Iran, Syria who will we conquer next?

[Royal Dragon]

Any thoughts on who we will go after next, and more importantly why?
What is our end goal? Does anyone know?

[MasterKiller]

this thread is so 2002...

[Faruq]

Well, we've already got a huge worldwide empire. Of course, our conquering is usually done with big corporations now, rather than the military like in Iraq, but our empire is huge. Didn't a huge U.S. company bring the Phillipines to it's knees 10 or so years back, by threatening to close up shop and return to the U.S., leaving thousands of Pilipinos jobless and without income, because it was no longer economically feasible for them to continue operations there?

[Royal Dragon]

2002-2006 whats the difference?

[MasterKiller]

2002-2006 whats the difference?

no Republican Congress to give Bush a blank check.

[qiphlow]

ourselves, i hope. obviously the "my army (di<k) is bigger than yours and i can kick your a$$" style of government has not helped anyone very much. i think that the cowboys (scared kids) who are promoting this approach to foreign policy are finding that it's certainly not helping them, either.

[BoulderDawg]

no Republican Congress to give Bush a blank check.


And you honestly think that any Democratic congressman is going to have the guts to vote that brave American troops will not have proper equipment or food to eat because congress won't give them the money......:D

[BoulderDawg]

I'm all for invading the UK. Let's liberate those people from those bloody round-a-bouts and actually install a couple of traffic lights.

[WinterPalm]

Well I'd say after two unfinished messes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the issue of conquering should be brought into question. It is, indeed, an interesting era when the most powerful and well equipped military in the world is unable to dominate and conquer much smaller and weaker countries...sometimes in martial art your aggression can become a weakness.

[MasterKiller]

And you honestly think that any Democratic congressman is going to have the guts to vote that brave American troops will not have proper equipment or food to eat because congress won't give them the money......:D

I'm talking about a 'blank check' to promote his now-defunct Neo-Con agenda in world policy. The Bush agenda was a failure. He won't get a chance to hit anyone else.

[David Jamieson]

If russia keeps selling air defense missile systems to Iran then I don't think the words "cakewalk" will be associated with an incursion there.

Syria would be a mistake because it would disrupt fragile alliances taht exist now. despite their being a thorn in the sde, they ahve friends and are powerful in the whole region.

Afghanistan should be dealt with as a UN mission of normalization more than anything. a war on teror there is just stupid and a waste of time and resources.
the country is ravaged by 30 some odd years of constant war and it needs to have time to rebuild and not continue in some weird ass war such as has been and is being perpetuated there.

as for conquering. that's laughable. The US and UK have all but lost in their efforts in Iraq. They have inadequate forces there to control the situation and it has deteriorated and spiralled into a civil conflict now. It is worse now in country than it was when the US and UK attacked them.

Infrastructure is a shambles, the public systems are all but gone, a puppet government is partially installed and not really working at anything oter than waiting for occupiers to set things straight because they can't do anything while the US and the UK hold their nads for them and direct them in everything they do as opposed to actually letting a government take form on it's own.

america can't win in Iraq, it can't win a war on terror anymore than it can win a war on drugs or some other equally nebulous crock of distraction and taxdollar burning activity.

good luck with your aspirations though, too bad about the hounds you have arranging that mess for you.

[BoulderDawg]

I'm talking about a 'blank check' to promote his now-defunct Neo-Con agenda in world policy. The Bush agenda was a failure. He won't get a chance to hit anyone else.

The Neo-Con agenda = Feeding the troops = saving the American way of life = doing what's right

Many of the new democratic members of congress (Such as Jim Webb) are extremely conservative. If you think things are just going to change then you have another thing coming.

The conservative Dems (Most of them) will vote to give the Prez a blank check. The MOR Dems will vote to give Bush a blank check because they are afraid they will lose the next election. The left of center (very, very few) may vote against Bush....However it won't make much difference.

For the most part Bush will get his way for the next two years. Now, coming up on the 2008 elections, if things are a total disaster we will get out of Iraq. However we will be there for at least two years.

