January 05, 2005
Right Actions, Wrong Reasons
Recently, Colin Powell intimated that one of the possible benefits of the tsunami relief efforts was that it would change the hearts of those in the world that look unfavorably on America and American values. There is a belief that our outpouring of generosity will put an end to terrorism around the world once and for all.
"What it does in the Muslim world, the rest of the world, is give an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action. America is not an anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim nation. America is a diverse society."US involvement and cooperation "is in the best interest of those countries and it's in our best interest", he said. "It dries up those pools of dissatisfaction that give rise to terrorist activities. Under such circumstances we think it's less likely that the terrorists will find fertile ground. That supports not only our national security interests, but the national security interests of the countries involved."
This attitude is similar to the one that is causing us the most pain in Iraq now. Planning or acting with this thought in mind; that we are trying to change the opinions of the people who hate the US. Unfortunately, as history has shown, this does no good whatsoever. Of course we should be helping those hurt by the tsunami, but not to convince potential terrorists that we are good and should be left alone, but because it needs to be done and we can afford to do it.
The problem is that we are not hated by these people because we are not generous enough, or not polite enough, etc. We are hated because of religious doctrine. Most terrorists know little if anything about the US other than what they are taught by religious instructors and government supported terrorist groups. Opinion based upon religious doctrine is much harder to alter, just look at the US society and it's grappling with homosexuality, abortion and stem-cell research. These issues are almost un-debatable because of people's religious beliefs.
Because of these attempts to "curry favor" as it were, we have put ourselves, and our fighting men and women, in harms way. We have not tracked down terrorist groups, such as al-Zarqawi's, because they were hiding in mosques and we did not want to offend muslims who do not want to see these harmed in any way. As a result, we have caused more American deaths than could have occurred.
We could also have been bombing more than we have been, instead of doing as much door-to-door combat. This would have most likely saved more American lives at the expense of Iraqi's, however this would have been unpopular to the Iraqi citizens and could have caused public sentiment to be more anti-American than it already is. In addition, the thought is that we would "change the minds of the enemy" and eliminate terrorist activities by helping them become free.
And, while they are thankful for that I believe, they are not happy in any way that we are still there. IMO, the best way to have gotten out of there would have been to use maximum force to root out the insurgents, showing progress in more decisive manners, and then left instead of meandering on as has been the course of action the past year and a half. The reality is that they would have respected, not liked, us if we had. And this is a more effective way to move from occupation to freedom for Iraq.
I'm not sure this administration is going to get it any time soon. They seem hell bent on trying to win everyone over that they are losing the war in the long run. Hopefully during the next election someone who has a political backbone will present themselves, willing to take the fight to the terrorists but being more concerned with winning instead of making friends.
Contrary to Mr. Bush’s belief that “They hate us for our freedoms”, I belive that they hate us for Coca-Cola, Levis, Hollywood, rock and roll, etc.
I don’t really think that Osama seems like a Gucci kind of guy.
America can’t be doing humanitarian good for a price. We need to be doing this because it needs to be done.
We shouldn’t care if they hate us when this is over.
We should have done it because it was the right thing to do.
Rhinehold, I think you completely missed it on this article. Get back to that in a moment.
Rocky has an extremely subtle but extremely important point. There was a story just yesterday where helicopters flew in to aboriginal territory in Indonesia to provide assistance. When they got close enough, the natives began shooting arrows at the helicopters. What the U.S. does not understand, is that there are 100’s of millions of people in the world, who are fine people of other cultures, who view encroachment upon their territory, their culture, and their history by modern technology and scary weapons of force, as a hostile act. They don’t want to be Americanized, anymore than we want to be communized.
Back to Rhinehold’s argument. That is the most salient factor about the invasion of Iraq. You are right that if the U.S. is going to invade a nation, it must do so with complete, swift, and utter victory as its goal, and then depart. That was the lesson of Viet Nam.
Now, precisely because such an overwhelming, swift, and complete invasion of Iraq would have 1) required far more manpower and equipment than we had, and 2) caused horrendous backlash throughout the Islamic world over the immense collateral damage bordering on accusations of genocide and reminiscent of the Crusades, we should not have invaded Iraq. Bad call. Really, really bad decision. We were not prepared for victory and we did not desire it for international political reasons. Hence, it will go down as one of the worst foreign policy decisions in modern times.
We do not have to be saddled with endless years of nation building however. There is an alternative. Reiterate that our goal was to remove the Hussien regime, that job being done, announce that we are pulling out on a date certain, and warn regional nations and Iraqis that Iraq will be on their own on that date certain or face dealing with their neighboring nations affected what happens in Iraq.
Your premise that we should have gone for the swift, complete, and utter victory would have backfired and increased our terrorist enemies reach and recruitments, even more than our invasion already has. There are circumstances when complete, swift, and utter victory is called for, as in Afghanistan which was responsible for attacks upon the U.S. Such a victory would not have any significant backlash from the rest of the world. Or as in the case of Japan in WWII. They attacked us, and had we had nuclear weapons in Dec. of 1941, we should and would have ended that war post haste and the world would have asked if we could do the same in Germany.
