Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Euler · 2004-09-28 20:58:09

You can't even begin to compare 'our civilisation' with 'their civilisation'. There is no comparison; ours is patently the superior system on virtually every count. The reason for this is that their system is based on religious dogma and is rooted firmly in the dark ages whence that religion came. If we had clung to the stifling Christian theocratic system that dominated Europe in the dark ages, we too would be as backward as they are.

Superiority is a very subjective concept. You could probably find many westerners who wish our civilization is more like the Muslim theocracies in each of the points you mentioned. There are also some attributes of western civilization that are not very admirable.

I would agree that our civilization is preferable to theirs, but the arrogance you display by assuming that you are better in every way is one of the things that many other cultures hate about us.

How long does it take to change their attitude and how many of us will die in terrorist attacks while they're examining their consciences?

It will take less time and result in fewer casualties than the alternative approach.

BWhite · 2004-09-28 21:19:58

Bill:-
... we must either change them or kill them.
How amenable to change is the average Islamic theocracy? What social mechanisms for change exist within its structure? How long does it take to change their attitude and how many of us will die in terrorist attacks while they're examining their consciences? Since their 'attitude' is derived directly from the word of God (in their minds), is it even negotiable at all?
On June 22nd 1941, as the Hitler's panzer divisions and 3 million German soldiers crashed across the border of the Soviet Union, I can just visualise the Russian frontline troops saying: "You know, these Nazis have a bad attitude. We must either change them or kill them."
???
Again, Bill, you seem to be intent on this noble but completely misguided quest to talk gently to Islamic terrorists and have them tearfully take your hand, squeeze it, and say: "Bill, you were right; we were wrong. We see it clearly now and we're so sorry. Let's put all this behind us. We're off home to Syria/Iran/Saudi etc. now to relay your wisdom to our mullahs. We hope to emulate your political structure and should have a democracy up and running by about September next year. Hell, we'll even stop mutilating the sexual organs of our women if it makes you happy! May Allah bless you for showing us the way."
I don't know how many times it has to be said, Bill, but these boys aren't like you and me. This ain't Kansas any more, old fella. Get used to it.
:bars:

I am the one who says George Bush caved in at Fallajuh and Najaf. George Bush faced Islamic radicals in the eye and FOLDED! He is the WIMP!

Shaun, the Right talks a tough game but wimps out. That is my biggest criticism. Teddy Roosevelt said talk softly but carry a big stick.

George Bush talks trash and struts like a peacock after whacking Saddam (who was totally weak) and then Bush wets his pants when faced with Sadr.

Shaun, all this tough talk you encourage is PHONY!

= = =

And that is a dangerous combination.

= = =

PS - - Shaun, if you are correct then why the heck are we having elections in January? Without the social mechanisms you mention, who can we expect to be elected?

We hope to emulate your political structure and should have a democracy up and running by about September next year.

September 2005? Nah. Bush promises us that by January 2005 the Iraqi elections will change everything.

Why are you attacking me and the so-called "Left" - - its the Bush administration that claims that democracy will flourish in less than six months.

IMHO Iraq is NOT READY for a genuine election, unless we merely wish to hand the country to Sistani and if we are going to hand the country to Sistani we could have done that 12 months ago and in terms of a "clash of civilizations" I am uncertain whether we are even better off with Sistani (a cleric) than Saddam a brutal SECULAR vile dictator.

= = =

Winning a "clash of civilizations" takes generation(s) - - and IMHO regime change in Iraq was a tactical victory and will likely be a strategic defeat.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-29 01:30:24

Thanks for the comments, Euler. I knew perfectly well that my assertion of Western societal superiority sounded arrogant. I considered that aspect of it, not for the first time, and deliberately went ahead and wrote it - again, not for the first time.
You agree that our civilisation "is preferable to theirs". I'm not surprised to hear it! The reason you do is that our civilisation is obviously a far better one than theirs, i.e. superior. I didn't say I am better in every way. I said our system is superior in almost every department.
I think I have every justification to be proud of Western civilisation and, if that looks like arrogance, let it look like arrogance. I can't help what people think of me; I can only say and do what I believe to be the correct thing. You will note I don't claim societal perfection for the West, by any stretch of the imagination, but so far this is as good as it's ever been and as good as it gets. If you disagree, pick a place and a time in which you would rather have been born - I'll listen!