[BoulderDawg]

america can't win in Iraq, it can't win a war on terror anymore than it can win a war on drugs

The concept of conservative victory is a strange one. I have yet to find anybody who can quantify it. Usually it's defined as a stable government in Iraq with no terrorists...Of course there may be a stable government in Iraq (There is in Iran and Bush still wants to invade that country) however there will always be terrorists...just like there will always be crime.

[MasterKiller]

The Neo-Con agenda = Feeding the troops = saving the American way of life = doing what's right

HAHAHHAA. The Neo-Con agenda was pre-emptive invasion of Iraq to create a domino effect of democracy throughout the Middle East and stabilize the region. They endangered our troops and made our country less safe to satisfy a 20-year-old boner they had been carrying since Gulf War I.

[Royal Dragon]

That and haliburton needed to improve thier profits....

[Mano Mano]

Any thoughts on who we will go after next, and more importantly why?
What is our end goal? Does anyone know?

The UK b'coz we don’t want to be used as a US aircraft carrier any more.

[Mr Punch]

Any thoughts on who we will go after next, and more importantly why?
What is our end goal? Does anyone know?How about some place like iraq or Afghanistan? They could do with some law and order, and if you go into them you could disrupt the international heroin trade, topple a local dictator or two, establish stronger democratic governments who would buy more of your chemical weapons from you multinational IT and logistics companies, and stamp out global terrorism...

oh,

er,

wait...


BTW, if you really think there'll be any more wars started by your overstretched army in the near future you as dumb as your leader: in case you hadn't noticed all the talk for the last two months has been about starting alliances with Syria and or Jordan and or Iran to help sort out the unholy mess you've made in Iraq. There are those of us who would have gone for alliances, shady dealings and diplomacy over all out war and shady dealings in the first place.

[Merryprankster]

I see Faruq has been drinking the Chomsky Kool-aid...

Just having a bit of fun.

However, I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that the United States has an "empire" or "imperial" ambitions. Empire and Imperial have highly specific meanings. They fell into colloquial use to describe anything large, expansive and powerful, and (unfortunately for us) fell BACK into the political/social science realm with their colloquial baggage intact:

An economic empire is not at all the same as an empire of economics. The first is something like what Rupert Murdoch has. The second would be something like Imperial Britain's Mercantilism.

That sort of imprecision is rife, misleading and disfortunate at best, for the simple reason that it connotes motive where none may exist.

And so I turn my attention to the question of U.S. policy. Supporting capitalism and regulated free markets? Yes. Highly interventionist, at least recently? Yes. Often times distasteful, upsetting and ill-conceived and executed? You betcha - especially over the past 6 years or so.

Imperial? Nope. Some may find this an issue of semantics - semantics are the soul of argumentation...without it, precision and meaning are lost. And the U.S. foot don't fit the "Imperial" shoe.

Incidentally, empire and imperial require intent...so unless the open market has been guided by an evil genius, "conquering with corporations," is a structural argument that doesn't carry water.

In answer to the original question of this post, we won't be conquering anybody. We have not conquered Iraq, neither in fact nor in design. The intent was always to leave.

We will not commit ground forces anywhere else in the world, with the intention of "regime change" for at least the duration of the Bush admin, and I suspect for a good long while thereafter, given the national mood.

Apart from the national mood, we can't conquer anybody of consequence in part because our forces are stretched to the limit and in part because conquering has become fantastically difficult in this era, as power (military, economic, informational) and the means of war become pluralized, right on down to the average citizen.

This is quite different from merely destroying what is already there. We COULD cut a swath of chaotic destruction through much of the world, and quite frankly, nobody on the planet can project enough power to stop us, although certain nations (China, Russia) could probably turn us back. And of course, it is the mere existance of that power that's a bit frightening to the rest of the world.

Most thinking Americans should find that power a bit disturbing as well. I'd like to see a radically different force, along the lines of "The Pentagon's New Map," suggestion, with a signifcantly weaker "Leviathan" force as Barnett calls it, coupled with the sort of internationally binding curbs and limitations and foreign engagement that Peter Beinart recommends.

