stupid at this point.

But, truly, that is neither here nor there now. Bin Laden had his gripes, but his main reason for hating us is religious in nature. Our freedoms are very tempting. We are evil. And in his bid for a new caliphate that eventually will encompass the earth, we must convert or die. A bit too strong retalliation for the little Iraq sanction problem, don’t you think? His gripes are merely excuses. His literal interpretation of the Kuran and haddiths drive his every thought. And his mind can’t be changed by what we may or may not do.

At Guantanimo it was discovered that many among the Afghanistan fighters who hadn’t been totally indoctrinated yet could be turned around. But not the hardcore. And bin laden and Al Qaeda are as hardcore as it gets.

“What is the basis for your statement that Anti- Americanism has lessened since the invasion of Iraq?”

A PEW poll.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796

“As for Vietnam, do you have any idea why we were there? How did John Kerry lose the war for us in Vietnam, by reading flight manuals in Missippi? By the way as I recall Richard Nixon called it peace with dignity.”

We were in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism. You know, worry about the domino theory. A theory that hopefully will work with Iraq.

Kerry lost us the war through his major role in anti-war activities. His testimony, under oath, to Congress accusing our military of unspeakable acts. Calling it virtually endemic. This testimony, which we all believed, me included, turned public opinion almost totally against our troops and the war and along with a hostile press (what else is new) put tremendous pressure on our government to wind it down and end it. It was a war totally of choice and we changed our minds.

Kerry has never apologized for the lies he told Congress. Even Jane Fonda apologized for her treasonous activities. But not Kerry. I was hoping for someone like Lieberman but no luck. We’re stuck with Kerry.

“And exactly how many Iraqis attacked the U.S.? Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia?”

It’s really odd that people believe there weren’t terrorists in Iraq. Al Qaeda seems to have been everywhere on the planet. Except Iraq? Au contraire, jihadis were coming in, going out. They had freedom of movement. Zarqawi was active. No, there were no Iraqi’s on 9/11 but Saddam was a sworn enemy of the U.S. and regime change was our policy since 1998.

Why not Saudi Arabia? There were no UN resolutions and Saudi Arabia wasn’t under a ceasefire. First things first. We were worried enough that Saddam might pull something when we were distracted in Afghanistan. Imagine what he might pull if we went into Saudi Arabia. Look at a map and note the location of Iraq. Perfect as the starting point.

“Bernard Lewis discussed the ignorance in which many Islamist fundamentalist base there “Jihad”. He was not,as I read him, condeming Islam as a religion.”

Bernard Lewis is not the type of person to condemn and that makes him such a great source of wisdom and knowledge. But he doesn’t call it ignorance. Islam has not had a reformation like Christianity did and that’s the problem. The Koran is the literal word of Allah. Not an interpretation…literal. And, depending on circumstances, a recruiter can easily convince a moderate to undertake jihad. It happened in Syracuse, New York, where some moderate muslims were recruited into an al Qaeda cell. It’s happened with the Palestinians. That young female suicide bomber just a couple months ago (approved by Yassin) had had an affair. Her lover and husband convinced her that according to Allah the only way she could atone for her sins was to strap on a suicide belt and kill Israelis. She believed them and did it.

“Perhaps you should read him again and stop listening to and repeating right wing, ill informed rants.”

If it’s any consolation to you, I voted for Gore. I have my knowledge and opinion. You have yours. Labels suck.

Well, I certainly hope our foreign policy has changed for the better, but dismissing the consequences of the past is to not understand human psychology

To not understand motives is to make poor choices in choosing a path to guide the future.

Your dismissal of history as “so many tears” is convenient for someone who has never experienced the brunt of oppression.

America right or wrong is bad enough but when did it become Israel right or wrong. Yes, Israel has had to fight for her exsistence but she has also displaced thousands of Palestinians without compensation. Believe it or not there are Israelis who believe that her “defence” sometimes simply has become oppression.

I have a Palestinan friend who watched a 12 year old child beaten on his front porch by Israel soldiers. His father kept him from rushing outside to the aid of the child and sent him to the US to save his life. My friend is not a terrorist. He is a victim in a land of many victims. He has moved on with his life. But he is still strongly Palestinian.

You frankly don’t seem to have much of an understanding of Islam. Misrepresenting Bernard Lewis doesn’t reinforce your point. Mr Lewis stated that FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIST SUCH AS AL QAEDA are fueled by poverty and ignorance.

That isn’t the same thing as saying Islam is fundamentally flawed.

Jerry Falwell doesn’t represent most of Christianity. There are plenty of literal Baptists about.

Last time I noticed Communism hadn’t swept through southeast Asia. The Domino theory was pretty much debunked by anyone familiar with history.

Your logic about invading Iraq evades me. There are terrorists everywhere. You supported your previous points about invading Iraq on the attack on America. Those were Saudis and Yemenis as I recall. That justifies invading Iraq?

