A Lack Of Leadership Presents Opportunity

Whether you agreed with their politics, or not, the last two strong leaders in the White House were probably John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. And while Kennedy may not have had the length of service as Reagan, there can be no denying that he had the ability to influence America in large ways.

Perhaps you're old enough to remember the President's Council on Physical Fitness and how it led to a resurgence in physical activity and athletics during the Kennedy years. And it was Kennedy that launched the nation on the quest to reach the moon. Yes, there were negatives and some might argue Kennedy was over-rated, in part due to his assassination. Nevertheless, he was able to seize on events of the time, then articulate and sell a strategy or response to the American people.

I won't recount the Reagan legacy, as most of us our old enough to remember and it has been recounted often enough. I'm more interested in the challenges of today and the leadership we have now.

I'm convinced that Bush does see and understand the great challenge of today, the fast-creeping Islamo-fascism that is spreading throughout the world and even here in America. Whether his strategy to seed democracy in the Middle East is the proper response is irrelevant, as he has not succeeded in making the threat over-whelming clear to enough Americans, consequently suffering from a questioning of his strategy, as he never quite identified the challenge to the American people as a whole. One cannot offer bold remedies to great challenges left mostly undefined.

For their part, the Democrats have chosen to not even take the problem on, instead focusing on Iraq as an isolated conflict, not part of some greater war. For those who understand the very real threat from Islamo-fascism, it's impossible to see Iraq as anything but a part of a greater whole.

It is easy and perhaps even somewhat popular for the Democrats to advocate abandoning Iraq, thus ending a war. But the war they choose to ignore will continue. Ultimately, they offer no solution at all as, not only have they not defined our generation's greatest challenge, they seem to prefer believing it doesn't exist. That path can only lead down the dangerous road to the challenges Europe currently faces and may not be able to overcome.

Whether it comes here in America, or in the land of an ally or aligned nation, the Islamo-fascists will make their presence known sometime in the next two years. They're too resilient and committed for that to not be the case. As unfortunate as that will be, it will again present the opportunity for an articulate leader to stand up, identify our generation's greatest challenge and chart a realistic path to confronting and overcoming same.

It may be within the next two years, it may not. But as we move toward 2008 and another Presidential election, it could prove to be precisely that kind of leadership that America will need most.

Comments

[yyy]

Well of course, except that the former rule of Iraq wasn't a militant muslim fanatic, and was in fact, quite hostile to muslim religious extremism, had no relationship with Al Quada...

If the real threat is muslim fundamentalism then invading Iraq was even stupider since the muslim fundamentalist were effectively quashed under Saddam's thumb and now they are reigning terror on our soldiers and their fellow citizens and NOW they are getting money from Iran that they weren't getting before.

There is no way to make the invasion of Iraq make sense, either as a stand alone 'rogue state' move or as the front line on the 'war on terror' it fails to meet either standard.

It was a huge mistake, based on an apparently infinite number of wrong assessments.

[Phoenix]

Oh, bullshit.

We need a presence in the Levant. See if your pointed little mind can figure out why.

[larry]

interesting post. i tend to agree that bush's doing the right thing in the ME; seeing the big picture; playing for the longterm, etc. i also tend to agree with what he's doing. were there any doubt, it'd be quelled by the fact that iraq is driving the liberals crazy (see above). when what you're doing is opposed by iran, osama, ted kennedy, cindy sheehan, france, every dime-store mullah preaching from every pesthole mosque from london to sydney, AAAAAND russia and china, it's a clear sign you're on the right track.

my problem is with the execution. bush -as opposed to reagan and kennedy - is trying to be mister sneaky man about his plans. worse, he's implementing them in half-measures. nooooooo, we're not in a war with *islam*! heck no! we love and *respect* a religion that's stuck in the 8th century, (and stones adulterous women, & hangs homosexuals), and causes arguably 90% of all world conflicts these days. and noooooo, we're not *occupying* iraq! heck no!

a strong leader doesn't hide his agenda; or halfass his plans. had bush just swung for the fences, told the truth about islam and its place in the modern world; had he occupied iraq with the proper number of troops - telling america the hard truth; spending the money; drafting the soldiers if need be - had he not mouthed all the soft diplomatic niceties after 9-11 ("we won't respond in anger")(why the hell NOT?!?).....

THEN he might could claim strong leader status. while he's still light years better than any dem prez would have been in his place, (can you imagine jimmy carter's response to a 9-11 atrocity?) reagan & kennedy would have scorned his actions as half-assed. teddy roosevelt or andrew jackson would have had him horsewhipped on the white house lawn.