Iraq was not such a scenario. Invading Iraq was a mistake all the way around because there was no win-win scenario possible, unless and until, Iraq had been shown to have attacked the U.S. or was going to do so in the immediate future. Only in that scenario could we have avoided international backlash and the pervasive disrespect of Muslims in the world.
Posted by: David R Remer at January 6, 2005 02:45 AMP.S. to Rhinehold, Powell may be right that the aid in the Indian Ocean countries may ameliorate the hostilities felt against Bush and his policies, (remember, Americans are still fairly well respected, Bush is our nation’s liability), but, it will not erase them.
For the millions of Muslims who were not victims of the Tsunami, aid will have little direct effect on changing their minds about us. Thus, if we are to send aid, it should be for humanitarian reasons alone, and if so, may command some respect. But, the pudding is already spoiled by Powell’s words. The generosity of giving aid has been removed by Powell suggesting that we have something to gain by offering the aid.
Powell only reinforced the notion that the Bush administration is all about America with little or no concern for the peoples of the rest of the world. Another foreign policy decision that demonstrates incompetence and lack of foresight and wisdom.
In other words, I totally agree with the premise of the title of your article.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2005 02:55 AM“Recently, Colin Powell intimated that one of the possible benefits of the tsunami relief efforts was that it would change the hearts of those in the world that look unfavorably on America and American values. There is a belief that our outpouring of generosity will put an end to terrorism around the world once and for all.”
I suspect from the way you go about this post that you think these two sentences are nearly equivalent. They aren’t. Believing that one effect of a good deed might be a somewhat improved outlook is not at all equivalent to the almost certainly wrong thought that even a large aid effort could put an end to terrorism around the world. The second statement is one that almost no one believes. (I would say no one, but there are crazy people out there who will believe almost anything.)
I also don’t agree that Powell implied that such desiring good will was one of the main reasons to engage in the aid effort.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at January 6, 2005 03:41 AMRocky,
Just wait until UBL is caught and we find out he has SpongeBob boxer shorts on under that robe!
“Recently, Colin Powell intimated that one of the possible benefits of the tsunami relief efforts was that it would change the hearts of those in the world that look unfavorably on America and American values. There is a belief that our outpouring of generosity will put an end to terrorism around the world once and for all.”
We can only hope that a more peaceful world can result from such a horrible disaster.
In Iraq -
Look at those who like us.
The ones who want to live with Democracy. The ones who want to work together with all groups and form a free, independent, fair, and respected country. The ones who want to practice their religion while at the same time join in with the developing world.
Now, think of those who don’t like us.
They seem to want NONE of what I just listed for those that do like us. They want rule by force and the strictist of religious practices.
Though, I am sure, they would like to find a way to deal with the Western countries in order to financially support their country.
‘We’ll take your money for oil but we have to kill all of you, who are infidels.’
Imagine if everyone in this world went around trying to kill their customers.
They may see us as the Devil. They may hate us for all we have, need, and want. They are trying hard to keep their people from becoming ‘westernized’.
WE should have done something a long time ago to prevent our growing need for oil.
That IS our own fault. We knew we had trouble decades ago.
Did we think that if we kept pumping money into those nations for their oil that they would eventually love us and want to be like us?
Just like the help we are giving for the Tsunami. Just because they are accepting the help, it does not mean the attitude towards us will change in many minds.
Starving people will not refuse food because it says - USAID - on the side of it. The ones who hate us will eat the food and put the bag on a pole and burn it in front of TV cameras.
Will these people ‘hate’ their fellow Muslim countries who are only pledging 70 million of the 2 1/2 BILLION pledged? Will they see their own governments as greedy, uncaring, and STINGY? Time will tell.
A person’s worldview very often has more to do with his own character than with what others are doing to or for him. That means that there are some people who are unreachable in their current state of mind. I fear that might be the case with many fundamental Muslims vis-a-vis the U.S.
President Bush is often ridiculed for saying that they hate us for our freedom, but he is correct. Think of the Osama type people who hate us and consider their worldviews. They want to establish a caliphate ruled by Islamic religious law. In other words, God makes the laws – a theocracy. If you are running a theocracy, there can be no freedom except that specifically ordained by God. Since God is the ruler, there can be no dissent that isn’t mistaken or evil. Anyone who opposes a state run by God is evil.
Americans fail to grasp this point. We think in terms of nationalism, individualism or economic interest. We really can’t believe there are still people who don’t see it that way. Imagine an America run by the most extreme fundamentalists, not the reasonable people we see interviewed on TV, but the kinds that go up into the hills to establish their own pure communities. This gives some idea of the kind of people we are sometimes dealing with. Do these people hate freedom? Yes, by the way we define freedom they sure do.
I agree with most of what you say, Dawn, but you didn’t go far enough. You say: Starving people will not refuse food because it says - USAID - on the side of it. The ones who hate us will eat the food and put the bag on a pole and burn it in front of TV cameras
Actually that is not true. I read press reports saying that offers of aid by Israel were rejected. Some people are evidently bigoted enough to starve rather than accept food from someone they hate.
Rocky:
“We shouldn’t care if they hate us when this is over.
We should have done it because it was the right thing to do.”
I agree. It would be inhuman(e) to refuse anyone help in a disaster like this one. And it is in the whole worlds best interest to rush aid to the victims in order to head off diseases that could potentially endanger many more people, as well.