That's a much healthier world for all of us.

[David Jamieson]

nobodies interested in toppling the international heroin trade.

that's all floss on the mill. shock shlock to make everyone think something righteous is happening.

truth is, without afghanistans poppy fields there is not enough heroin produced for legitimate use.

did you know that the taliban, as whack as they are and were actualy wiped out the poppy harvets in afghanistan before the incursion and while they were blowing up buddhas and doing their typical villainous stuff.

so they get deposed and poppy production shoots up again and western medicine once again has a cheap source for morphine, valium, codein and all the other opiate drugs used by the ton by the medical industry.

as for the illicit trade, im sure there are tighter controls on that seeing as it's a war zone :rolleyes:

always remeber that what you hear bears only a fraction of truth.

[Merryprankster]

truth is, without afghanistans poppy fields there is not enough heroin produced for legitimate use.


Where did this information come from? I hadn't heard it before, and I would like to source it. And I think you meant morphine base or opium paste.

Valium is not an opiate - it's a "pam" drug. It is a benzodiazepine related drug and not related to the opiates. Many "opiates" like Fentanyl, are, in fact, completely synthetic and do not require poppies at all.


always remeber that what you hear bears only a fraction of truth.

Including, perhaps, your own post ;) I'm not poking at you here, I promise. I have no doubt that you have faithfully reported what you have heard. I would just like to know where you heard it! For instance, India has legal opium poppy production and I suspect other places do too. And, I find it hard to believe that no country with a vested interest in a highly profitable crop like that would not increase production in response to increased worldwide demand. It seems like the sort of thing that would have made the news, but I can't find it.

[rogue]

We're heading back to the 80's, but with more if not mostly mercs.

[Faruq]

I found this on Netscape, and it comtemplates the repercussions of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, so I post part of it here.

November 10, 2006
by Stephen Lendman

Part III - Experts on Terror or Terrorist Experts

In this part of his book, Petras goes head-to-head with the so-called self-styled "terrorist experts" (TE) and clearly comes out ahead with his incisive dissection of them explaining why they're prominently featured in the major media. He calls them the "set-up" people - there to play a role to "motivate the colonial and imperial conquerors and reinforce their idea that the terrorists are not worthy of ruling or being ruled," so we have to get rid of them. It doesn't matter that the so-called "war on terrorism" is a shameless overused but very effective ruse scare tactic. It's always used because the public never catches on no matter how many times before supposed threats turned out to be another scam to get them to go along with whatever schemes our government had in mind to undertake. It never ceases to amaze how short an attention span the public has, but it's clear the power of the corporate-run media has a lot to do with it. It led author Studs Terkel to refer to a national Altzeimer's disease and author and political critic Gore Vidal to subtitle his 2004 book Imperial America - Reflections on the United States of Amnesia.

It gives the whole propaganda apparatus and the TE an open field to manipulate the public mind and get it to believe most anything. Petras calls these people "verbal assassins" who can't or won't understand that people pummelled by "shock and awe" attacks, their countries plundered in the name of "liberation," their people mass-murdered, raped, arrested and tortured might be desperate and motivated enough to strike back in retaliatory self-defense. It follows logically from Newton's law that for every action there's a corresponding reaction. In 1954, the CIA understood this and invented a term for it (no self-respecting TE will touch). The agency called it "blowback" referring to the unintended consequences from US hostile acts abroad like overthrowing legitimate or otherwise constituted governments as it did against Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 ushering in the 25 year terror reign of the Shah. It finally led to the "blowback" 1979 revolution, and it causes other instances of retaliation now ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan and for nearly six decades in Palestine.

But prominent TE featured in the major media have a different diagnosis of resistance fighters. They call them "incurable psychopaths (who are) extremely dangerous when at large (so we must flush them out to) capture, confine, torture or kill (them)." A convenient division of labor is then arranged to do it and the TE play their assigned role along with the military, recruited satraps, prison commandants, interrogators, guards and assorted other functionaries. They're team member hegemon-devil's disciples turning "victims into executioners and the executioners into victims." They do it by dehumanizing the legitimate resistance they label Islamo-fascists, Islamic fundamentalists, terrorists or other invented designations of inferiority or implied threat that must be destroyed.