[Phoenix]

Dan,

I was on a conservative blog last night reading a reasonable description of the psychiatric behaviors of those who are of the terrorist mindset. It was lucid enough and enlightening in the realm of how thought processes produce behaviors. I'm not sure now if the word 'Arab' was used within the post itself, but the lengthy commentary that followed only included the words 'Muslims' and 'Arabs'. The commenters were regulars/conservatives. I read to the end and was going to make a comment but I was too sad. The whole thing made me so sad I was unable to articulate what I wanted to say. It reminded me of the beating I took over the Michael Graham comment/article where I said he was wrong to paint the whole of Islam with one brush.

Two conservative sites painting all of Islam as a maniacal, blood-thirsty culture just kills me. I can only respond from an emotional point that makes me sound kind of simple; but it seems to me Muslims, the good ones, live their religion while too many Christians parse their religion around the lives they want to live. And, this.... the words 'idiots' and 'ignorant' came up in nearly every comment on the thread, and all I could think of is...if you are born into it and raised in it, how is it ignorance? It is simply what you know and what you believe. Just like any culture.

Anyway, I still can't articulate myself well enough. But kudos to you for keeping a fine-point on your brush.

[Rhod]

The Levant? Phoenix, those you address with your point won't even know what The Levant is.

But to your second point, ignorance isn't stupidity; maybe it's lack of awareness, but it certainly doesn't confer automatic innocence. At least within the body of Western thought, "not to know" has moral implications. If we dismiss that, then most of everything else we believe has to change too.

Is culpability fused with sentience only? I don't know, but I think live decapitation of one's enemies, even though it's a cultural artifact of Arab war-making (and others), as a means to degrade the defeated, can't be excused because of that. That's just an example.

I am also no Orientalist, but Arab culture seems to have distinguishing characteristics, noted by Western observers of the last couple centuries, (some clearly prejudiced), but if I recall, the shame and honor dynamic is pretty strong, and defuses the potential for reflective, and preventative, guilt of the Western kind. Therefore, almost anything is possible as means to victory.

Some sects of Islam, also, have incorporated some of the racialist and scapegoating features of old European fascism (not the Italian version) but none of the economic features, and the assumption of the inherent superiority of Islamism has theological "proof" in the Qu'ran, however distorted it might be, which reinforces the wicked fantasies.

The result seems to be a guiltless barbarism which is self-generating, and it has turned its angry eyes to The West because of what we represent, and our threats to the myths and truths they hold. Decadence, deracination, modernity, ease and power must be defeated, and shamed as a fraud at the same time. Iraq is about none of this, but the war against radical Islam is almost entirely about it.

[Rhod]

Oh yes. For those peering into the future in hopeful anticipation of an Islamic Reformation, it's my view that what we see in places across the Middle East IS the Islamic Reformation.

If a purge of impurities, a broad and well-endorsed clarification of doctrine, and a restatement of theological purpose characterizes a Reformation, then Islamism is Islam's 95 Theses.

[Purple Avenger]

...had no relationship with Al Quada...

Oh, please. Take that lie elsewhere. Saddam's archives put that canard to rest ages ago.

[Terry Gain]

triple y x'd out. Good for you PA and Rhod. Perhaps, if the facts are as triple y now claims, he can explain why his party voted for the war.

triple y: why was Abdul Rahman Yasin on non-threatening Saddam's payroll? Do you even know who he is? Read McGrory's "Saddam's Bomb" and get a clue.

Is there anything as pathetic as an American who thinks Bush is the enemy?

[Carol_Herman]

I'm worried about James Baker. He's been involved in the White House since this summer. Condi's excersion with the #1701 UN paper is just one example of WHY so many Americans are turned off.

Pelosi? She went to the FBI in 2005, and opened a file against Jane Harman; saying Jane was using the AIPAC (Israeli Lobby), to get to her office. And, to "pressure her" to accept Jane Harman as head of the Intelligence Committee; as plans were being made for the HOUSE's takeover by democraps, in '06.

This lines up well with Baker's plans. And, Hillary's.

There's no FBI file on the Black Caucus pressuring Pelosi so that Alcee Hastings gets the chair, that by seniority rules, actually belongs to Harman. (The FBI just closed the Harman file.) I guess Pelosi's "out-coming" wasn't very successful, was it? (Better than Florida'a 2000 ButterFly ballot! If ironies are lost on ya.)

Meanwhile, all the people the Bush bus threw under its wheels are baaack.