David:
“Powell only reinforced the notion that the Bush administration is all about America with little or no concern for the peoples of the rest of the world. Another foreign policy decision that demonstrates incompetence and lack of foresight and wisdom.”
Absolutely. Another opportunity to appear competent missed by this administration. They make me so ashamed.
Dawn:
“WE should have done something a long time ago to prevent our growing need for oil.
That IS our own fault. We knew we had trouble decades ago.”
Yes, we should have listened to President Carter in the seventies when he suggested we develop a comprehensive alternative energy program.
But the trouble didn’t just start decades ago - what did people think they’d be getting by voting in the Bush’s, whose family comes from an oil dynasty and whose closest family friends control Middle Eastern oil - defintitely not alternative energy, that’s for sure.
Jack:
“In other words, God makes the laws – a theocracy. If you are running a theocracy, there can be no freedom except that specifically ordained by God. Since God is the ruler, there can be no dissent that isn’t mistaken or evil. Anyone who opposes a state run by God is evil.”
That sound’s a lot like what Bush has been trying to do in this country.
“President Bush is often ridiculed for saying that they hate us for our freedom, but he is correct.”
Rhinehold:
“We are hated because of religious doctrine.”
I don’t think we are hated for our religion, or our freedoms, I think that Arab peoples slowly grew to hate us over many, many years for our POLICIES in the Middle East.
And perhaps partially due to what Rocky and David were saying about not wanting their culture to be “Americanized” by the likes of huge corporations - who I actually don’t think really represent America at all. Instead what they are is a half-assed, pre-packaged, plasticized, mindlessly Disneyized, rabidly-consuming, environmentally hostile, and nutritionally ignorant version of our culture.
Hell, even I wish they would go away.
Adrienne
You always want to bring it back to George Bush, but let’s say you are right. It sounds a little like George Bush. Now imagine George Bush much more fervent in his beliefs and subtract all the institutions, like our Constitution and democratic traditions that might keep him in check. Give him a population even less educated than you accuse the people in red states of being. And finally add in a tradition NOT of church-state separation, but of separation of church and state being seen as anathema. Pretty scary, right?
I can’t understand why American liberals, who fight public religious expression tooth and nail in the U.S. want to make allowances and excuses for a much worse manifestation of the problem than we have seen in the U.S. since (and probably including) the Salem witch trials of the 1690s. If you have no trouble believing that American fundamentalists hate people who have different lifestyles (gays, liberals etc) why do you think the much more fundamental people overseas are any less hateful?
Benjamin Disraeli once described a citizen of the world as a friend of all countries except his own. I am not asking for better treatment. Just apply a similar standard to fundamentalists across the ocean as you do to the local variety.
Jack I think I understand your point, however, Tuesday night on Frontline the subject was the Faith Based Initiative. I saw Bush at a church school with a bible in his hand, say that the laws in the bible were more important than the laws of the land. I am paraphrasing, because I cant find the text. More or less those were his exact words. That to me seems a little scarey.
Also in the same program, Richard Cizik called him a “evangelical Methodist” whatever that means.
I think that sometimes Bush is his own worst enemy. I don’t doubt that he is a “good guy”.
I do think though that it does take a rocket scientist to run this country.
“You always want to bring it back to George Bush,”
Of course, because it is the current president and his administration who are systematically shredding the constitution. I am only being patriotic to feel hostility toward these attacks upon our freedoms.
“Give him a population even less educated than you accuse the people in red states of being.”
Don’t put words in my mouth. Where did I say this?
“I can’t understand why American liberals, who fight public religious expression tooth and nail in the U.S. want to make allowances and excuses”
I am making no allowances and excuses for terrorism. I consider Fundamentalism of ANY stripe to be dangerous and unbalanced - because undoubtedly extremism breeds a mindset which is the antithesis of peace and freedom.
“If you have no trouble believing that American fundamentalists hate people who have different lifestyles (gays, liberals etc)”
Yes, because they want to deny certain people equal rights - even though the whole premise of this country was the idea that we were to “form a more perfect union” by accepting the individual beliefs of all people of differing faiths and ideas - true freedom from tyranny and oppression of any kind.
“why do you think the much more fundamental people overseas are any less hateful?”
I believe through our misguided policies in the middle east, we first created dislike, which then grew into hate, which in turn nurtured the enormous growth of Islamic Fundamentalism. I do not blame the current administration for that - as I said in my previous post, it took many years and many administrations from both parties to reach this era of brutal inhumanity and worldwide terrorism.
Posted by: Adrienne at January 6, 2005 02:32 PMRocky and Adrienne
I am not defending President Bush here (although I disagree with your characterizations). But consider the same overseas and in America.
Adrienne, you say that “I believe through our misguided policies in the middle east, we first created dislike, which then grew into hate, which in turn nurtured the enormous growth of Islamic Fundamentalism.”
It may be true, but what nurtured it here in America. If America is to blame for the foreign problem, who is responsible for ours? Apply the same logic to both.
Posted by: Jack at January 6, 2005 03:03 PM“what nurtured it here in America.”
In my opinion, fear, xenophobia, narrow-mindedness, lack of education. Take your pick.
“If America is to blame for the foreign problem, who is responsible for ours?”
