Arab World vs Western World from their POV

[Bob McDob]

Erm, reverse the quote parts of that last post.

Arab Street is just a name for the various countries of the Arabic world. I guess, anyway.

WHICH Arab countries? The ones in the Middle East? The "Evil Axis" of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and (formerly) Iraq? Would we include Jordan in that list? What about the five "stans of Midasia?

[MKSheppard]

WHICH Arab countries? The ones in the Middle East? The "Evil Axis" of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and (formerly) Iraq? Would we include Jordan in that list? What about the five "stans of Midasia?

Basically the entire Arab Muslim world, which is pretty much most of the
middle east, where despotic rulers rail against the "zionists" with propaganda
that Joeseph Goebbels would love to take attention away from their own
fucked up economies.

[Joe]

Erm, reverse the quote parts of that last post.

Arab Street is just a name for the various countries of the Arabic world. I guess, anyway.

WHICH Arab countries? The ones in the Middle East? The "Evil Axis" of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and (formerly) Iraq? Would we include Jordan in that list? What about the five "stans of Midasia?

The Arab, Muslim world. Something difficult to understand about this? It's not really derogatory.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But who says it's just underdog syndrome and admiration of extremists? Might they not be looking at the history and using that as the basis of their belief that the western powers simply want to subjugate the Arab world? Most violent people believe that the targets of their aggression "started it" or were about to. Why should the Muslims be an exception? I think they sincerely believe they're about to get steamrolled by the western nations for their resources, and I don't think the western world has done enough to contradict this idea. Wild-ass rhetoric about "fighting for freedom" doesn't cut it; the Europeans who fought the slavers of Algiers probably said the same thing.

Then why don't they do something, Mike? Especially, perhaps, recognize that the extremists are simply ineffective? Look at Mustafa Kemal. His nation, the old Ottoman Empire, was being chopped to bits by the western powers. Had they had their way, it would have been much, much smaller than it is today. But he felt an incredible anger on seeing occupying European troops in Istanbul.

Did this make him into some kind of fundamentalist or religious fanatic? Absolutely not.. His response was to into the interior, and speak with the opposition which had fled there. He resigned his commission as a general, and then took command of his troops through popular acclaim. He was facing the Greeks, the Italians, the French, other Ottoman forces. The country was in absolute chaos.

But he had, however, an army organized on western lines, trained in the German style, men who fought for nationalism, for the cause of a Turkish nation, now, as opposed to any religious fervour. And he led them gallantly, as an experienced commander, who promised them freedom. The result was that order was restored. The Greeks were stunningly defeated after being drawn inside of Anatolia; the Italians and French were made to withdraw. He negotiated with the USSR and secured a large region of old Russian annexations.

In all areas he was completely successful. And then he proceeded to build a nation, which remains one of the most powerful of the Muslim world, out of the bones of an old, ruined Empire. And he did it on western principles, banning the influence of religion from the government and from social life, secularizing the whole nation, suppressing the Sufi Orders. Modern Turkey is a wholly functioning republic; and despite the disagreements we've had with it, I must confess it to have chosen its own course quite legitimately.

The Muslim world in general, however, has not followed this course over the long term. The Arabs started, in the era of Nasserism. They copied, however, the USSR, instead of the USA--and they failed because of it. In the wake of those various economic and bureaucratical failures, or sinking into tyrannical dictatorships, an old enemy has come back. The fundamentalist groups, hardly all of the population, but enough, and supported by enough money, to exert influence, have started to rise.

My concern is precisely that people in the Muslim world look to the fundamentalists as a solution to the problem of the West, instead of the West as a solution to the problem of the West. The only Muslim countries which have ever succeeded in repelling us are those which have copied us, and the Islamic world must take this to heart. Not just nominally, in the army, but wholly, at all levels of society, as Turkey did.

If they do that, then they can dictate terms to western powers, and keep superpowers at least off their turf. If they turn to fundamentalism? They will be eternally weak, and worse yet, eternally dangerous, for it sanctions religious slaughter of the innocent. That is why I say we must act. We must either destroy the fundamentalist elements ourselves, or discredit them enough to send men like Kemal to power in other Muslim countries--I honestly would not care if we got beat by someone like him, as it would mean, in truth, that we had won in all the particulars.

[RedImperator]

Arab Street is just a name for the various countries of the Arabic world. I guess, anyway.