It's incomprehensible to the TE that almost any act of retaliatory self-defense might be justifiable resistance given the level of state-directed violence used against them mercilessly. In Israel, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan it led to the phenomenon of suicide bombings which Petras calls "a form of individual sacrifice, of individual resistance taken in the name of the collective." He explains further that in the West individual sacrifice is rewarded with medals, but in the Middle East and specifically in the case of suicide bombers the reward is martyrdom for giving their lives in the cause of national liberation against a superior hostile force. This is a phenomenon common throughout history when a people face an overpowering conquerer and occupier. Petras explains "there have always been and always will be self-sacrificing individuals or (whole populations)....prepared to defend nation and home....and to use (their) body as a missile or weapon
(to do it)."

Petras also explains there are different forms of imperial conquest and subjugation, and the one the US uses in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Israel uses against the Palestinians is a cruel and dehumanizing "process of destruction, degradation, and exploitation followed by efforts to 'reconstruct' a colonized military, police, and political structure willing and able to repress and contain anti-colonial resistance." It's a doctrine of "total war" against target nations too weak to fight back except by asymmetrical guerilla warfare means that include tactics like car and suicide bombings. Petras calls this practice "one of the ultimate forms of rejection of tryanny" that will only end when "total war" does. And that will only happen when the "colonial revivalist strand of imperialism in....its US, European and Israel variants" are defeated....Peace and reconciliation is only possible if justice is meted to the architects and practitioners of total war and human degradation." A long and painful struggle for liberation may be ahead before that goal is ever achieved.

Part IV - Noam Chomsky and the Pro-Israel Lobby

In the book's final part, Petras challenges a man who may best be described as an iconic figure on the Left, an anti-war activist, and much more but not one unused to being challenged and sometimes harshly. Petras points out that Chomsky has been a sharp critic of Israeli policies through the years and has been strongly attacked for his views by pro-Israeli organizations and the major media on the rare times his name is even allowed in it. Still he defends the existence of the Zionist state and has a different view than Petras on the power and influence of the Jewish Lobby in shaping US policy toward Israel. Petras lists what he calls Chomsky's fifteen erroneous theses reflecting his long-held belief that the Lobby isn't as potent as the strong case Petras makes in this book that it is. Not wishing to take sides with two distinguished men this writer holds in high esteem, the points of disagreement will only be listed so the reader can decide who makes the better case.

Petras begins by listing what he calls Chomsky's eight "dubious propositions:"

1. The pro-Israel Lobby is like any other one.

2. The Lobby's backers have no more power than other pressure groups.

3. The Lobby succeeds because its interests coincide with those of the US.

4. Israel is a tool of the US empire and used as needed.

5. "Big Oil" and the "military-industrial complex" are the major forces shaping Middle East policy.

6. US and Israeli interests usually coincide.

7. The Iraq war and threats to Iran and Syria stem from the "oil interests" and "military-industrial complex."

8. US behavior in the Middle East is the same as what it practices worldwide.

Petras then uses the above list to discuss what he calls Chomsky's 15 theses and uses the persuasive evidence presented in his book to take issue with them, one by one. He sums up his case stating he's done this because of Chomsky's enormous stature making whatever his views are stand out prominently. It's a matter of consequence when a man like Noam Chomsky believes the Jewish Lobby is like all others which in Petras' view gives a "free ride to the principal authors, architects and lobbyists in favor of the (Iraq) war (and is an) obstacle to achieving clarity about whom we are fighting and why. To ignore the pro-Israel Lobby is (also) to allow it a free hand in pushing for the invasion of Iran and Syria (and any other regime in the region Israel may wish to remove)." Petras sums up saying that "the peace and justice movements, at home and abroad, are bigger than any individual or intellectual - no matter what their past credentials." In this battle of noted titans on the Left, it's for the reader to decide who's right.