Christian Fundamentalist control freaks - whipping up fear, rabidly proselytizing, fomenting hatred for any and all people who don’t share their beliefs or their political agendas. This has been further reinforced by the fact that America has been saddled with an administration who not only promotes those agendas, but thinks nothing of Assaulting the Constitution, abridging our historic freedoms, and tearing down the wall of separation between church and state which has always ensured us a highly varied, yet peaceful society.
The way things seem to be heading, I believe they wish to completely remake our government so that they may gain a gradually increasing control over We the People. Call it what you will: Theocracy, Totalitarianism, Oligarchy, whatever - but it sure isn’t going to resemble the American Democracy of which we’ve always been so proud.
Adrienne
Not to belabor the point but …
You seem to be saying that Americans are responsible for fear, hate and loathing among Americans and that the objects of their hate did little to provoke it. I agree. But maybe the same is true among fundamentalists overseas. Maybe they are using us in the same way, “whipping up fear, rabidly proselytizing, fomenting hatred for any and all people who don’t share their beliefs or their political agendas”
I believe that American policies tangential causes of anti-American hatred in the Middle East. Most of the problem lies with the haters. The very attractiveness of American culture provokes some backlash. The mad Mullahs describe the U.S. as a Satan and a source of temptation. Temptation can only work if you are tempted.
If we apply the same logic to intolerant Christians and intolerant Muslims, we are forced to conclude that in both cases their problems with the larger societies are mostly of their own creation. Gays didn’t provoke the hatred of extremists in the U.S. and Americans did not provoke the hatred of extremists in the Middle East.
“the same is true among fundamentalists overseas. Maybe they are using us in the same way, “whipping up fear, rabidly proselytizing, fomenting hatred for any and all people who don’t share their beliefs or their political agendas”
Obviously they are, but what I am saying is that it wasn’t always this way - they used to respect us, but all that has changed. And it seems to me that their views of us became more and more extreme the more unwise our policies became.
“Americans did not provoke the hatred of extremists in the Middle East.”
Not the American people - but unwise American governmental policies toward the middle east - formed by both parties, along with the culture of Opportunistic Greed both parties often represent, rather than We the People and what is really in our best interest.
What I am saying is that our government screwed _them and us_, and now we all end up paying a very heavy price - the Middle East with extreme Fundamentalism running amok, and us with a future of terrorism that could only be the result of that extremism.
There views became more extreme the more they came to have oil money and contact with the greater world. I don’t blame America for their bigotry.
Consider this from today’s paper re Muslim aid to victims of tsunami (or lack)
One factor holding back donations appears to be a widespread belief that vacationers were swept away as a form of divine retribution for their un-Islamic or immoral lifestyles. That argument was heard in televised Friday prayers across the Arab world.
“We know that at these resorts, which unfortunately exist in Islamic and other countries in South Asia, and especially at Christmas, fornication and sexual perversion of all kinds are rampant,” one cleric, Sheik Fawzan Al-Fawzan, was quoted as saying. “The fact that it happened at this particular time is a sign from Allah.”
I don’t see how America could have provoked these kinds of sentiments or how someone with such ideas could be made to think America, with its freedom and free lifestyles, was anything but evil.
jack reported: One factor holding back donations appears to be a widespread belief that vacationers were swept away as a form of divine retribution for their un-Islamic or immoral lifestyles. That argument was heard in televised Friday prayers across the Arab world.
Dollars to donuts Jerry Foulmouth is saying the same thing about the non-christians swept away. Religious bigotry on any side is just as heinous and non-productive, and self-righteous with extreme airs of superiority. What is fascinating and sadly ironic, is that the underlying principles and tenets of all the world’s major relgions, teach tolerance and acceptance. It is the Churches and humans who run them that pervert the teachings of the religion’s founders, round the world. That is as true of some of the priests of Hindu and Buddhhist temples, Mosques, Synagogues, Churches.
Many of the priests are religious founder’s worst enemies. And to the extent that such priests acquire political power, the safety of mankind under their influence is compromised.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2005 07:01 PMDavid
I agree 100% bigotry is bigorty. My point is that we judge it much more harshly in the U.S. When Americans are intolerant, we blame Americans. When Muslims are intolerant, we blame Americans. That is the bottom line. It shouldn’t be.
When people hate us, it might be more because of thier characters than ours.
Posted by: Jack at January 6, 2005 07:08 PMThey use to respect the US? When? Please, what proof do you have that the middle east EVER respected the US? We were called zionists, along with England, long before Oil was an issue. Muslim and christian hatred is very very old, I don’t know why the mantra of ‘they use to respect us but don’t know’ got started in the face of historical evidence, especially considering how old the US is compared to Muslim/Christian relations.
Posted by: Rhinehold at January 6, 2005 07:17 PMYes Jack -
The Tsunami hit because western women wear bikinis and have sex - Muslim women have to cover their entire bodies and faces because Muslim men (the ones in charge) can’t control their urges.
Virgins - Radical Muslim Extremists have an obsession with virgins - (like most men) - but - these men are willing to die to have their way with them -
Is it the men ? Is that the problem ?
These men that have to have complete control - dictate -
Seems that the women who turn themselves into bombs do so after being ousted by their societies. Societies ruled by radical men.