The "Arab street" is basically a synonym for "Mohommad Q. Public": the regular people just going about their lives. They're called the Arab street from, I guess, the idea that in Arab countries, most social interaction takes place on the streets, in the markets and cafes and whatnot, and also their percieved propensity to take to the streets and throw rocks and burn things.

They're the same mass of people who exist in every country who could, by a collective act of will, overturn their entire government and society. The Arab street is brought up often because they're the biggest "X" factor in Middle Eastern policy and they're considered volitaile. You know the corrupt oligarchs will go along with you because you're propping them up, and you know the fanatics will oppose you even if you were giving away free money and blowjobs to everybody, but you never know if the Arab street is going to stand around eating dates or storm the American embassy.

[Bob McDob]

The Arab, Muslim world. Something difficult to understand about this? It's not really derogatory.

Yes, I am confused. What constitutes the "Arab, Muslim" world? Not all Muslims are Arabs (even though Islam is really a regional thing). Do you have to believe implicity what countries like Saudi Arabia sprouts to be part of the Arab world?

[Bob McDob]

Marina: I don't think "destroying the Fundamentalist elements ourselves" would work - it could turn out like Japan, democratized and reasonably successful (after a long, bloody struggle in which millions died) - or it could be like the American South, where "Reconstruction" brews a repressed hatred that resulted in greater numbers of lynchings and anger that required intervention by the federal government and that, in some places has still not been stamped out, one hundred fifty years later?

I'd think a country like Saudi Arabia has more in common with the Confederacy than the Imperials.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina: I don't think "destroying the Fundamentalist elements ourselves" would work - it could turn out like Japan, democratized and reasonably successful (after a long, bloody struggle in which millions died) - or it could be like the American South, where "Reconstruction" brews a repressed hatred that resulted in greater numbers of lynchings and anger that required intervention by the federal government and that, in some places has still not been stamped out, one hundred fifty years later?

Yes, but as Mike pointed out, the "intervention" has already happened in the form of the Imperialist Era. Now the "reconstruction" must take place.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

(Reconstruction more in the sense of the 60s and the civil rights era than that which took place immediately after the Civil War, mind.)

[Bob McDob]

That "reconstruction" didn't come in the form of a second American Civl War, though. It was mainly through peaceful protests and change from within (along with a little "friendly encouragement" from the Federal government).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That "reconstruction" didn't come in the form of a second American Civl War, though. It was mainly through peaceful protests and change from within (along with a little "friendly encouragement" from the Federal government).

It's not a good analogy regardless, however, because we're talking about action on a cultural level across multiple States, as opposed to some social action inside a single State. However, I was using it as a comparative.

[Sarevok]

So I suspect that moderate Muslims, rather than screaming praises to Allah and dreaming of 72 virgins in heaven, are actually looking at the history and wondering if it's going to repeat itself. A Muslim state violating human rights and harassing neighbour states, attacked by the US in Gulf War 1 and forced to make concessions, eventually invaded outright in Gulf War 2 ... same pattern so far. I'm not saying that America or the entire western world is necessarily planning to steamroll over the entire Muslim world again (although people like Marina unabashedly advocate such a move), but if I were a moderate Muslim, I think I would have noticed the historical parallels.

You are abosolutely right. There is a vast conspiracy theory in the muslim world about the US colonisation of the entire world. The Iraq war was perceived as part of the grand scheme of US world domination. To the average man in the Arab street Iraq was invaded simply because it's oil resources could be used to power the American war machine.

This is exactly what most muslims are thinking. And this perceived agression by the US is what drives certain people towards Jihad.

I wonder just how many muslims know the facts of history instead of some distorted version of them or just being ignorant of them. I would bet that they think the U.S. seeks to subjagate them economically using its military, economic, and political power. I would also bet they beleive the U.S. is going to support Isreal to the detriment of neighboring Arabs. However, who can say without asking them. Perhaps there is poll on the net somewhere?

Maybe the muslims distort history to a certain degree but not everything they believe is wrong. A lot of their grievences about Israel and US agression is valid.

I can't really blame the Israelis for attacking preemptively
the way the Japanese did in 1941.

While I do not support Israel's policy of agression I do support your view that Israel has the right to defend itself. But self defence does not equate to grabbing other peoples land.

I dunno, it just occurred to me that if I were a moderate Muslim, this is the sort of thing I might be thinking. I just have a hard time believing that so many peoples' feelings on the subject can be simply characterized and dismissed as fanaticism, with no other basis.

