“…didn’t I answer those questions for you in another thread? The answers are really quite simple.”
If you did, I am not sure which thread. Would you repeat your answers here again? And if you got more time, any thoughts about potential solutions as to why we are so hated, etc.?
Very interesting info. Unlike Mr. Tibbs, I think you are on to something. I travel a lot and attitudes toward Americans in many other countries are not so good. Do you know if there a website that tracks US deaths and also US soldiers taken off the battlefied due to severe injury? I have heard this no. in the news only once since the start of the shooting and that it has passed the 5,000 mark.
At least we have triathalons in common I guess?
“Coalition stormed in uninvited and against the will of most of the world.” Why is what “most of the world” dictating what we do? Why are they right? Recent polls (for what they are worth) say most* ***Iraqi’s consider themselves to be better off?
“utter ignorance in one thread” No one here has been ignorant, just stating their thoughts on where things are. I for one, take expception to being called ignorant and to the insinuation of being “easily manipulated” because you disagree.
“Now a magnet for terrorists” Exactly, better than here
"why Iraqis are so mad - they have lost around 10 000 civilians by well-informed estimates " your own answer “but war is sh*t” and I understand there anger but it is misplaced. If the people there (many not Iraqi) didn’t fight as civilians and hide with civilians many of those could be avoided or greatly reduced.
“Short term attitides, no respect or understanding of other cultures” Which cultures don’t we understand? What respect does the rest of the world show for our culture yet they turn to us again and again and again for the heavy lifting no one wants to do. It is easy for European countries and others to say “not my problem” because they know we will do it.
Is America or GWB or any of it perfect, not even close. Are things as clear as they want them to be no, but ultimately we are right. I know that statement makes people in your world flip out, but we are.
So we have to get our ass kicked to get the “good will” of the world? No thanks, they can keep their “good will”.
The simplest answers are the toughest to deal with. They hate us because of who we are. We are free; they are enslaved. We are rich: they are poor. We are successful; they are failures. We live in the 21st century; they live in the 11th century.
Even worse, roll the clock back 1,000 years and those relationships would be reversed. This might have something to do with why they are trying to roll the clock back 1,000 years.
If tomorrow we were to wipe out the Jews for them, give them Israel, restore the Ottoman Empire, give them back Spain and North Africa and all become Muslims, they would still hate us. That is what haters do. They hate. They hate whoever they are told to hate. This is not complicated.
You can not appease these radicals. You can not negotiate. You simply have to defeat them. We didn’t negotiate with Hitler or Tojo; we defeated them. Once you defeat them, then peace and prosperity can be established as in Germany and Japan. That is what we did with the Soviet Union. That is what we are doing in Iraq.
Not complicated. Just very painful and discouraging.
Really long
I think you have to look at the very big picture, which starts about 1300 years ago. An individual, Mohammed, roped together, numerous warring tribes and united them (after conquering them) under one faith that, from my limited reading and perspective, was built more on the individual than anything else. Almost immediately after his death, the cracks started showing. The Sunni versus Shiite schism arose from an argument over which grandson (one legitimate, one illegitimate) should lead the faithful. One of the grandsons was murdered, forever cementing the feud. Is this anyway to lead the faithful?
Islam achieved its pinnacle of achievement around 1100 AD, a time when Western civilization was cloaked in the Dark Ages. It was the retained knowledge of the Islamic world that instigated the recovery of the West. But since that time, in my opinion, the Islamic culture has seen only decline. For example, as I understand it, in Saudi Arabia science is taught now in the context of “this fact or that fact is so because Allah wills it”. What ever inspired this culture to greatness a thousand years ago has long been lost.
Muslims seem to be incredibly incensed when a Muslim brother is killed by a non-Muslim. Yet, innumerable Muslims are killed by other Muslims on a regular basis without so much as the blink of an eye. Did other Islamic countries seem terribly concerned over the fate of Iraqi citizens during Saddam Hussein’s rule? It wasn’t evident to me. Sunni ruled Iraq attempted an invasion of Shiite controlled Iran, resulting in over a million casualties. Iraq steamrolled Kuwait, an Islamic neighbor, and brutalized Kuwaiti citizens, while Saudi Arabia held its breath and looked to the West for help. There are almost weekly incidents in Pakistan of killings and bombings of Sunnis by Shiites and vice versa by militant factions of each sect.