Lott? Backed by McCain. While Lamar Alexander, both another presidential hopeful in the nominee department; AND, part of the inner-circle of "country club republicans" ... is also on the other side of McCain and Lott.

Things should get very interesting, ahead. As the military still has clout with the American people. We're not in vietnam anymore! And, the "weak miliki government?" All the neo-cons from Bush's white house are gone now, as well. The Saudis. And, the iranians. LUV Iraq as a weak sister. While cut-and-run isn't a policy, either.

[Phoenix]

Rhod,

You paint with an exquisite fine-point, as well. How articulate you are, and how I wish I could have echoed your words last night on that thread. You echoed much of the post itself, and I have no disagreement at all to offer up. I might expand on the parameters of 'ignorance' and its implications in culpability and sentience. We feel because of the way we think. If one hasn't the knowledge to think...say, the way the western mind thinks, is it fair to hold them culpable for the way they feel? Would it be right to send those poor Muslims who are unaware of geopolitics and who live day to day in remote regions to Room 101 for the jackboot because they don't stand up and scream for change?

The sadness I feel is for those who are swept up in a culture from which there is no escape and for whom life is a shadowy, arcane understanding that all is for Allah. These are people who have no concept of individualism. Is it fair for us to project and transfer our free willed thoughts and blessed individualism onto them with curses that they are not worthy?

In the end, it comes down to action and each person's personal accountability for that action. When a culture does not honor individual accountability, who are we to paint them with the few who take the kind of action that is shaking the foundation of this planet. We cannot to that. Is it wrong for me to say I believe a majority of Muslims are victims of the few? Being kept in ignorance is to be a victim.

Yes... saving face. Japan's number one cause of death is male suicide. Better to die than lose face.

I'm rambling and not very cogent here, but I will end with a small note. I taught a number of Muslims, and I have seldomly met finer students, or for that matter, finer people.

[Rhod]

Phoenix, I think you're being perfectly cogent. In fact, because you're a Westerner you can objectify the events around you and assign wrongness to some, and yet see the others as simply benighted and along for the fatal ride. I'm not a Catholic, just a doubter, but this was part of the Pope's point about rationality.

The corrosive (in my view) fact of Islamism is the point that Allah is beyond the rational...which would also assume that no judgement or even observation could be made about him, even in the Qu'ran. This isn't a Western way of thinking, it's something else completely. I don't know what.

Allah cancels any logic, which might be a clue as to why his radical followers are so viciously subjective. Everything which originates in their heads makes sense because there is no real value in play, no anchor of sanity, and they assign divine purpose to the urgent depravity of their hatreds. But this is not your point, I know.

The Dresden Formulation that you're applying here can be nothing other than sad, and worse, tragic, because so many are going to die for guiltless complicity and cultural fidelity. Millions, eventually.

Two things have happened. The doctrine of MAD has been demolished by a miscalculating or deeply stupid Iranian regime, and the West is unsure of what it's fighting or what is worth defending. There's really no practical way, or even energy, now to stop the metastasis of nuclear weapons across the Middle East, and the end of the game will be unimaginable.

[Terry Gain]

Phoenix,

I know only 6 Muslims and I like every one of them. This does not prevent me from saying I think Mohammed was not a prophet and Islam is an existentialist threat to western civilization. In my opinion true Islam is an extreme ideology and moderate Muslims are in fact apostates.

Given how Mohammmed lived his life and what the Koran proscribes reforming Islam is going to be a very difficult, if not impossible, job. We would have a fighting chance if those who control the airwaves -the ignorant and stupid Left - were not so effing, politically correct.

[Dan Riehl]

I tend to take Islam out of the equation. What it boils down to is one's desire and ability to live within a secular democracy. It allows one to go at the problem without invoking religion at all. And if someone doesn't pass that test, then they are, by definition, an enemy of the state.

[Purple Avenger]

"Is it wrong for me to say I believe a majority of Muslims are victims of the few?"

An anonymous phone call costs about a quarter, maybe $.35. Pretty cheap way to un-victimize yourself if you ask me.

[Dan Riehl]

"Is it wrong for me to say I believe a majority of Muslims are victims of the few?"

The problem here is the submissive nature of the religion and it's all or nothing quality among many. On top of that, you have a fgreat deal of duplicity among so-called moderates.

The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion, already present ovber most of the world. The effort behind that growth tends to be extremist. And the moderates are doing very damn little to reverse the trend.

Yes, many Muslims are indeed victims of the extremists. But only a very few of them are standing up to prevent it from happening more and more.