I agree. Anti-Americanism can not be dismissed as simply fanaticism. People from all over the world opposed the War on Iraq. They can not all be fanatical fools for they greatly outnumber pro-war, pro-Bush people.

Too many more moderate Muslims accept this sort of thing, partly at least because they do have some real grievances with the United States, and they see these fringe groups of fanatics standing up to the American juggernaut, so they admire them for that. This is understandable, but they need to realize that regardless of their courage, one should not admire fanatical extremists, particularly ones that target innocent people for killing. It makes it harder to reach accomodation with your adversaries, since they will now have legitimate grounds to suspect you of extremismin your views. It also is generally a bad thing to let certain people's courage and strength of conviction blind you, or at least make you willing to overlook frankly despicable aspects of their character and methods.

I agree that the support for violent extremists is wrong. But some of the causes that these terrorists are fighting for are valid. That is why some people support them. UBL and the like are the only ones who dared to stand up to American injustice. That made them heroes since no other muslim goverment dared to do so.

You can't ignore the concerns of an entire race by dismissing them wholescale as "hatred and vitriolic from Arab Street (where is Arab Street, anyway? New York?)

It's not just the Arabs. Most of the world does not like America and George W Bush. One can not say that a minority of American hawks are right and rest of the world is wrong.

Want me to quote radio transcripts from 1967 and compare them
to the same bullshit being spewed forth today from Arab state-run
radio stations ?

But how do you explain Anti-Americanism in rest of the world, especialy Europe ?

They may very well see things that way. We certainly ought to be trying to change their perception if that is so, but I'm not sure it will be possible to do that with words alone. It will certainly help our case if we can build a stable government in Iraq, and then move out of Iraq ourselves. I think it will have to be something like that. Deeds, rather than words will have to do our persuading for us.

I think if the Americans can convince the Arabs that they will leave Iraq in a better shape than they came in that will certainly help.

Basically the entire Arab Muslim world, which is pretty much most of the
middle east, where despotic rulers rail against the "zionists" with propaganda
that Joeseph Goebbels would love to take attention away from their own
fucked up economies.

You are forgetting that most muslims actualy live in countries outside the middle east. The muslim world consists of people of many languages, cultures and ethinticity.

My concern is precisely that people in the Muslim world look to the fundamentalists as a solution to the problem of the West, instead of the West as a solution to the problem of the West. The only Muslim countries which have ever succeeded in repelling us are those which have copied us, and the Islamic world must take this to heart. Not just nominally, in the army, but wholly, at all levels of society, as Turkey did.

I think you are forgetting that most Arab countries have been westernized to a great deal. From my personal experience city states like Dubai and the Emirates are more like Hong Kong and Singapore. They still have some weird laws though.

The problem is not introducing western culture since the Arabs are already used to that. They wear western dresses, drive fast cars, listen to western musics and do other western stuff. Of course the Mullahs and the more conservatives do not do all these but many Arabs are totaly westernized.

The thing is Arabs want an end to American agression. They infact call it American-Jewish agression and believe in some conspiracy theory about the Jews controlling America. If America ceased support to Israel things would have been much better.

Pakistan even sent fighter pilots and jets for the Six Days War, and countries from Iraq to Algeria sent detachments of troops to participate. And they all lost. It was exceptionally humiliating not just to a few countries, but the whole region.

FYI one of the pilots were from my town. He is the only fighter pilot to down five Israeli aircraft.

[Perinquus]

It's not just the Arabs. Most of the world does not like America and George W Bush. One can not say that a minority of American hawks are right and rest of the world is wrong.

How is that statement not an appeal to popularity?

The thing is Arabs want an end to American agression. They infact call it American-Jewish agression and believe in some conspiracy theory about the Jews controlling America. If America ceased support to Israel things would have been much better.

Here is where we run into a real problem. America is simply not going to cease support for Israel. In the first place, Israel is the only functioning democracy in an area dominated by theocracies and dictatorships, and as such, garners much more sympathy from the American people in general. In the second place, Israel is a long-standing ally, and this carries with it a certain degree of moral and ethical obligation. In the third place, the political reality is that there is a considerable Jewish population in the United States, many of whom have friends and relatives in Israel; they form a large voting bloc that no American president can afford to alienate completely, as abandoning all support for Israel would certainly do. In the fourth place, we have commitments and promises to Israel that we would have to break outright in order to cease all support to them. This would irreparably damage US credibility. Why should other nations ever again trust the United States to honor its commitments or live up to its obligations when it kicks a long-standing ally to the curb simply because it is the expedient thing to do? We did just that with South Vietnam in the 1870s, and it really hurt our reputation among smaller nations. This made it far more difficult to deal with them, or persuade them to deal with us in good faith.