I don’t know how much of an influence Muslim women actually have over their own children - especially the boys - the MOMS have to do something if they want things to change.
The MOMS have control over the next generation. I just wonder if they realize how much power they have.
Yes Jack -
I forgot about the refusal of help from Israel. I do not know if it was all the effected countries - if it was all help - or just the help involving the Israeli Troops.
“They use to respect the US? When? Please, what proof do you have that the middle east EVER respected the US? We were called zionists, along with England, long before Oil was an issue. Muslim and christian hatred is very very old, I don’t know why the mantra of ‘they use to respect us but don’t know’ got started in the face of historical evidence, especially considering how old the US is compared to Muslim/Christian relations.”
You want proof - read this from Middle East Online:
“First and foremost, the problem is US policy. No amount of communication programs can change how citizens across the vast Islamic world feel about the US without core shifts in US policy. What are citizens from across the Islamic world angry about when it comes to the US?: From the ongoing US-led occupation of Iraq, to US disengagement towards Israel and Palestine, to backing down on claims that the US would push for democracy across the region, there are many reasons to point to. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, this administration has managed to squander global support for America.
Now, vast majorities of the populations of countries in the region - 70 percent in Indonesia, 80 percent in Jordan and 81 percent in Lebanon - say they feel that the US “does not take their interests into account.” But this was not always the case. A century ago America was seen as a positive and benevolent light in the region, as Americans played a key role in establishing the leading learning institutions across the Middle East. And as recently as 2000, the United States was much more respected in the region because we were more constructively engaged. The policies of the Bush administration, particularly after 9/11, have driven changes in sentiments across the Islamic world.”
Link to the full article:
“US relationship with the Islamic World”
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=9674
“I don’t know how much of an influence Muslim women actually have over their own children - especially the boys - the MOMS have to do something if they want things to change.”
Dawn, things are this way all over Asia, and not just with Muslims.
Posted by: Rocky at January 6, 2005 07:50 PMAdrienne, that is not proof that Islamic societies ever respected the US, only what their current claim to the reasons they don’t like us now is. Take a look back through history and find me any piece of proof that any muslim based country ever respected the US in any way.
What you are saying is that they all respected us after 9/11 but our actions since then have put them off on us, do you really think that? 1) why did 9/11 happen if they respected us and 2) why did Beruit, Achille Largo, bombed airliners, USS Cole, etc happen?
Saying that you dislike someone becuase of their current policies is a good way to try and convince them that if they just change TIHS or THAT then you will like them. And you bought it.
But it isn’t true, history is.
Posted by: Rhinehold at January 6, 2005 07:59 PMRocky,
I seem to recall a time in our country when women had to cover up -
to see the old time pictures of women on the beach - showing no skin above the ankles or below the neck.
The ones where women were trying to play tennis in dresses that reached their feet - ice skate too.
I don’t believe our men or our churches were very accepting of skirts getting shorter - it had to be when the men decided that they liked what they saw - and they wanted to see more -and women were more than happy to oblige.
There was a time when it was thought that a rape was a woman’s own fault because of what she was wearing - because men just couldn’t help themselves? The woman must have wanted him or she wouldn’t have been dressed in such a provocative way?
Women are the ones who fought for the changes regarding our rights in this country. We had to ‘fight’ the men. They weren’t about to just let us have our way. Men realized the world wasn’t going to end because women became equal.
You are right. It is in other places and not just Muslims. I just believe that the women are the ones who have to use their ‘power’ to make things better for themselves. - If they want it.
Posted by: dawn at January 6, 2005 08:12 PMJack said: “I agree 100% bigotry is bigorty. My point is that we judge it much more harshly in the U.S. When Americans are intolerant, we blame Americans. When Muslims are intolerant, we blame Americans. That is the bottom line. It shouldn’t be.”
Thank you, Jack for the clarification. I agree, entirely. But, I must point out that when we talk about national groups of people as they, we are being far, far too inclusive which can result in a for of bigotry all its own.
Blame should not be ascribed to nationalities, but, to perpetrators whose action deserve blame. Most people in the world, of any nationality or religious group, want little more than to live and provide for their progeny with a reasonable degree of freedom from outside force. These people could care less how Americans choose to live, and for the most part, I would venture most Americans could care less how people live in other countries.
To the extent that some people perceive other people’s actions as forcing influence upon them, hatred and resistance will follow from a minority of them. But, again, most will just try to make do, unless the forced influence directly affects their goal of living, raising their progeny relatively free from outside force.
I am beginning to get very irate over the media and speakers references to Muslims or Americans, or other broad sweeping generalizations of peoples using words like they, and we, in the context of blame and fault and injurious behavior. That is a breeding ground for bigotry and prejudice undeserved by most people being referred to by such generalizations.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2005 08:22 PM“I just believe that the women are the ones who have to use their ‘power’ to make things better for themselves. - If they want it.”
Dawn,
Just like the civil rights movement in this country, things like that take time. For those that wait, it may seem like an eternity. However, pushing too hard won’t solve the problem, and in some countries may make it worse, even in the long term. One cannot expect to bring the whole world kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Especially in cultures as repressive as some in Asia.
Remember it took until the 20th century for women to get to vote in this country.
Patience in this case indeed may be a virtue.