[Phoenix]

I have no disagreement with any of the latter comments.

My sadness is visceral. I am a neo-con who is, at the moment, undone by those in the world who don't have the 'ability' to *choose* a secular world or the $.35 or a phone, much less a number to call.

Or maybe I am undone by those who lack discernment about humans who don't know choice as we do and say hideous things.

Just tired, I guess.

[larry]

DEEPLY disturbing posts there, gents. western civilization - and more importantly, your country - finds itself actively menaced by what they used to call "madmen". (back in the past, when full-grown men didn't shy away from taking a stand that might be potentially hurtful to the feelings of others.) this particular brand of madness is fostered, or bred by, the practice of a specific religion: a religion long noted for its intolerance of others; for its propensity to govern itself with military or religious dictatorships; and for its institutionalized abuse of women, homosexuals, dogs, and any minority group the religion deems unable to withstand its armed men. see: most recently, darfur. latest estimated islam-caused death toll of non-moslems there: 500,000 men, women, and children.

NOW IT MUST BE ADMITTED, that not all adherents to this religion are psycho killers. we must admit that, lest we hurt their feelings. as everyone knows, hurting someone's feelings is the worst crime imaginable. but it must also be reluctantly admitted that pretty much every government- or religion-sponsored large-scale slaughter of unarmed civilians these days happens at the behest of....moslems.

and here at this conservative blog.....intelligent and well-spoken conservatives make commentary....worrying about slandering islam with 'too broad a brush'. worrying about islam's 'silent majority' being intimidated by the psycho meanies at the mosque. wondering pensively as to the mindset of joe al-lunchbox. jumpin jimmy jesus, folks! who gives a DAMN about their feelings?! or their motivations? or their crushing burdens of low self-esteem and envy?? they murdered 3000 of your countrymen! they're burning women & kids alive in darfur right now, men. they have SAID they'd do it to us if they could. shall we try and reason with them? listen to their grievances? try & MAKE FRIENDS with them??

or should we do it the old-fashioned (but historically effective) way: kill so many of those who'd kill us, that the survivors decide to behave themselves. it's not subtle, but it DID work when last tried on state-sponsored war machines dedicated to our destruction. or has that become just too manichean for oh-so-ironic american sensitivities?

to my no doubt bucolic & simplistic eyes, these psychoanalytic musings look a lot like men fiddling - or typing - while their house is being set afire by psychotic lunatics. america used to be populated by men who understood the way of the world: our grandfathers would have dealt with this issue. harshly and cruelly, to be sure, but it would have been dealt with. i seriously wonder anymore. i think comments like those above indicate we're as weak & contemptable as the ISLAMIC PSYCHOS think we are.

[Cindi]

Phoenix

I have been reading your post here for the last few months. I must say, I admire your wisdom and ability to see beyond the obvious. Your humor is also quite contagious!

I believe your comment about those who lack discernment about humans who don't know choice as we do and say hideous things is dead on. Discernment is a gift. Not everyone has it. And for those that do, it can be pure torture at times. Trying to put a face on evil is never easy.
I cannot even watch the local news anymore, with all the murders of innocent black children. But Dan is right, we need Muslims to start speaking up.

The discernment you speak of is not something we learn, it is something that is within each of us, we only need to recognize it. With that said and done, all evil would be removed. Regardless of what part of the world we live in.

My belief is this is a spititual war, good v. evil. My suggestion to you would be, keep doing the good work you are doing working with your students. Make whatever difference you can. Put the rest to prayer.

[Cindi]

i think comments like those above indicate we're as weak & contemptable as the ISLAMIC PSYCHOS think we are.

Posted by: larry | Sunday, November 19, 2006 at 01:26 AM

WOW.........someone has a hard on! Never mistake compassion as weakness.

[Rhod]

Larry:

Show me where I psychoanalyzed the enemy?

[Phoenix]

WOW is right, Cindi. (Thank you for the kind words.)

Larry,

I don't martyr myself to caution. If I could, I'd be on the front lines blowing the enemy away as fast as I could hold down the trigger and reload.

How dare you stomp in here and mock contemplative thinking as idiocy and weakness. The issue is about approximately 1.5 BILLION humans whose biology does not entail moral facts as we westerners see them. As Rhod mentioned, there seems to be a genesis of change going on where Islam is becoming a bit more theologically flexible. True, it is slow going, but changing life-long, indoctrinated thinking is not easy. I just believe that we must avoid the temptation to resist the extension of our morality into inappropriate domains. That would be, perhaps, Muslims with purple fingers who are being killed by other Muslims.