Any solution to the current American/Arab relations crisis absolutely cannot be predicated upon an end to US support of Israel, because this is not going to happen. It is politically impossible. Any practical solution must come to terms with the fact that US support for Israel will continue. This is not to say that we will stamp our approval on everything they do; we haven't always in the past, and have occasionally exerted pressure on them to moderate their policies. But support for Israel will continue, and any proposals that demand otherwise are based in wishful thinking. They are a waste of time, nothing more.

If this issue is to be dealt with effectively, solutions have to be based on what is possible, practical, and realistic.

[MKSheppard]

FYI one of the pilots were from my town. He is the only fighter pilot to down five Israeli aircraft.

Next time, try to be more serious. The IAF has been shooting Arab
planes down in one-sided kill ratios for decades. If you had said
"he was one of the few to down five Israeli pilots with his SAM
battery", then I'd believe you.

No excessive lol smilies- Vympel

[MKSheppard]

While I do not support Israel's policy of agression I do support your view that Israel has the right to defend itself. But self defence does not equate to grabbing other peoples land.

Listen, dimbulb....Nasser KNEW exactly what the Israelis would consider
an act of war, and then he promptly went and did those exact same
things, and then was surprised when his overly politicized army got
curb-stomped by the IDF...

Sure...evicting the UN peace keepers and stationing 40,000 troops on
Israel's borders is "defensive"

[MKSheppard]

hahaha

In 1983-84, F-16s played a key role in Operation Drugstore, an attack on Syrian missile sites in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Numerous missile sites were attacked and destroyed and fierce air battles with Syrian fighters took place. A total of 92 Syrian fighter (more than 30% of total inventory) were shot down, and Israeli F-16s achieved a 44-0 kill ratio. One aircraft reportedly shot down four Syrian fighters in a single sortie. There is at least one IDF/AF F-16 with four Syrian kill-markings on its fuselage.

[MKSheppard]

LOL
Yom Kippur War:

Israeli Losses, 15 to Air to air, 99 to SAMs and other causes.
Arab losses: 277 air to air losses, 22 On ground, 43 SAM, 100 other.

[Sarevok]

Next time, try to be more serious. The IAF has been shooting Arab
planes down in one-sided kill ratios for decades. If you had said
"he was one of the few to down five Israeli pilots with his SAM
battery", then I'd believe you.

I never met the guy so I may have been hearing propoganda from my goverment who wanted to glorify their military personnel. Please do not blame me for that, I only reported what I heard from people and read in local newspapers. As you know the current Pakistani goverment is a military one and may be distorting the facts.

I saw a list of kills / losses for Israeli aircraft on your website. I am going through it now.

[Stravo]

I think one of the fundamental problems that the Arabs have is that they don't even know what they want or who they are. The radicals (and I want to add many moderates) hate the west because of perceived injustices and slights against them.

The radicals see the West as a horrible influence on their view of a perfect Muslim world. That world CANNOT be secular which the West represents and is. We are everything that they cannot be. We are concerned with self. Islam like many other religions is concerned with the community, partly by making you a good person you have a better communit. The West encourages freedom of thought and expression, Islam is about obedience and surrendering to the will of God.

The moderates see the good parts of the west but are having serious trouble integrating Western ideals in their culture and every day life because frankly they clash. Christianity adapts well to the Western culture because Christian leaders were very adept at adapting the religion to almost any set of circumstances, going so far as absorbing other religions' ceremonies, holy places and even gods. (The Cult of Mary in the Cathloic church is simply another face of the anceint goddess religions)
Islam is NOT about adaption, it is about rigid rules of conduct and spirituality.

Now this does not automatically translate into backwards third world nonsense like we're seeing in many Arab nations today, the Muslim world of the ealry middle ages was a vibrant culture that over shadowed European culture for centuries. The Arabs were more open minded, more scholarly and more willing to live with other cultures, in other words more flexible. The Muslim states of the Iberian peninsula were a prime example of the ancient Arab mindset, you had Christians living with Jews living with Muslims and there was rarely any outright oppression, in stark contrast when the forces of the Reconquista took over mulsim held lands the Jews and muslim populations were oppressed.

What happened?