Al Qaeda and current Iraqi insurgents conduct bombing tactics that routinely kill far more civilians, many of them Muslims, than targets. Many attacks are directly targeted at Iraqis who associate with the Coalition. In a personal, emotional opinion, Islamic extremists are most successful in attacking unarmed civilians, particularly women and children, than military targets. The days of Saladin are definitely over.
Muslims seem to have little respect for life, even if it is another Muslim. It should therefore be less of a surprise that Islam, as a culture, is in conflict with Judaism in Israel, with Hinduism in India, with Christianity in the former Yugoslav Republic, Nigeria and the Philippines, as well as the open, “immoral” culture of the Western world in general and of the United States in particular. France and Germany are banning headscarves, a case of closing the barn door too late, especially since it is also the wrong barn. Spain folded on a horrific series of bombs, but still doesn’t grasp that its actions has little to do with what Islamist extremists are planning and will continue to do, let alone the fact that the very act of folding will encourage additional violent acts. In the coming years, you will also hear of and see more of the growing conflict between the eastern reaches of Islamic culture with western China. Simply put, no other culture in the world is at odds with as many neighbors.
The foundation of the Islamic world appears to be fundamentally flawed as it is based on a human being, and all humans have their flaws. Literal and inflexible interpretations of the Koran, which is based on the sayings of Mohammed, further pins the Islamic culture to archaic thinking and limits growth and understanding. Even worse, some of the more outrageous laws of Sharia are incorrectly attributed to the Koran and are therefore protected from rational review.
A good analogy may be the decline of the U.S.S.R., only that cycle took less than sixty years from the peak to complete. The Islamic culture has stagnated for over five hundred years. The quality of life at the tail end of the Soviet Union was grim, with severe oppression, shortages, limited possibilities, and little hope. Still, some people prospered in the system and would lose that prosperity to the benefit of the masses if change occurred, and fought for the status quo. These people produced propaganda to counter the Western propaganda as to the quality of life on each side of the Iron Curtain. Other voices from the west side of the Curtain chimed in in support of the U.S.S.R. for whatever reasons. In the end, it was very clear as to who was telling the truth.
Today, we have the Islamic press, with Al Jazzera leading the way and numerous other Western voices, including France and surprisingly Russia (not so surprisingly if you look at their financial involvement with the Hussain led Iraqi government), and apparently even some Slow Twitchers. It is a similar argument, should we, a free and democratic country intervene to improve the lot of the average oppressed Iraqi citizen? Do we intervene in order to improve our security?
In my humble opinion, the answer to the first question is regrettably no, because in the long run I doubt anything will improve based on the above discussion. Nothing will improve in any Islamic country with a strong fundamental Islamic culture until Islam either reinvents itself or dies, or maybe both. I say this even after one of my brothers, an Army reservist, spent seven months there and returned still inspired to improve the lives of the average Iraqi citizen.
For the second question, I say a definite yes. Many of you may have forgotten the Persian Gulf incident during the Iraq-Iran war in which Iraq targeted a U.S. warship with a Harpoon type missile, killing I believe 37 U.S. sailors. It was claimed to be an accident. Whether or not intending to conduct any further direct actions against U.S. interests, I fully believe Hussein supported Al Qaeda efforts against the U.S. in any manner possible. I doubt the complete destruction of Al Qaeda would be possible with Hussein still in power.
I do not see a positive future for Iraq in the near term after the departure of the U.S. I think it will sink into the muck or the desert equivalent. In which case, the sooner our guys leave the better, to reduce our casualties. Our guys are much more valuable then this cause. The security threat has been reduced, it will remain to be seen what arises as the vacuum is filled by the new Iraqi government.
Now, can we just get back to triathlon stuff??? I really do hate politics. Really really
Where does your hatered for the rest of the world come from? I can’t understand you selfish need to put America first. There is a big world out there and it is abpout damn time we became part of it.
No hatred implied. My country isn’t first in my personal priorities but it will always be the country I put first!