My apologies, Bill!
I didn't really mean to attack you, as such. I know you to be a very intelligent and well-meaning man, as I'm quite sure Euler is also. I can get quite frustrated with how some people see Islamic terrorists. You can't negotiate with them so, yes, you have to eliminate them.
By the way, I don't just talk tough. When CC is running things (and I hope to be called to assist in some small way), you can be sure we won't disappoint you by behaving in a wimpish Bush-like fashion.
:;): :laugh:

You're right, of course, that President Bush is too 'wet'. We're all agreed (CC, you and me) that he's been showing lily-livered Leftist weakness lately and needs to shape up. I didn't mean to overlook your well-aired views on this very point, which you've made perfectly clear in various posts.
I believe we need to be tougher and I'm glad to have you on side in this regard. We're probably much closer in our views than some of your comments have tended to make me think at times. My mistake, I'm sure.
:up:

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-29 05:56:50

If we are to win, we must win without confronting Arab pride head on, otherwise we will have to kill them all.

I agree in principle, but the problem is this: if we try to change them in a non-confrontational manner we're wasting our time, and if we use necessary military force we are most certainly crashing head-on into Arab pride, and thrashing it with a sound and crushing defeat. We can't avoid "confronting Arab pride head on."

What we can do is after crushing them in the initial encounter, try to restore some of that pride in a non-destructive manner. Get local prefects in positions of authority, even if only as highly visible figureheads. Use local troops whenever possible, endeavor to present the appearance not of an occupier but of a reluctant ally to the new "regime" even if it is in reality a puppet. Don't push for change too fast, but keep aggressive tendencies in check. Slowly introduce and acclimate them to our ways over the course of decades, generations if need be.

Of course there will always be a small number of fanatics who will only become more aggressive, seeing the new leaders as puppets and the local troops as lackeys and collaborators. They will violently attack both our forces and our proxies.

Their numbers will be relatively few. We can kill them.

Thanks for the comments, Euler. I knew perfectly well that my assertion of Western societal superiority sounded arrogant. I considered that aspect of it, not for the first time, and deliberately went ahead and wrote it - again, not for the first time.

My sentiments exactly.

Winning a "clash of civilizations" takes generation(s) - - and IMHO regime change in Iraq was a tactical victory and will likely be a strategic defeat.

Quite possible if nothing changes.

Whether we like it or not, we're going to have to get this whole "empire" thing worked out on a temporary basis, just long enough to make the necessary cultural modifications.

I must confess it's vindicating in a roundabout sort of way.

clark · 2004-09-29 07:32:41

Where are the armies of Islam? How many do they number?

While declaring our preeminence of life and system, which we will so willingly impose upon those who are not enlightened enough to choose it for themselves, we necessarily stop making judgments, for we have come to a final conclusion.

I hear radical followers of a sect of Islam, numbering few, declaring that they must impose their way of life on all other Muslims, and all other people. In response, I hear entire nations, the entire Western civilization declaring that because of these few people, in defense of our way of life, we must impose our systems and our philosophies on the entire people of Islam.

I understand the need to defend what we have, for I cherish it too. Yet I see the clash of civilizations as nothing more than our own making. It is not the entire people of Islam that we fight, lest you forget that Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and many other allied nations of predominantly Muslim faith are our allies, and work towards building a more prosperous future for their people.

A small branch of Islam, with a skewed interpretation of their holy book, seek to bring conflict between the larger and more moderate population of Islam and the West, in hopes of creating a chaos by which they may rise to supremacy. The radical followers of Islam will gain supremacy as we try to work with those who are more moderate, those more progressive, for the moderates have and share many of our same goals; and when they work with us, they will be associated with the invader. Their words will be associated with those who seek to impose.

In the end, we will drive more of the moderate towards the radical followers because they will be associated with defending the “true” Islamic faith, for they fight the invader of the Islamic lands. Their holy book declares that true Muslims must fight to defend any Muslim land, which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria (all on the list of where we might or have gone).

In Iraq, we will see the creation of an Islamic theocracy ruling a puppet democracy. If we attack Iran, we will see the Islamic theocracy strengthened. This is expressly not in our own self-interest as it creates the conditions by which we must resolve all disputes within a ‘clash of civilizations’.

We can paint the Left and Right in any color we wish, until it’s all black and white, but the way I see it, both sides agree on the goal- the simple defense of our way of life and the maintenance of the peace. Each side, and all points in-between disagree about how to achieve that. Force itself is leading us towards a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby our actions will ultimately prove to be the justification for our actions in the first place. A big, “I told you so,” because our actions lead to a ‘clash of civilizations’. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Look around, through our actions, have we made fewer terrorists, or more? Have we become more secure in the prospect that we will not be attacked by resolved men, or less secure in that probability?