I don't rightfully know, muslim history is not my speciality but obviously there was a radical shift in their culture that disdained open discourse and free exchange of ideas and embraced a near blind embracing of religious devotion.

There was a recent global conference of Muslim clerics and theologians in Koala Lampur and they were discussing the future of Islam in a growing westernized world and at no time did they condemn the radical fringe in their own ranks but instead blamed the West for many of their problems and cited a growing anti-islamist movement in the West but they did not accomplish anything, they were not able to even issue a joint statement because of the different agendas at work. They are a fragmented society and culture trying to oppose the juggernaut that is the West.

Unfortunately its not that easy. It's easy to point to the monolithic west and say "They're bad, they're the source of all our evils." While turning a blind eye to the evil in their own midst. The Arab leaders buy off these radicals within their own nations and many sort of hope they just go away. At the same time these radicals, free to act are painting the muslim world on a bloody canvas for the West to easily marginalize as "Crazy ragheads."

[The Dark]

But who says it's just underdog syndrome and admiration of extremists? Might they not be looking at the history and using that as the basis of their belief that the western powers simply want to subjugate the Arab world? Most violent people believe that the targets of their aggression "started it" or were about to. Why should the Muslims be an exception? I think they sincerely believe they're about to get steamrolled by the western nations for their resources, and I don't think the western world has done enough to contradict this idea. Wild-ass rhetoric about "fighting for freedom" doesn't cut it; the Europeans who fought the slavers of Algiers probably said the same thing.

I would agree if it was the moderates (Qatar, some of Jordan) that were rabidly anti-American. But it's the Wahhabists, a Muslim sect more conservative than Jerry Falwell. They are people who rewrite history to present the point of view they wish to put forth. I have moderate Muslim friends (who admittedly are somewhat "Westernized"), but their ulamas condemn the Wahhabists as conservative extremists (think Waco cult to the nth degree). I agree our foreign relations have been shit; that's Bush and Blair having no credibility.

[Bob McDob]

Unfortunately its not that easy. It's easy to point to the monolithic west and say "They're bad, they're the source of all our evils." While turning a blind eye to the evil in their own midst. The Arab leaders buy off these radicals within their own nations and many sort of hope they just go away. At the same time these radicals, free to act are painting the muslim world on a bloody canvas for the West to easily marginalize as "Crazy ragheads."

They'll only do that if we let them. We simply MUST establish closer ties with the Arabic world in general (which I suppose we can agree generally consists of the strip of land from Morroco to Iran). It is crucial to the success of the War on Terrorism - we can't expect them to take the first step. They're as distrustful of westerners as westerners are of arabs - they're fed the stereotypes and horror stories, same as us. We also need some sort of carrot to get them to change for good - hell, we offered Turkey what, 30 billion? Let's see us do the same with the Wahabbists, with the added stick of stopping oil purchaces. For all its fuck-ups, one thing the Bush administration has been pursuing, albeit quietly, is research into alternatives.

[Stravo]

Unfortunately its not that easy. It's easy to point to the monolithic west and say "They're bad, they're the source of all our evils." While turning a blind eye to the evil in their own midst. The Arab leaders buy off these radicals within their own nations and many sort of hope they just go away. At the same time these radicals, free to act are painting the muslim world on a bloody canvas for the West to easily marginalize as "Crazy ragheads."

They'll only do that if we let them. We simply MUST establish closer ties with the Arabic world in general (which I suppose we can agree generally consists of the strip of land from Morroco to Iran). It is crucial to the success of the War on Terrorism - we can't expect them to take the first step. They're as distrustful of westerners as westerners are of arabs - they're fed the stereotypes and horror stories, same as us. We also need some sort of carrot to get them to change for good - hell, we offered Turkey what, 30 billion? Let's see us do the same with the Wahabbists, with the added stick of stopping oil purchaces. For all its fuck-ups, one thing the Bush administration has been pursuing, albeit quietly, is research into alternatives.

The problem is that we are approaching the Arab world by Western standards and looking at them through Western eyes. They are NOT westren and many don't WANT to be westernized. Part of that religious summit I cited to was to come up with a plan on how the Islamic world could oppose Globlaization.

They don't want to be assimilated. The Western notions that our superior culture will win them over is partly what offends them about us and the thought of buying them off again plays to the sterotype of the west as a Jew driven culture obssessed with money and material goods.