Posted by: Rocky at January 6, 2005 11:10 PMRhinehold:
“Take a look back through history and find me any piece of proof that any muslim based country ever respected the US in any way.”
They did respect us, indeed, at one time the Arab world admired us a great deal. Unfortunately, a look back at the twentieth century shows nothing but a long string of broken promises made by our country to the people of the middle east.
I honestly don’t think _you_ know much about this history, for if you did, you wouldn’t be so angrily confrontational with my assertions.
Here, this from the Cato Institute may enlighten things a bit:
If you care enough to take the time to read it, maybe we can talk some more about this subject. Until then, I feel I must tell you, I really don’t like the sensation of beating my head against a brick wall.
Posted by: Adrienne at January 7, 2005 04:19 AMThere are several interesting books by Bernard Lewis on the subject.
He traces the problem very far back, before the founding of the U.S. We Americans like to think we are in charge of everything, even to the point of being responsible when other people dislike us. This is a good way to look at the world with regards to problem solving, but it is not always accurate. The roots of anti-western ideas in the Middle East can best be found in those places themselves.
Posted by: Jack at January 7, 2005 10:11 AMThere is nothing in the Constitution that delegates to the president or the Congress the power to send the taxpayers’ money to domestic victims of natural disasters, much less to foreign victims.
The public is doing a great job, and that’s thier right. It’s not government’s role. If they have that much money to give away, why not here at home? Say, lower my taxes???
Posted by: Bob Thompson at January 7, 2005 11:58 AMIf you care enough to take the time to read it, maybe we can talk some more about this subject. Until then, I feel I must tell you, I really don’t like the sensation of beating my head against a brick wall.
Oh please. Nothing, and I did read it, nothing in that article makes any assertions in any way that the US was ever respected by an muslim controlled country.
The fact is that most of the muslim countries hated the US because they hated Europeans for running their countries for so long.
The policies since the creation of the US are most likely not helping draw them into our circle of friends, but they have never been there to begin with.
And if you can’t accept and understand that, then I agree about the banging your head against the wall statement. I shall quit doing it also.
Posted by: Rhinehold at January 7, 2005 08:02 PMI want to thank Mr. Reimer for allowing me back on. I love learning from the political experts around here. There are still conservatives like Jack that I can respect. I am still learning and I don’t understand a lot of foreign policy of history with the Middle East/ US relations but this is my rant.
I strive on being anti-religious. No matter which religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judeaism; they all promote bigotry. I will even point out, like the methodist denomination, when they give educational sermons so they can steer away from the “hell, fire, and brimstone” act; people begin questioning. Christianity as a whole is on a decline in the Western world. For a reason, bigotry. It is irrational, ignorant and it is polluted with self-righteous sanctimonious scums of life so in that, I am an equal opportunity player.
In regards to the tsunami/earthquake disasters, I find it so ironic how, not so much the conservatives because that generalizes too much, how rather the religious right of this country and the Pat Robertson’s of the world are so sympathetic to the Muslim’s and Hindu’s that were affected considering, they as I hear by the masses call them the “children of the devil,” which is laughable in a logical mindset.
From my observations of the tsunami/earthquake disasters, if we can only put this fundamentalistic garbage aside from the religious right, from the Islamic terrorists, from the anti-seminists out there, we can actually accomplish a little bit more than arguing over scripture; which by the way is ridiculous considering christians can’t even agree with christians as I am sure it is the same thing with the muslims in that regards.
As a species of the human race, we are dying out in numbers and morale. The 20th Century has had, according to a pastor, where I go to a church so I can be in a live Comedy Central, more deaths in war then any other century in history. We now have nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, and many other forms of blowing a human’s brain out. When is it going to end? The religious right and the Islamic terrorists need to realize, akin to our global efforts in the disasters, we can accomplish so much more when we burn the Bibles and the Qur’ans. If we realized the possibilities, if we only live once and have a mortality, we might actually do more for ourselves, our citizens, and the rest of the world before we die; in that, we might be able to make this world a better place to live for ourselves and our future generations.
Posted by: Noel Kennedy Clinton at January 7, 2005 08:54 PMI hope this doesn’t offend anyone as it may seem that way because it is not its intention. Religion is good for giving people hope although organized religion, I will say to the contrary. My advice is: Don’t take it the wrong way as my world peace agenda will backlash. It is in point what we can accomplish when we put politics and religion aside. If democrats and republicans could work together, see each other’s points of views and work towards a solution in the name of compromise; this world will be a better place for all of us.
Again, thank you very much David Reimer for the opportunity.
Posted by: Noel Kennedy Clinton at January 7, 2005 08:58 PMNoel -
So, if we’d all just think like you, the problems would go away? Its as simple as burning religious texts and realizing how much we really enjoy helping other people. There’s a reason why the communist ideal doesn’t work and capitalism does: human greed, plain and simple. Capitalism advances humanity because it harnesses the power of human greed. Sure, its dirty, but it advances society. (I know, you didn’t say communism would work, but essentially you’re espousing marxist philosophy.)
Secondly, religion does not “promote bigotry”. Simply put, people = not perfect. There will always be extremists who twist religious beliefs to gain power.
As for the human race “dying out” because we’ve had more wartime deaths in the last century can easily be explained by David’s favorite overpopulation argument. More people => greater population density => fighting.