Then you switch to U.N. resolutions. The U.N. never authorized military invansion.

Look, I’m glad Sadaam is gone. I’d love to see a democracy in Iraq. I just don’t think it’s likely or going to come without spilling a lot of blood. Which was the point of this blog to start with.

As to “domino” theories in the Middle East, why hasn’t Jordan’s government spread at least a Monarchy with a House of Representatives which has been in place since the 80’s. Its a shining star of stability at least since the 67 war.

The neocon theory of spreading democracy by U.S.force is as dumb as the domino theories of the fifties and sixties.

by the way cspan recently aired both John Kerry’s testimony in congress and his debate on the Dick Cavett Show. Did you watch them?

John stated that Search and Destroy missions were being conducted on innocent civilians, they were. Mai Lai had just been in the press when he testified. He didn’t blame the soldiers, he blamed the higher ups for using body counts as propoganda and these othe excesses. He wasn’t looking to blame, However he was testifying in hopes of ending the senseless killing. It took 4 moe years for that to happen.

John stated that “free fire zones” were against the Geneva Convention they were and are.

There was a sizeable contingent of Vetereans who wanted to withdraw in 71 to save lives. They were opposed to dying for a war that Johnson secretly didn’t believe could be won and that Nixon extended for no gains at all.

John Kerry fought and was wounded. The Neocons were all “Chicken Hawks”. He owes no one an apology. There was strong sentiment against the war long before Kerry told the truth before Congress. Once again you’re quoting ignorant right wing rants that simply aren’t factual

> “What is the basis for your statement that Anti-
> Americanism has lessened since the invasion of
> Iraq?”
>
> A PEW poll.
>
> http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796

(I made the link functional so people will actually go look at the numbers. )

Read the Pew Poll again and you’ll see it doesn’t really support your assertion. The poll, first of all, only discusses four muslim nations, so right from the beginning we can’t really read much into these numbers. But you opened the can of worms, so let’s all eat them up:

What surprises me is how you have tried to spin these results to argue that goodwill has increased because of the war. The poll’s numbers just don’t back you up on that.

Most of the increase in goodwill (or decrease in ill-will) you describe has occurred since the height of the invasion in Iraq, not since before the invasion. I remember the invasion (heck, it was only a year ago) and it was a period of peak dislike for America in almost every country on earth, Muslim or not.

So if you take out the numbers from the time of the invasion and focus only on numbers from before the invasion, which means that Morocco drops off the chart completely, the remaining three countries are a mixed bag:

(the xx/yy figures are the percentages who rate America “Favorable” and combined “Somwhat Unfavorable” and “Very Unfavorable”)

Turkey:
summer 2002: 30/55
March 2004: 30/60
(a decrease in goodwill)

Pakistan:
summer 2002: 10/69
March 2004: 21/61
(an increase in goodwill)

Jordan:
summer 2002: 25/75
March 2004: 5/92
(a large decrease in goodwill)

If you scroll further down the page, you’ll also see that these Polls suggest that the war has increased distrust of America around the world.

If I were you I’d read my polls thoroughly before I link to them next time.

-Cf

Greg, I am not dismissing the past. Understanding the past gives us the solution for the future. But you have to understand all of it, not just cherry-pick and lay blame where it suits you and your personal beliefs or experience. Reducing Bernard Lewis’s views to ‘poverty and ignorance’ is a disgrace and misrepresentation. Using the term ‘oppression’ is dismissing centuries of history and removing context. Bin Laden isn’t about Israel. Bin Laden isn’t about Iraqi sanctions. Bin Laden isn’t about infidel boots on sacred Saudi soil. Those are merely rallying points.

What I AM dismissing is our old foreign policy of containment and support of tyrranical leaders in order to maintain stability. Islam must save itself from this fundamentalist madness and the only way this can be done is by muslims themselves. And it absolutely will not happen in the failed societies that have existed for the last three centuries. Hence Iraq. Did you read the Taheri article re Al Qaeda’s fears of democracy?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/printTaheri20030905.shtml

There were several legal, moral, AND strategic reasons to depose Saddam. Rarely has there been such a confluence that dismissal of a single reason does nothing to diminish the others.

Here are some Bernard Lewis links that it doesn’t seem you have read:
Bernard Lewis: The Roots of Muslim Rage. Note this was written in 1990, long before 9/11.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

Bernard Lewis: Targeted by a History of Hatred
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59594-2002Sep9?language=printer

on Bernard Lewis and Iraq:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110004050

Greg, what egregious spin regarding Kerry’s testimony! He based his testimony on unproven allegations garnered second-hand from words of supposed soldiers who were never even in Vietnam as if it was the truth. Kerry outright stated that these were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-today basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.”