The solution I would prefer is a SELFLESS act that the extremists would find difficult to paint in a negative light. We need a Marshall Plan for the ME. A few trillion dollars to build roads, infrastructure, schools, etc and ask NOTHING in return and let our works speak for themselves. In afghanistan we are not seeing Mujahedden type attacks as the Soviets suffered because of the Humanatiarian aide coupled with the assistance in rebuilding (frankly we can do better than what we're doign but it's a start.) American forces have undertaken. Under the Taliban not a single woman was in college, today we have 3 million women in college in Afghnaistan...THAT is America, THAT is what we should be about, not bombing them into submission but killing the exremists with kindness.

Think of Stalin and how he handled the Marshall Plan...he couldn't attack it, it was charity to save Europe from starving to death in the WInter of 46 and what could the Soviets offer? NOTHING. We start building roads, ralways, schools, power generation facilities, supermarkets, etc what can the extremists like Ossama offer? A bomb laden vest?

We have the experience in fighting and waging a winning war of ideas, we defeated COmmunism whoch at its height had adhrenets equal to Islam, I propose we do the same here, attack the fundamentalists with something they can't counter...good deeds.

Unfortunately these good deeds cost money. The question is whether we're willing to spend it now or later in waging another premeptive war.

[MKSheppard]

Let's see us do the same with the Wahabbists, with the added stick of stopping oil purchaces. For all its fuck-ups, one thing the Bush administration has been pursuing, albeit quietly, is research into alternatives.

Er...the only thing the Wahabbists deserve is being shot down like the
dogs they are in a violent revolution.

[Bob McDob]

Unfortunately its not that easy. It's easy to point to the monolithic west and say "They're bad, they're the source of all our evils." While turning a blind eye to the evil in their own midst. The Arab leaders buy off these radicals within their own nations and many sort of hope they just go away. At the same time these radicals, free to act are painting the muslim world on a bloody canvas for the West to easily marginalize as "Crazy ragheads."

They'll only do that if we let them. We simply MUST establish closer ties with the Arabic world in general (which I suppose we can agree generally consists of the strip of land from Morroco to Iran). It is crucial to the success of the War on Terrorism - we can't expect them to take the first step. They're as distrustful of westerners as westerners are of arabs - they're fed the stereotypes and horror stories, same as us. We also need some sort of carrot to get them to change for good - hell, we offered Turkey what, 30 billion? Let's see us do the same with the Wahabbists, with the added stick of stopping oil purchaces. For all its fuck-ups, one thing the Bush administration has been pursuing, albeit quietly, is research into alternatives.

The problem is that we are approaching the Arab world by Western standards and looking at them through Western eyes. They are NOT westren and many don't WANT to be westernized. Part of that religious summit I cited to was to come up with a plan on how the Islamic world could oppose Globlaization.

They don't want to be assimilated. The Western notions that our superior culture will win them over is partly what offends them about us and the thought of buying them off again plays to the sterotype of the west as a Jew driven culture obssessed with money and material goods.

The solution I would prefer is a SELFLESS act that the extremists would find difficult to paint in a negative light. We need a Marshall Plan for the ME. A few trillion dollars to build roads, infrastructure, schools, etc and ask NOTHING in return and let our works speak for themselves. In afghanistan we are not seeing Mujahedden type attacks as the Soviets suffered because of the Humanatiarian aide coupled with the assistance in rebuilding (frankly we can do better than what we're doign but it's a start.) American forces have undertaken. Under the Taliban not a single woman was in college, today we have 3 million women in college in Afghnaistan...THAT is America, THAT is what we should be about, not bombing them into submission but killing the exremists with kindness.

Think of Stalin and how he handled the Marshall Plan...he couldn't attack it, it was charity to save Europe from starving to death in the WInter of 46 and what could the Soviets offer? NOTHING. We start building roads, ralways, schools, power generation facilities, supermarkets, etc what can the extremists like Ossama offer? A bomb laden vest?

We have the experience in fighting and waging a winning war of ideas, we defeated COmmunism whoch at its height had adhrenets equal to Islam, I propose we do the same here, attack the fundamentalists with something they can't counter...good deeds.

Unfortunately these good deeds cost money. The question is whether we're willing to spend it now or later in waging another premeptive war.

That's ... a much better idea, I think. Whatever happened to the virtue of "lead by example, and the world will follow?".

Er...the only thing the Wahabbists deserve is being shot down like the dogs they are in a violent revolution.

Probably, but you know and I know there's no way that's going to happen.

[MKSheppard]

Probably, but you know and I know there's no way that's going to happen.

Then we're going to have to "help" them to the door.