You find it ironic that Pat Robertson is sympathetic to people affected by the tsunami because they are Muslim or Hindu, I’d say it’s nice to see that he’s actually practicing a bit of what he preaches. Not to mention, taking Pat Robertson as your example of Christianity is like taking Zell Miller as your model Democrat.
In light of your second post, I would say that religion is good for more than just giving people hope, and would agree that organized religion is more of a hinderance. But, you want people to put religion and politics aside, but it is not that simple. You have to work within the imperfect framework of human society, and getting people to put aside politics and religion and work for the common good is not really a possibility on a large scale.
Posted by: AParker at January 7, 2005 09:26 PM“So, if we’d all just think like you, the problems would go away? Its as simple as burning religious texts and realizing how much we really enjoy helping other people. There’s a reason why the communist ideal doesn’t work and capitalism does: human greed, plain and simple. Capitalism advances humanity because it harnesses the power of human greed. Sure, its dirty, but it advances society. (I know, you didn’t say communism would work, but essentially you’re espousing marxist philosophy.)”
I see your point and I recognize that. There must be a line drawn between capitalism and socialism and I would hope that the US does it the best. There still must be a lot of work though.
“Secondly, religion does not “promote bigotry”. Simply put, people = not perfect. There will always be extremists who twist religious beliefs to gain power.”
I will argue this point until the day I die.
“As for the human race “dying out” because we’ve had more wartime deaths in the last century can easily be explained by David’s favorite overpopulation argument. More people => greater population density => fighting.”
Yes but in regards to the 20th and 21st century, humanity has the most dangerous weapons in the history of the planet. If anyone were to launch a nuclear weapon, as I believe someone will one day; there will be no more fighting, no more bloodshed, there will not be any human species to do anything.
“You find it ironic that Pat Robertson is sympathetic to people affected by the tsunami because they are Muslim or Hindu, I’d say it’s nice to see that he’s actually practicing a bit of what he preaches. Not to mention, taking Pat Robertson as your example of Christianity is like taking Zell Miller as your model Democrat.”
It is definately ironic. Pat Robertson is not even close to the epitamy of Christianity as that would be ridiculous however if you want to get down and dirty with a fundamentalist, LOL, the truth comes out eventually. The sad truth is that, when you get at them enough, you will find that Pat Robertson’s views are exactly what they end up saying despite the fact that the fundamentalist will deny it in the first place.
“In light of your second post, I would say that religion is good for more than just giving people hope, and would agree that organized religion is more of a hinderance. But, you want people to put religion and politics aside, but it is not that simple. You have to work within the imperfect framework of human society, and getting people to put aside politics and religion and work for the common good is not really a possibility on a large scale.”
You are correct. It is not even close to being simple. If there were to ever be a reformation on a world wide scale, it could be accomplished. So much of what religion, the media, families, and friends preach goes right into the lines of the media. If the media were to preach it, people will follow, eventually. When people watch the O’Reilly Factor and watch a partisian mud-slinging, it certainly shows does not show an example of how to cooperate.
In regards to everything else, I think you completely misunderstood my above posts. We had a common cause in this disaster. We didn’t need big bad Jehovah and loving Jesus to tell us what to do. It was the human instinct of compassion and unfortunately, in the midst of all the donations, there will always be arguing as that is apparent and might I add, arguing is what makes us progress so it is not a bad thing. The point in this article is that as a species, we must find a common cause in everything or we are doomed, and that is not even in a cynical sense rather in a realistic sense. Our common cause to get away from the tyranny in England has brought forth the greatest document of all time, The Declaration of Independence. We are losing that common cause and there is to much of a tug-of-war and little compromise in the politics of the United States today. Religion is not bad as long as it is applied with common sense. The common cause is what brings us together not separation.
I believe full force works best, as long as it’s extremely temporary. Get the fighting and the casualties over in the shortest time possible and take over traditional law enforcement and military functions for the nation in the space of a few days. The attack itself was bound to create controversy. What is underestimated are the consequences of having an extended period of bloody, pointless combat. As Sun Tzu would put it, We’ve all heard of battles lost in haste, but nobody’s heard of anybody brilliantly protracting a battle.
We will have to face up to the reality of what we have done here. We’re in trouble regardless of what we do. The only thing that’s going to heal these wounds is time, and we will only get that time in the near future, if we seal the borders, and saturate the trouble spots with soldier that are there to stay. Guerilla wars and insurgencies cannot be beaten to death, they must be strangled. We have two choices in strangling them. Quick, and Slow. We can wait for our prey to struggle, slowly turning blue, or we can act as quick as the hangman’s rope.
The quicker we act, the more we erase the sense of weakness attached to our policies, and the faster we get Iraq to the point where they are less martyrs of American policy than examples of the benefits of it. I don’t believe in domino theories, but I sure believe convincing other nations to reform will become far easier if our efforts in the Middle East aren’t seen as a source of chaos and disorder. We should be feared like a charging bull, not a bull in a china shop.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 7, 2005 10:43 PMStephen, your arguments have a lot of merit and you put them forth very cogently. Your assessment however leaves out the option of setting a date certain and announcing to the world and regional nations around Iraq, that on that date, Iraq is their problem. We came to remove the threat of Saddam. Our mission is accomplished. Pick up the ball or pay the consequences in your own lands and along your own borders.