Summation

Petras has written a powerful and important new book that needs broad exposure and resonance. But he'll never get its content past the corporate gatekeepers controlling the major media because of his courage to reveal what others fear to do - confront Zionism, its agenda of aggressive wars and colonization, and the power of the Jewish Lobby to assure Israel gets the full and unconditional support of every US administration regardless of whether what it does serves the interests of this country. That Lobby power reached its apogee and full fruition with the ascent of the Bush administration neocons that effectively pledge their fealty to the rulers of the Israeli state and prove Ariel Sharon may have been right when he once arrogantly boasted about his relationship with George Bush saying: "We have the US under our control."

The result has been disastrous for this country and the sacred principles on which it was founded. In partnership with Israel, the US began tearing apart the Middle East and Central Asia by attacking and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It now threatens to inflame the whole region enough to make it explode if we go ahead with plans to attack Iran, do it with nuclear weapons, and then move on to Syria and even Saudi Arabia while continuing to hold Lebanon hostage and under siege in a state of interregnum awaiting the next inevitable trigger igniting the whole ugly business there all over again. The Bush administration "long war" against Islam enraged 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide growing in unity against us.


Stephen Lendman [send him email] lives in Chicago, and maintains a blog at http://sjlendman.blogspot.com

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/11/22/the-power-of-israel-in-the-us1/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populistamerica.com%2Fthe_po wer_of_israel_in_the_us_part_v&frame=true

[Merryprankster]

I would encourage everybody who is interested in these issues (the ME) to simply read as much as you can and come to your own conclusions. That means the gamut, from people like Steve Emerson, who sees an Islamic terrorist around every corner, to Sayyid Qutb, who could probably be considered the father of modern Political/Radical Islamism.

I concur with the thesis presented above that "terrorism" experts are coming out of the woodwork. I would further argue that much too much emphasis is being placed on Bernard Lewis' treatment of the Middle East. What I find most disturbing is the willingness of "experts" on each side to embark on interpretations of Middle Eastern affairs absent a firm grounding in ME history, from the founding of Islam to the present day. The most common arguments on the left and the right are hopelessly Eurocentric, IMO, speaking of, if not explicitly then implicitly, of the Occident and the other. Even the "left" models, who are adamantly opposed to Bush's policies and the interpretations of the world that form their foundations are more focused on how the ME fits into preconceived frameworks...which are then naturally used for buttressing their political argument.

We cannot continue to have political discourse about other areas of the world without hearing from them about what they think about things. And the only way to do that is to study their laws, their philosophers, their history, etc. This can occassionally be difficult; many parts of the developing world have little in the way of a written historical tradition.

The irony is that the ME is full of written history, and "experts" seem to be leaping into the fray, with little contextual guidance from in-depth study of the ME. How one can purport to be an expert on Islamist use of terror when they have little background in Islam itself is absolutely beyond me.

[Liokault]

did you know that the taliban, as whack as they are and were actualy wiped out the poppy harvets in afghanistan before the incursion and while they were blowing up buddhas and doing their typical villainous stuff.

so they get deposed and poppy production shoots up again and western medicine once again has a cheap source for morphine, valium, codein and all the other opiate drugs used by the ton by the medical industry.



That's a myth.

What really happened is not that the Taliban wiped out the production of drugs. Its that the Taliban controlled the production of drugs to manipulate the price year on year.

Big difference.

Listening to the radio this morning (BBC), the prediction is that Bush is going to set an arbitrary time scale on leaving and tell Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran that they have to stop supporting insurgents and that if there is anarchy and a failed state in Iraq after the US pulls out, its everyone else's fault, not the UsofA.

Anyway, why are we still calling it a war on terrorism? Has there ever been any evidence that there was more terrorism coming from Iraq than any other country in the area?

[Merryprankster]

Liokault,

A more pressing question might revolve around "what IS terrorism?" There are an awful lot of competing definitions out there, and nobody seems to agree on it.

The UN recently had a document that approached a non-normative (not linked definitively to any one culture's perception of right and wrong) definition of terrorism, and if I can ever find the **** thing again, I will.