Truth matters. And it is not determined by majority opinion. That I happen to be holding my breath in the deep end of the pool trying to find that brass ring of good in this so-called majority of evil is not something you have the right to decry as you gallop your steed of generalities across an empty desert.

[Rhod]

Larry:

I've been thinking about your post, especially your last paragraph. While I'm not thumping my creds here, I spent 14 months (I extended) on the ground in the Iron Triangle in '66 and '67 with the 25th Div. Even when things were at their worst, and they got pretty bad in those years, I never hated the Vietnamese. I hated the VC, and especially their cadres, and the NVA too when we saw them, but I don't think that undifferentiated contempt in wartime makes any sense. But that's me.

I have one son in Afghanistan, and had two in Iraq until one DEROS'd home last week. They were all in combat rolls, and one of them knew Tucker and Menchaca and saw the degradation of Islamism close up. From what I gather, all of them have found something in Iraqis and Afghanis to relieve them of the hatred that comes from being there, and doing what they're doing among people who wish to kill you. I think this is simply part of Western thinking. The wellsprings of hatred never run very deep. They can't, because I know what soldiers will do when they hate beyond reasoning.

There's no doubt that Islam at large, and Islamists in particular sense that our decadence and our temporizing in this war is our greatest vulnerability. We were even worse in these matters during my war. And let me say that I respect your Pattonesque view of ourselves and our enemies, but I don't think anything said above met your definitions and descriptions. We'll win this by fury, facts and thinking, however, and by sticking together.

[Purple Avenger]

"...that not all adherents to this religion are psycho killers..."

Larry, you see statements like this as hidden truth finally revealed? Doh!

[yyy]

The ignorance about islam on this blog is astounding.

A billion people are all either mad killers, completely irrational due to their adherence to an irrational religion [NOTE: belief in a virgin birth is pretty irrational, as is belief in rising from the dead, turning water into wine...well you get my drift], OR they are simply victims living in ignorance and poverty and are too stupid to know right from wrong, but their idea of right and wrong is different from "our morality.

The problem with the 'war on terror' is that we have applied the wrong template, wrong strategy and wrong tactics in the wrong places in the wrong order.

We would have been better off to leave Iraq alone for the time being and concentrate on building up Lebanon and turning it back into the showpiece of secular democracy that it used to be back in the 1960's.

Better off putting the cuffs on the Israelis and using our superpower status to FORCE a fair resolution to the Israeli Palestinian issue and FORCING both parties to adhere to it,thus, in one fell stroke of the pen removing one of the best recruiting tools the muslim militants have and putting an end to the arab paranoid idea that it is Israel that controls the United States and not vice versa.

Better off paying a little attention to the simmering radicalism in EGYPT..member this country, also a huge beneficiary of American aid that also supplied about half of the founding members of Al Quada and several 9/11 terrorists to make sure that country doesn't go the way of Iran and turn on its dictatorial leader putting a crazy mullah in his place.

Then, if we wanted to turn our attention to Iraq and come up with a rational, reasonable way to get Saddam Hussein out of power, well okay then.

Along the way we could have been employing the carrot/stick treatment to the rest of the Arab world to try and contain Iranian influence and get our "allies" to treat their own people better, move toward secularization as well so that again, the House of Saud doesn't end up getting replaced by another Ayatollah.

That would have been a real long term strategy aimed at changing the culture and face of the ME, but what we went for was what we erroneously thought was a quick fix/quick win, far from being a long term strategy the invasion of Iraq was the penultimate example of impatience, we thought we would go in, take over, put Chalabi in power nd then move on to the next country.

Welcome to reality folks.

[Phoenix]

Gender Confusion,

I notice you didn't capitalize 'Islam' or 'Muslim'. Could it be that you figure they're all stupid and ignorant and not worthy of such a simple respect.

Oh...save your talking point of 'oh, you don't have anything to say so you attack grammar'....

There isn't anything to say about your plan to fix the Middle East except that it sounds like American Imperialism... something you disdain, right? I mean, it is something all Americans disdain. We don't use it as a strategy.....

[yyy]

We don't, since when?

What is the invasion of Iraq if not quintisential American Imperialism.

Bin Laden was hostile to Saddam Hussein NEVER a friend
Saddam Hussein played ZERO part in 9/11
Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no mobile weapons labs, never tried to buy uranium from Niger, no nukes program.
Nothing. It was all lies.