Nothing meant personal. Bu sometimes it appears that you see US politcal thought as being in only 2 camps: republicans (and bushy’s fans) and democrats (kerry’s fans?). I am neither. And I think many other folks are neither also. Certainly opposing the current bloodbath in the middle east oil patch does not automatically make one a kerry fan.
"It seems to me that there is a whole list of options between: kick ass or have your ass kicked… "
Completely Agree! I think the best option is to OUTWIT the enemy and have them kick THEMSELVES in the ass. And it can be done. We got the brains to do it and the enemy, while fanatical fundamentalists for sure, are quite visibly short in the brains dept.
“The definition of diplomacy is the ability to tell someone to go to hell and have them actually look forward to the trip.”
hey greg,
i agree…it does seem that a lot of folks polarize the political thought into a republican vs. democrat perspective (or bush v. kerry). turns out it is more complex than that. one way to make sense out of the mess is to poll folks and then analyze the results along different independent axes (well, at least the statisticians try to make them independent of one another). the polls i have encountered suggest that support for the iraq war is divided along party lines, along educational lines, and along racial lines, but not with respect to income, and only weakly with respect to gender. see below–the link is at the end of the article…both from gallup and pew polls, which are some of the best out there.
Those who most strongly support military action to remove Hussein are white, Republican, evangelical Christians who do not hold college degrees and, by growing numbers, live in rural areas. Those most strongly opposing military action are white Democrats with postgraduate degrees and African-Americans who live in urban areas.
Older Americans are among the most resistant to conflict but also the most likely to say they are unsure of their positions on Iraq.
Both Gallup and Pew released new analyses of their polling data on the question of war. Overall, the Pew analysis detected a slight shift toward support for a war from those who had previously been undecided, with little change among those who already had formed opinions either favoring or opposing the use of force.
College graduates and those with advanced degrees consistently have expressed higher levels of opposition to the war than those with less formal education.
In large cities, opposition to the war has grown, while in the suburbs support has moved up slightly. In small towns and rural areas, support for war has “grown dramatically,” according to the Pew analysis.
Pew also found a clear racial split. When asked the general question about a war–without the issue of UN support raised–blacks opposed a war 47 percent to 42 percent, whites favored a war 71 percent to 21 percent, and Hispanics favored a war 68 percent to 28 percent. The gulf between whites and blacks has grown by 10 percentage points in surveys taken December to February and those taken August to October.
A slim majority of Democrats is supportive of a war, while more than 8 in 10 Republicans say they favor it. Independents support a war by about 2-1.
Historically, polls have shown men to be more supportive of military action. The same is true in this case, but the gender gap is not great: 59 percent of men favor a war, as do 51 percent of women, when asked the general war question by Gallup. Polling has shown no strong trend based on income
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0303070308mar07,1,1986721.story
The simplest answers are the toughest to deal with. They hate us because of who we are. We are free; they are enslaved. We are rich: they are poor. We are successful; they are failures. We live in the 21st century; they live in the 11th century.
Those sure are some simple answers alright. Completely wrong, but simple.
You’re saying that terrorism springs from poverty, oppression, and failure? Then why doesn’t terrorism ever spring from the groups of people who are the poorest and most oppressed? If you think the Arabs generally or the Islamists specifically fit that definition, I suggest you broaden your study of the peoples of the world.
Well, let’s see. I’m white, male, reasonably young, conservative Catholic, I live in a semi-rural area, I don’t have a college degree, neither Democrat or Republican and I’m solidly middle class. And I have green eyes.
What does the poll say I should think?
Who cares? I don’t see the point of categorizing things this way unless you’re gathering data for a political campaign. Can’t we just debate the issue on its own merits? Is that really too much to ask?
Interesting, but I would have to disagree.
People in the middle east and islamic world did not nearly have the distaste for us, say, 40 to 50 years ago as they do now. Something quite significant has happened in the last few decades that has changed this. Also, I think many folks who have been poor and lived in fairly poor societies have actually admired the USA for its freedom and opportunity (and for its wealth). Also, in my travels I have seen that distaste for us seems to be much, much broader worldwide than just the “enslaved, poor, unsuccessful, 11th century” peoples or countries.