And no, nobody has ever adequately explained how Hussein/Iraq was linked to the war on terror. (whatever that trite phrase means.)

[Royal Dragon]

Iraq wasn't linked to Terror. We went in over his refusal to allow UN inspectors because we thought he was still hidieng weapons of mass destruction. Terorisim had nothing to do with it. That whole aspect got lumped in later.

[Liokault]

And yet the result is a net increase in 'terror' as a threat to the US and a net decrease in the influence of the US in the area.

Aint politics wonderful:D

[Royal Dragon]

When this is all over, Haliburton will controll Oil fields in Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran...does anything else matter?

[WinterPalm]

I would encourage everybody who is interested in these issues (the ME) to simply read as much as you can and come to your own conclusions. That means the gamut, from people like Steve Emerson, who sees an Islamic terrorist around every corner, to Sayyid Qutb, who could probably be considered the father of modern Political/Radical Islamism.

I concur with the thesis presented above that "terrorism" experts are coming out of the woodwork. I would further argue that much too much emphasis is being placed on Bernard Lewis' treatment of the Middle East. What I find most disturbing is the willingness of "experts" on each side to embark on interpretations of Middle Eastern affairs absent a firm grounding in ME history, from the founding of Islam to the present day. The most common arguments on the left and the right are hopelessly Eurocentric, IMO, speaking of, if not explicitly then implicitly, of the Occident and the other. Even the "left" models, who are adamantly opposed to Bush's policies and the interpretations of the world that form their foundations are more focused on how the ME fits into preconceived frameworks...which are then naturally used for buttressing their political argument.

We cannot continue to have political discourse about other areas of the world without hearing from them about what they think about things. And the only way to do that is to study their laws, their philosophers, their history, etc. This can occassionally be difficult; many parts of the developing world have little in the way of a written historical tradition.

The irony is that the ME is full of written history, and "experts" seem to be leaping into the fray, with little contextual guidance from in-depth study of the ME. How one can purport to be an expert on Islamist use of terror when they have little background in Islam itself is absolutely beyond me.


I agree 100%. It is not a simple issue based on baddies and goodies. I try to tell people it is a very complex issue. Even the consideration of the nation of Iraq, which is an arbitrarily (from the standpoint of ethnic tribalism) demarcation that resulted in the ongoing necessity of brutality to run the country (no, I don't support state terrorism directed at civilians but with such conflict within nations such as Iraq, the only relative peace has been achieved by dictators such as Saddam combined with worldwide sanctions).
That said, there are definate Western influences and causes for many of the issues that need to be addressed. I don't have anything against western society but historically the West has not exactly been the good guy (this refers to leaders and regimes more so than average peasants like you and I). This, complicit with globalized values, morals, and media presentations has lead to what I think is a crises in the Muslim world as it counters our different views of reality...especially our capitalist representative democracy and relative social values.

My answer: leave these countries in terms of economics and military. Deal with them on an equal footing without the threat of invasion, oppression, and slander. Do we really think democracy will survive being injected into a country? Do we think an invading force could have given Democracy to Monarch England? Most likely not regardless of the benefits.

[Merryprankster]

RD,

in general, I think your POV represents the sort of vast oversimplification I'm talking about. I do concur with the first bit re: reasons for invading Iraq and what got tacked on later. I remember - I was there too! :D

But talking about all of this as though oil were "the answer" is a bit much. Again, the issues are far more complex. I won't deny that oil is geostrategically important, but a lot of things are and they don't necessarily spur invasion.

Incidentally though, William Barnett agrees with you - although his take is slightly different, and has, IMO some validity. His statement: "It's all about the oil? Well thank god for the oil...because you know what happens when there isn't any oil? Rwanda."