I made mention of a bear and some bees. Let me explain, a bear is an unthinking unwitting brute that acts or reacts. It is stung by a bee, and so follows it to the bees hive. It wishes vindication but can make no distinction among its members, so it attacks the entire hive. A bear is strong, its hide is thick, but if it angers enough of the bees within the hive, if enough feel threatened, they can kill the bear. This is called a parable, and it is precisely what the terrorists wish to accomplish.

Cobra makes mention of suicide strikes with no military value, so perhaps there is another value to them. The terrorists have had many years to plan and plot, expending time and energy to drop a few planes from the sky for one brief moment. They could have accomplished their plans sooner if they so chose- but they waited for an opportunity to achieve a desired reaction. Under Clinton, they did not get that reaction. They got missiles lobbed from far away, not invaders to the holy land. They steadily built up their attacks until they could no longer, or would no longer be ignored. Bush didn’t ignore them, and followed them into the Muslim lands.

The fact that the highest echelons of the terrorist groups have been plotting all of this still elude capture ought to demonstrate that they prepared for the eventuality of our actions. When we are attacked again, as everyone assumes we will be, we will not receive the sympathy we once had. It will be seen as retribution, that is where our actions have led. And when we see that reaction, we will become more insular, our hearts more hardened, and we all will move further along the path that does lead to a ‘clash of civilizations’.

I admit I don’t have the solution that will resolve all of this, nor can I offer any likely other course, but I do sense that what we are doing now, is not the right course of action.

BWhite · 2004-09-29 07:50:54

clark is correct as well. . .

The Right elevates the threat from a small band of thugs to justify their own hold on power. Politically, Bush needs bin Laden to remain a major threat.

I disagree with Cobra's "go Roman" strategy yet I am astonished that the Romans continue to support GWB even when he acts contrary to what is necessary to make the "Roman" strategy work.

Can anyone disagree that a "weak Roman" strategy by far the worst possible strategy? In theory, Cobra and I can argue about "strong Roman" vs "enlightened liberal" but "strong Roman" is not what GWB is offering us.

= = =

"Enlightened liberal" versus "strong Roman" - - I am not on Cobra's side yet I cannot dismiss the choice as utterly irrational.

"Enlightened liberal" versus "weak Roman" - - I am apalled anyone sees that there is anything to discuss.

And to you "Romans" I say: 4 more years of a "weak Roman" playing dress-up as a "strong Roman" and the Roman strategy itself will be discredited in the eyes of the America public.

Heh! Maybe I will vote for Bush after all!

Nah.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-29 07:55:39

I admit I don’t have the solution that will resolve all of this, nor can I offer any likely other course, but I do sense that what we are doing now, is not the right course of action.

I thought I'd have to drag that out of you.

But now we can have a more open discussion of the situation at hand.

Of course the terrorists wanted us to invade. They want the massive armies of the infidel, whom they view as weak-willed and decadent, storming into Islamic lands so that they can drive off the invader and if played well seize control for themselves. Lobbing cruise missiles from destroyers didn't give them what they wanted.

But it set the stage for 9/11.

If we do nothing they will simply hit us again and again in an effort to get a response. If after attacking with troops on the ground to root them out we then lose our resolve and flee, they win precisely as they planned.

But if we invade their lands, offer enough enticement to win the support, even grudging, of a significant percentage of the population; and at the same time brutally crush the terrorists, we win. If we go in and hold on long enough to change the culture, we win. It leads to a "clash of civilizations" because that is a necessary step, the terrorist enemy is only a tiny minority of the Islamic population, but they are entirely a product of that culture. To truly and finally defeat them we must change the culture that spawned them.

BWhite · 2004-09-29 08:02:44

I admit I don’t have the solution that will resolve all of this, nor can I offer any likely other course, but I do sense that what we are doing now, is not the right course of action.
I thought I'd have to drag that out of you.
But now we can have a more open discussion of the situation at hand.
Of course the terrorists wanted us to invade. They want the massive armies of the infidel, whom they view as weak-willed and decadent, storming into Islamic lands so that they can drive off the invader and if played well seize control for themselves. Lobbing cruise missiles from destroyers didn't give them what they wanted.
But it set the stage for 9/11.
If we do nothing they will simply hit us again and again in an effort to get a response. If after attacking with troops on the ground to root them out we then lose our resolve and flee, they win precisely as they planned.
But if we invade their lands, offer enough enticement to win the support, even grudging, of a significant percentage of the population; and at the same time brutally crush the terrorists, we win. If we go in and hold on long enough to change the culture, we win. It leads to a "clash of civilizations" because that is a necessary step, the terrorist enemy is only a tiny minority of the Islamic population, but they are entirely a product of that culture. To truly and finally defeat them we must change the culture that spawned them.