I agree you cannot appease these radicals. But you can act in a way (as a country) that does not seem to incite as much raw hatred? Also, if you attempt to ‘defeat’ them, are there smarter ways to do it than the way we are doing it now? I say, yes.
Your point is basically that if all you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail. Your point is well taken. We hear lots about our hammer, our military, but we are using other tools as well. We are using accountants and investigators. We are also trying to establish democracy in their midst. We have quite an arsenal. Can we do better? Sure. On balance I would not want to bet against us for long.
The thing that has changed in the last 40 or 50 years is the pouring of oil wealth into the Middle East. This provides the resources to execute on the hatred. That answers vitus’s question as well regarding the fact these problems don’t spring from the poorest areas of the world.
Thanks, Art.
Now I guess the question is, just what are we trying to accomplish in Iraq? Seriously. Someone please spell it out for me. We went there because Hussein was a bad guy who was a threat. I’ll grant that premise for the sake of argument. He’s gone now. What are we hoping to accomplish by staying there?
We are trying to undermine the sick culture of the Middle East that has allowed it, alone in the entire world, to make no social, political and economic progress for any number of decades or even centuries. We are doing this by establishing a successful model of freedom and democracy in the heart of the region.
Roll the tape forward two or three decades. Success in Iraq will undermine the dictatorships in the other 21 Arab countries. The end result will be freedom which is the engine of progress. The radicals are desperate to prevent this since it will destroy their power. Thus we have the attacks in Iraq which were completely predictable and predicted. More of the same will continue for many years. The cost in blood and treasure will be substantial.
To respond to Tri_larry in another thread, we fight away from our shores so we don’t have to fight on our shores. In that way we enhance our security.
There will be benefits outside the region as part of this process as well. The most notable dividends to date have been the destruction of the engine of nuclear proliferation out of Pakistan and the disarming of weapons of mass destruction by Libya.
Our soldiers and countryman risk their lives that they might bring freedom and prosperity to millions. 50,000,000 so far in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a good start.
“Roll the tape forward two or three decades. Success in Iraq will undermine the dictatorships in the other 21 Arab countries.”
But AJ, why did we (the US) then previously support financially, militarily, and politically many of these same dictatorships in past years? This flip-flopping with the wind (or perhaps, more accurately, flip-flopping with the money flow) is one of the very reasons we are so despised there and in many other parts of the world. They conclude (and perhaps rightly) that the US follows money, oil, and power and not freedom and true democracy.
Foreign policy is a tough and pragmatic business. If your point is that the US has often let expediency triumph over the consist pursuit of the advancement of freedom and democracy around the world, you are obviously correct. In fact you are correct far more often than you are wrong.
On the other hand, we get it right at the expense of our apparent immediate interest far more often than any other country. We did win WWI, WWII and the Cold War after all, to the immeasurable benefit to the rest of the world.
I guess I am an optimist. I believe that the things you do right are generally much more important than what you do wrong. The US gets it right a lot. All countires and people follow money, oil and power, but the US has freedom and democracy on the list too. Sometimes they even get to the top of the list.
We are doing this by establishing a successful model of freedom and democracy in the heart of the region.
How exactly?
We’re currently fighting tooth and nail to prevent a direct election in Iraq.
Let me say it again: we, the gloriously democratic United States of America, are doing every thing in our power to prevent a one man, one vote system in Iraq. We’re trying to install a hated exile and proven liar (Chalabi) as the PM.
Why would we do that, Art? Why wouldn’t we give the long-suffering Iraqis their first sweet taste of…oh, right.
Because we fear the result. Yes, our fears have a funny way of getting in the way of our hopes in this region (as well as most others). Do you remember when Saddam killed millions as a client-state of the US? No?
Well, the Shia do…and so does Iran. Something tells me that your view of our eternal benevolence of Uncle Sam isn’t shared by people who have suffered under the heels of his numerous clients in the region.
Who do you think props up the the dictatorships in the other 21 Arab countries (Syria excluded)? Russia? The Hapsburg Empire?
No, bub. Your tax dollars and mine…though I would put Iran (not an Arab country, as I’m sure you know) in a slightly different category.
We don’t support the SCIR, but we did overthrow the only democratically elected government they ever had (Mossadegh, 1954) and replaced it with the Shah, who was not exactly an engine of progress.