This is patently false and has been proven so. Mai Lai was an aberration, not the norm. He slandered our men in uniform and put our prisoners of war in harms way by doing so. And he has NEVER apologized.

You don’t have to ask me if I watched the reruns on C-Span. Of course I did. But more importantly I saw it back then and know what his testimony did to our country and the effect it had on our returning soldiers. I hated them, because of Kerry’s false witness, and I will never forgive him for that.

Kerry’s 4 months on a swiftboat cannot make up for what he did afterwards. An honest opposition to war is one thing, but using dishonesty, slander, and deceit in his cause is quite another.

Christopher Fahey:

I think the important point IS that anti-Americanism has lessened somewhat since the invasion. Anti-Americanism is rampant and has been for decades in the Arab world…I do not deny that. Of course it would increase as we invaded Iraq but the scaremongering about an uprising of the Arab street because of it have been shown to be false and what is important is that the level of increase is not sustainable. I certainly like the trend the poll shows and expect it to be even better in another year. I do wish polls could have been taken in Syria and Iran whose peoples seem to have been encouraged by Iraq.

An increase in Anti-Americanism, especially in Europe, does not concern me. America using her power for her own self-interest is guaranteed to cause anger, fear, and antagonism in other nations. There is very little we could have done about that short of not deposing Saddam which, to most Americans, was not an option.

Syl,

Actually I have read those articles, and what I derive and what my point was that Mr. Lewis was discussing Fundamentalist Islam like Al Qaeda, not mainstream Islam.

Islam is one of the world’s great religions. Let me be explicit about what I, as a historian of Islam who is not a Muslim, mean by that. Islam has brought comfort and peace of mind to countless millions of men and women. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has taught people of different races to live in brotherhood and people of different creeds to live side by side in reasonable tolerance. It inspired a great civilization in which others besides Muslims lived creative and useful lives and which, by its achievement, enriched the whole world. But Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our misfortune that part, though by no means all or even most, of the Muslim world is now going through such a period, and that much, though again not all, of that hatred is directed against us.

THE movement nowadays called fundamentalism is not the only Islamic tradition. There are others, more tolerant, more open, that helped to inspire the great achievements of Islamic civilization in the past, and we may hope that these other traditions will in time prevail. But before this issue is decided there will be a hard struggle, in which we of the West can do little or nothing. Even the attempt might do harm, for these are issues that Muslims must decide among themselves. And in the meantime we must take great care on all sides to avoid the danger of a new era of religious wars, arising from the exacerbation of differences and the revival of ancient prejudices.

To this end we must strive to achieve a better appreciation of other religious and political cultures, through the study of their history, their literature, and their achievements

While I am not a particular afficionado of Mr Lewis, his point seems to me to acheive a greater understanding of Islam, not to blame it.

Ignorance and poverty, and oppression also drive Christians to sometimes repressive and Fundalmentalist activity. The same kinds of nihilistic thinking came with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

I really don’t think Mr Lewis has said anything new.

Many Machiavellian leaders use whatever pretext they need to acheive their goals. Al Qaeda is a manifestation of Machiavellian manipulation of poor and ignorant masses. It isn’t about religious values. That is the con.

I agree that WE must change our policies toward the Middle East and I agree that Muslims must be the ones to reform Iraq. That is why our occupation is so wrong headed. It plays into the hands of the Fundamentalists BECAUSE of our past misbehavior in the region.

It is too late to wring our hands about invading Iraq.We now need to find a workable exit strategy is my point.

Syl,

You’re quote was accurate of John Kerry’s testimony. However, your characterization was not.
The Freefire Zones , The bodycounts, and the Search and Destroy Missions were carried out in Veitnam on a day to day basis. The policies contravened the Geneva Convention. Are you defending these policies? These policies were not the invention of the soldiers in country. They were the invention of their superiors…which is the point Mr Kerry was making. He never ever slandered the entire group of Vienam Vets that you claim. He explicitly stated that he was not disparaging or blaming any of the vets who were carrying out missions they were assigned. If you can find a quote where he did I’d be impressed.

What you call second hand allegations were the words of the group of vets he represented, The Vets for Peace, who did not want to become the politcal toy of the Pentagon shifting blame to Leutenants and Sargeants by testifying and starting a phony investigation. They simply wanted to stop the killing.

How exactly did he endanger the P.O.W’s?

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter …. and it is the meddling interference of both the USA & Britian in countires such as Afganistan, Iraq, Iran and others which has directly led to today’s “war on terror”. Whilst the developed world (and countries such as France and Germany are no better than the US and Britian) continue to treat the undeveloped world as nothing more than pawns in the Chess Game of Foriegn Policey with no regard for the consequences on the citizens we will continue to see the backlash which we call terrorism. Unfortunately the “war on terror” is precisely the response which will perpetuate the backlash, which is very scary in our modern world of backpackable nucleur devices and small Viels filled with biological agents.