WinterPalm - I agree that "the West" hasn't been the good guy, but there are significant differences between the way the world behaves post WWII and before, far left political opinions aside. Fukuyama's point, for instance, that democracy is the "default" for legitamacy is well taken; Dictatorships must at least pretend to hold elections or risk being ostracized from the international community, and human rights abuses are international headlines. The discussion of historical wrongs must be approached in light of that, in much the same way that discussions of modern day policy decisions must be made with an understanding of how history and POV will color those decisions in the eyes of many.

To return specifically to the matter at hand though, although I blame European emipres for stunting the development of an Islamic jurisprudence that can handle/smoothly integrate aspects of modernization into itself, signifcant blame must also be placed on much of the Islamic world itself. Around 1100 or so, Al Ghazali's insistance that ijtihad - the use of human reason and judgment to determine God's will in the case of ambiguous guidance - was an invalid approach to fiqh (jurisprudence) became widely expected. You will still hear it often repeated that "the gates of ijtihad are closed" The resulting stultification in advancement in math, literature, science, law, government, etc cannot be blamed on any group but the Islamic world.

In general, the West should begin dealing with the Islamic world as the provider of a rich cultural, historical and scientific legacy.... and the Islamic world needs to stop operating with a giant chip on its shoulder. What do I mean by this? If you read Al Jazeera (english.aljazeera.net) or read press releases from Arab leaders, the first words out of their mouths are about "humiliation."

What about the people? If your perceived humiliation (perceived may be actual as well) is your entering argument for negotiation, you are not entering in good faith IMO.

I'm not letting "The West" off the hook. I am merely pointing out that there is plenty of blame to go around here.

[WinterPalm]

I agree. I wouldn't label any side as being right or wrong but rather two sides of the same issue that is, as I see it, an extensive history of culture clash. It's an Islamic and Christian grudge of sorts that I imagine most people involved do not even know the beginning or why they feel that way. Why do predominantly Christian countries feel the compelling need to change other cultures? Why is the Islamic world, on the whole, unwilling to compromise or seek agreement (I think maybe fear of losing what is unique to them as a shared cultural heritage...which is even fishy considering the plethora of Islam and the divides among the various sects).
I think dynamics of power obviously have a place...especially in light of "humilations" real or perceived, and the question as to what individual Americans or Somailians, or Iraqis, or British think of the policies of their leaders is interesting. If you have a dictator maybe you can at least say that you didn't put him there to make your country conduct itself so poorly. Or if you have an elected government that acts with unilateral militarism?...are these trends reflections of what is desired at a social level?
I am not too familiar with the history of either Western or Eastern Civilization but as to what was said and done centuries ago, I think that in terms of current issues, that matter beyond a purely symbolic sense, some form of dialogue should consider these issues.

That said, what some can logically say should be done and needs to be done, and what those with power decide to do, is sometimes completely different. I honestly believe that there are people on both sides of this conflict that are benefiting immensely from keeping a constant divide...of course I haven't researched that enough to provide facts outside of paranoid dillusions:eek: ...but I'm pretty sure that neither Allah or Democracy are benefitting from what is going on.

[Faruq]

I think it's Allah vs Jesus, or Democracy vs Monarchy/Dictatorships, rather than Allah or Democracy, because they're not opposites. The Muslims are the ones that preserved all the Greek medical, mathematical and philosophical knowledge during the Dark ages, that are such a part of so many Western societies today. Hadith even says Democracy is the Islamic way of government, but try to find a democracy in the Islamic world. Islam also puts a limit of 4 on wives, but try to find a member of the Saudi royal family (or any royal family in the Gulf) who has less than 5 wives, so they don't seem to be following any parts of their religion that impede their pursuit of pleasure or power today.

[Chief Fox]

These Middle Eastern countries have too much money and that means that they can afford weapons to fight us with. For the next invasion we should go after a quick, easy and decisive win. Some place like France or Canada just to raise our spirits.

I was also thinking that Mexico would be a good target. We could solve all of those pesky imigration issues by just making making Mexico a part of the United States.

[WinterPalm]

I wasn't stating Democracy and Allah as opposing components of an argument. Rather they are two buzzwords sloganered by either side. You never hear Muslims calling for dictatorships (or maybe you do) and you don't hear Westerners calling for the Christianization of the Muslim world (or maybe you do). So those two concepts make sense.