If the world completely and totally fails the task, we can always go back if Iraq poses a threat to the U.S.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 8, 2005 02:46 AM“Oh please. Nothing, and I did read it, nothing in that article makes any assertions in any way that the US was ever respected by an muslim controlled country.”
That wasn’t the point of my giving you that link - I gave you one previously that made that point - which you rejected. I know I could give you a long list of others, and no doubt you would reject all of those as well.
I’ve played this game before on this blog - and since it is a tedious and pointless excercise, I’ll not bother.
“The fact is that most of the muslim countries hated the US because they hated Europeans for running their countries for so long.
The policies since the creation of the US are most likely not helping draw them into our circle of friends, but they have never been there to begin with.”
Since this is all you managed to glean after reading that link, I have nothing to say here either.
That wall I mentioned earlier seems so often comprised of bricks of stubbornness, and a mortar which is nothing but vanity - adding up to a complete refusal to hold any current or historical American policy accountable for the serious problems they have already created, or will produce in the future.
Fortunately, I don’t have that problem. I can look honestly at what our past or current leaders have done wrong and not feel that their poor or dishonest policy decisions are a direct reflection upon myself or on the American people in general.
That wall I mentioned earlier seems so often comprised of bricks of stubbornness, and a mortar which is nothing but vanity - adding up to a complete refusal to hold any current or historical American policy accountable for the serious problems they have already created, or will produce in the future.
Um, when have I ever stated that the US policy is not responsible for what is going on in the middle east at the present?
I think you arguing against a straw man and setting yourself up to be on a higher road, when the lower road does not exist. Playing the game indeed.
I even state
The policies since the creation of the US are most likely not helping draw them into our circle of friends, but they have never been there to begin with.
You are the one trying to make the point that the middle east countries once respected the US. They never have, you have shown me not one piece of historical evidence, other than the speech of a current muslim leader, that would point to suggesting otherwise.
Yes, I am asking for hard concrete evidence, maybe a writing or speech from before 2000 maybe? I guess asking for support of your assertions is ‘bullheadedness’…
Posted by: Rhinehold at January 8, 2005 04:17 PMRhinehold said: “You are the one trying to make the point that the middle east countries once respected the US. They never have, you have shown me not one piece of historical evidence, other than the speech of a current muslim leader, that would point to suggesting otherwise.”
The decades long friendship between the Bush Family and Saudi Arabia does not demonstrate respect? The relationship between Jordan and the U.S. for many years with their King visiting and advising our whitehouse on a host of occasions through those years as well as working toward a MidEast Peace does not show respect? How about a number of the wealthy in those countries coming to the US for higher education. Does that not show respect for the U.S.?
You asked for evidence. There it is. Even Egypt has worked with the US out of respect for our role in brokering Middle East Peace for decades.
David
University students coming to the U.S. is generally a very good thing, but there are nuances. The idea of respect is important, but not the way we are using it.
I had a Pakistani roommate when I was in college and made many Muslim and Arab friends through him. It seemed that some of them came to dislike the U.S. for a weird personal reason. Some of these guys were the sons of rich and powerful people back home. When they got to American universities, they received no special treatment. In the wake of a bad grade, I would often hear complaints that the professors were not showing the proper respect. Becaue of their family connections and wealth, they usually got what they wanted back home. In America, things were different.
The other thing had to do with dating. Many of the people I knew came from very rich families and having money doesn’t hurt when it comes to attracting the opposite sex. However, behavior also counts – especially in the long run. After they got past the money and nice cars, American college women were usually not particularly impressed by the chauvinist attitudes common among Muslim men. The other compliant I heard from my Muslim friends was that American women didn’t show the proper respect. I heard other things too, but I won’t repeat them.
In these cases, their personal sense of rejection created ambivalence about the U.S. These guys didn’t feel that American professors or American women showed them the proper respect and from their point of view they were right. The personal often becomes the political.
Jack, your experiences with Arab upper crust rings true, though I have no first hand experience. Mine is with working Muslims in Dearborn, Mi. Their courtesy and respect to their customers, and their children’s friends, is far better than many generational Americans I have met. I did not talk politics with the acquaintenaces I had there, so, I don’t know. But, my sister who still lives in Livonia, says they are fine people and American flags are more prominent in their neighborhood than anywhere else.
It is difficult to judge a people accurately by the upper crust, they are such a minority not only in number, but, experience and outlook.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2005 02:51 AMOur problem is usually with the upper crust and intellectuals who set the tone for the rest of society. The average person just doesn’t usually have a strong opinion. He has more important things to worry about.
All of the 9/11 highjackers were rich kids familiar with the U.S. Osama bin Laden and his associates come from the rich families of the Middle East.
I can’t psychoanalyze Osama, but I did see a biography saying that he became an extremist after a couple of visits to the prostitutes and night life in Beirut. The combination of guilt, temptation, rejection and longing often creates hatred. It is especially potent among those who are used to a life of privilege.
Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2005 02:30 PMNoel,
we can accomplish so much more when we burn the Bibles and the Qur’ans.
I’m all for protecting against the tyranny of religion but nothing good comes from burning books.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at January 10, 2005 09:21 AM