The real reason we invaded Iraq was because we wanted to set up a friendly government there, get access to their oil and send a message to the rest of the Arab world that we would be ready to back up our policies with military action, a secular, democratic and friendly Iraq would be a good counter point to Iranian influence and might give Iran and Syria pause for thought in their terror sponsoring activities. American Empire at its best.

Of course, except when you invade a country you don't understand with a battle plan created to prove a point about the 'new military' not win a war or sustain an occupation, when you make blunder after blunder and refuse to admit you made any mistakes at all...this is what you get.

We now have the worst case scenario, Iraq has turned into everything Bush said it was 3 years ago, its a hotbed of terror and religious extremism, a lightning rod for islamic militants of all stripes from all over the ME..terrorism is up since the invasion of Iraq not down.

This is what happens when ideology meets reality. Reality wins.

However, there is nothing wrong with attempting to spread democracy around the world or protecting our own interests.

I don't capitalize christianity either, so what.

[larry]

just got done deleting magnificent 40000 word dissertation on how i "dare to" think bad things about islam. (you can thank me later)

let's just boil it down to a series of easy questions, ok?
*) history teaches us that moslems only retreat in the face of military arms and mass hangings. (see: india, spain & ataturk's turkey) why do you folks think they'll be receptive to anything less this time?
*) to the gent who mentioned vietnam: our strategy there was different than from earlier wars, wasn't it? we tried limited warfare and concentrated on winning the h&m's of the civilian population, as opposed to "kill so many the rest decide to behave themselves", right? how'd that work out for us?
*) i noticed that neither of you (presumably) conservative gents mentioned the ongoing genocide in darfur, being committed by moslems. how come? has the world's efforts at diplomatic solutions done anything to even slow down this slaughter? if the answer's "no", (and it is), then why not?
*) rome ended their wars with carthage in such a way that no roman was ever killed by a carthaginian ever again. how'd they do that?
*) based on the above, why should we waste time trying reasoned, contemplative methods in our war with islam? will knowing that "we tried every peaceful solution because we didn't want to be 'mean'" be adequate comfort for the families of americans killed in the interim between "civilized" and "effective" solutons?

reagan once wrote something to the effect that some problems really do have simple solutions. not EASY, mind you, but simple. ok: i say - i *dare* to say, phoenix - that the solution in our war with islam is to kill many many MANY islamites. kill so many that the rest quit the fight, and tread softly lest ANY of their actions anger those crazy americans. that means no ugly speeches, no naughty cartoons, no beheaded schoolgirls, and CERTAINLY no more 9-11's.

my way - the method i believe our grandfathers would have chosen - is simple. HORRIFYING, sure, because it requires enormous mountains of islamic skulls on the white house lawn. and i readily admit that some of those killed will be innocents, untainted by radical islam, killed only because of bad luck or being in the wrong place. ok by me: better that than dead americans.

your way (from what i gather) is complex: a multiphased, multijurisdictional engagement of islam on many fronts: (limited) military, diplomatic, economic, embed-n-outreach, the works. you know: REASON with them. all very sophisticated, all very nice, and it won't work. doesn't work in lebanon, or iraq, or darfur, or on minneapolis cabbies. it's NEVER worked, when tried on moslems.

last question: how does one deal with mad dogs?

[Phoenix]

>The real reason we invaded Iraq was because we wanted to set up a friendly government there, get access to their oil and send a message to the rest of the Arab world that we would be ready to back up our policies with military action, a secular, democratic and friendly Iraq would be a good counter point to Iranian influence and might give Iran and Syria pause for thought in their terror sponsoring activities. American Empire at its best.<

I think I've said this about a hundred times only without the oil part. It is still NOT imperialism.

You have a real sorry addiction to the use of 'should'. Do you teach kindergarten or have a bunch of little kids?

[Phoenix]

Larry,

You misread the entire thread. There are no cut and runners in that thread. My 'contemplative' thoughts were about 'naming' (for lack of a better word) an entire culture of over a billion humans the same name. It was more philosophical than reactionary in that while I am disgusted/outraged by Islamic fundamentalism, I am just as disgusted by our lack of discernment in the human nature aspect of this whole mess. And I am boring myself senseless.

Mad dogs? Shoot them. If the military would have me, I'd go to sniper school. I'm already good enough.

[yyy]

When you engage in a war of choice to topple the government of a given country in order to put in place a govenrment that is friendly to your interests that is the definition of imperialism and empire...the only difference is that the puppet regime would technically be independent and not part of the empire bureacracy as it was in the past.