Here’s a question I bet you can’t answer:
Which was the last Arab country to hold a direct, national election? What happened?
How does what happened effect you view on the viability/desireability of a true democracy in Iraq? How would you avoid the problems that have plagued Nation X since that election?
(Anyone can chime in here folks, Art’s likely going to need some help)
Here’s an easier one: do you remember the first Gulf War? Do you remember how the liberation of Kuwait was supposed to be linked to democratic reforms in that country? How did that go? Elections? Women’s rights? Religious tolerance?
Speak up, now…I can’t hear you over the Emir flushing his 24k gold toilet.
There will be benefits outside the region as part of this process as well. The most notable dividends to date have been the destruction of the engine of nuclear proliferation out of Pakistan and the disarming of weapons of mass destruction by Libya.
You must be joking. You can’t be serious.
If you think the AQ Khan network has been “destroyed” then I want some of what you’re smoking. The man was PARDONED and is walking around Rawalpindi AS WE SPEAK, doing business with all sorts of folks. Now he promised Pervez he’s going to be a good boy, but he’s hardly “destroyed”
Pakistan is still very, very dangerous as a unregulated exporter of a bunch of nasty stuff, nuke tech being just one problem area…I’d bore you with a couple pages about different factions within ISI (none of whom are friendly to the US), but what’s the point?
And Libya? Please. The Libya deal has been in the works for years, if you didn’t know that then you’re even less informed than I thought you were.
Our soldiers and countryman risk their lives that they might bring freedom and prosperity to millions. 50,000,000 so far in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a good start.
That is a good start.
Truth be told, it’s a very shitty start, stacked with dead Americans, dead Iraqis and dead Afghanis and a whole huge assload of American taxpayer dollars.
If he’s alive (and I hope he’s not) UBL is thanking Allah for our massive stupidity and bottomless arrogance.
And it’s going to be a shitty finish, too…because when we pull up stakes and (substantially) leave Iraq in time for the big “Mission Accomplised, Seriously” parade this July, the country isn’t going to be anything like **a successful model of freedom and democracy in the heart of the region. **
Disagree?
No problem, bro.
We’ll just wait and see…like you say, The cost in blood and treasure will be substantial, but in my opinion, the results are fairly predictable.
hiya vitus,
thanks for your response. i think you are completely misapprehending the point of polls. they are not meant to “tell you what you should think”, or anything of that nature. so what are they good for? every issue that is being debated here has two layers. one is the ground layer of facts…an example of this would be the lack of WMDs found. it is incontrovertible, until demonstrated otherwise. the second layer is the emotional response of the person interpreting the facts. think of that layer as a “lens” through which they see the world. that lens is powerful, and can shape how a person uses or misuses facts.
much of what shows up in debates like this is emotion, and not fact. so, i find it very helpful, as a way of trying to understand the “merits” of an issue, to understand the “lenses”. my own, and those of others. to educate myself about stuff, i don’t just read the liberal press, i read the conservative press as well, even (gasp) watch FOX on occasion. polls are a very strong tool to help understand the “lenses” that people see issues through. naturally, they are of limited use, they imply correlations and not causative links, all that. but they are nonetheless one of the few non-emotional ways of getting at the context from which certain opinions arise. as an intellectually curious person, which you seem to be, i would think you would find that a very valuable part of any debate.
i have lots of emotions when reading these posts, naturally. for example, when i see people saying “kill them all and let their god sort 'em out”, or suggesting that “10 tons of explosives would wipe the smile off of their faces”, it makes me sick. how can anyone who writes that think things like that legitimately see themselves as all that different from the jeering folks in the crowd? if you read the new york times, on the front page today was a story about how many iraqis are feeling great shame about the recent mob killing. some local merchant said (i am paraphrasing) “yes, we hate the americans, but what happened was wrong. we are all children of god”. amazing to me that with all of the advantages that might contribute to us being more enlightened, many of us can’t even match that guy in terms of being able to see things with some equanimity.
but all that being said, that’s just my emotional response. and it is not entirely clear to me that all this emotional back and forth is going to serve much purpose beyond digging everyone a little deeper in their trenches.
regards, toad