I belive America tried to take Canada at one point falied utterly and completely...just like when they tried to take Vietnam, Iraq, etc. Military invasion is not very compatible anymore. The only way is through either ideologies, or complete and utter destruction.

[Faruq]

I was also thinking that Mexico would be a good target. We could solve all of those pesky imigration issues by just making making Mexico a part of the United States.

LOL. Good turn! Seeing that the U.S. was originally part of Mexico! LOL. Or at least California, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Montana, La Florida, Nueva Yor (ok, los Niu Yores), Nueva Yersi, etc. LOL.

[golden arhat]

The Neo-Con agenda = Feeding the troops = saving the American way of life = doing what's right.

hahahahahhahahahha

did u know that the republican party in 1998 said that they had ambitions in iraq
so the whole catch the terrorists thing is a sham
and if u want to protect america then try not invading countries where 1 there are no terrorists
by invading everywhere and supporting israel u only create more terrorists

[Merryprankster]

An interesting observation that the Hadiths call for democracy. I don't think it goes that far. It does consider ijma of the umma (The consensus of the Islamic community), but that is not the only path to legitimacy in terms of fiqh. And consensus is far different from democracy, exactly. For instance, one can reach consensus on theologically/philosophically popular holding amongst many Islamic scholars - that it is better to endure a tyrant than overthrow him and promote chaos - the point being that even tyrannic order is better than anarchy.

This is a decidedly undemocratic concept.

However, I move back to Fukuyama's point regarding democracy and legitimacy - with encroaching information technology and oft-cited globalization, the will of the people is increasingly being heard by ME governments, and as one would surmise, increasingly addressed. This does not mean, by necessity, concepts we would consider democratic or even necessarily peaceful.

Polls by several organizations, including the Pew Religious Center and others have noted that people in the ME are committed to "democracy," but have rather different notions as to what that entails.

To go back to the point, there are many who DO cast it in terms of Allah or democracy - on each side. Some western pundits have remarked that extreme political Islam, like, say the Salafists of Northern Africa, say they support democracy, but that their version of that is "one MAN, one vote, once." The point being that once an "Islamic" government is established by consensus, you don't have an option to go back. And the Salafists themselves would agree with that.

This is not to say that Islam and democratic principles aren't compatible. I think they are. The issue is really one of underdeveloped jurisprudence traditions and a rejection of perceived and actual imposed western legal/social systems. Point being that colonialism stifled the development of Islamic Jurisprudence. It didn't have to evolve to meet modern needs because the colonial powers imposed their regulatory authority on such things. By way of illustration, Islamic Banks are JUST getting around to figuring out how good Muslims deal with modern financial transactions, since all loans for interest are considered usurious and forbidden. I mean JUST in the decade or two - but that is insanely recent considering the history of banking in general.

[Merryprankster]

Or if you have an elected government that acts with unilateral militarism?...are these trends reflections of what is desired at a social level?


Not necessarily. Different people vote different issues. Most candidates do not receive a mandate. The candidate/government will be reflective of a particular set of attitudes/desires/traits, but that reflection is certainly imperfect.

And I think it is also instructive to examine the motive of the PEOPLE. I'll assume for the sake of argument that you were referring to the United States and Bush 43's exploits. Why did people vote for Bush? There were many reasons. Among the dedicated Republicans you would probably receive the Republican platform for the most part, as their reason. I'm betting that independents turned on a few things:

1. Exploited fear of another terrorist attack. Republicans are historically seen as bullish on National Security issues here, so if you're concerned about national security, the Republicans may seem more attractive.

2. Residual Post 9/11 support for Bush and a "don't change horses in the middle of the stream mentality."

3. Concerns over Kerry's leadership abilities.

None of these things is an endorsement of invading Iraq. It took until our mid-term elections for that to be nearly the over-riding issue...and even THEN, polling suggests that perceived mismanagement and ineptitude across a variety of issues - not just Iraq - played a large role in the Republican ouster from the Legislature.