The key is OIL. We are addicted to oil and we need to break the habit. That is the ultimate source of the radical Islamicists power.

But for oil, we could build a big wall around all Islam and ignore them.

al Qaeda believes they are winning. If we convince them they are losing, expect oil sabotage to escalate very substantially.

GWB (from an oil family) knows perfectly well we cannot win without losing, unless we move rapidly to a hydrogen economy.

Palomar · 2004-09-29 08:22:29

The Right elevates the threat from a small band of thugs to justify their own hold on power. Politically, Bush needs bin Laden to remain a major threat.

*Bin Laden has stated he wants all Americans dead. If the translators are have interpreted him correctly and without twisting his words to help along an agenda. But I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it's true that Bin Laden has uttered such a genocidal wish, then he's nothing more than a brown-skinned Nazi and we're the Jews.

There are various terrorist organizations in the Middle East, and of course I'm not sure which one or ones might have been hijacking all those airplanes in the 1970s...but terrorist groups have apparently "graduated" from hijacking airplanes to wishing to learn to fly planes themselves to smashing them into skyscrapers.

That's not something I'm going to brush off.

The Arab world has done its own part to create hostilities, anger and resentment. They can be just as pig-headed, self-righteous and racist as anyone on this side of the pond.

Does that give us the right to prisoner abuse and kicking Iraqis around? NO. Based on what I hear on TV and read in news reports, most of the door-kicking-down has to do with flushing out members of terrorist cells. What do we do, politely knock at THEIR doors and turn away when they refuse to open the door? They're a menace and threat to their own people. Average innocent civilians, however, should -not- be treated in such a manner...but I suppose a few of them will face it based on mistakes, misinformation, etc. That's unfortunate.

As for Arab pride: No, we don't want to rile them up, insult and degrade them. Bad idea. But there's a limit to how much concern I have for Arab pride, considering 95% of all hijackers and bombers, etc., I've seen in the news since childhood are of Arab origin. I'd feel the same way if they were Norweigan.

--Cindy

P.S.: As for Euler's comments about societal superiority: I'd rather live in a society where men can cut their hair however they please and opt for a beard or not to have a beard and where I can show my wrists in public, versus someplace where men are tossed into jail for not having "the right" haircut and women are chased through the streets by thugs with steel cords for a whipping if a bit of their {{gasp}} wrist flesh shows by accident while reaching for an object. That occurred in Afghanistan.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-29 08:24:01

"Enlightened liberal" versus "strong Roman" - - I am not on Cobra's side yet I cannot dismiss the choice as utterly irrational.
"Enlightened liberal" versus "weak Roman" - - I am apalled anyone sees that there is anything to discuss.

Yes, "weak Roman", the current course of Bush, is what the enemy wants.

"Enlightened liberal" (snicker) is essentially leaving it open for further attempts to goad us into "weak Roman" at a time of their choosing.

So both choices are unacceptable because they both lead to the same outcome, just one takes longer.

And to you "Romans" I say: 4 more years of a "weak Roman" playing dress-up as a "strong Roman" and the Roman strategy itself will be discredited in the eyes of the America public.

Agreed. Unfortunately, for Presidential candidates we have two of the weakest "Romans" the world has seen. We're in Iraq now, if Bush blows it or Kerry hangs back and tries to get us out, the result is the same.

Of course a major terrorist attack on US soil, particularly chemical, nuclear or biological, could conceivably bring about the "Franks scenario" and it's all a moot point anyway.
???

Besides, Americans have always had a strong "Roman" streak in them, it's just been dormant for awhile. We've been focusing on the wrong motivators, fear and defense can only inspire so much. But the time has not yet come for that shift.

Muahahahahaha!

BWhite · 2004-09-29 08:40:56

The Right elevates the threat from a small band of thugs to justify their own hold on power. Politically, Bush needs bin Laden to remain a major threat.
*Bin Laden has stated he wants all Americans dead. If the translators are have interpreted him correctly and without twisting his words to help along an agenda. But I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it's true that Bin Laden has uttered such a genocidal wish, then he's nothing more than a brown-skinned Nazi and we're the Jews.

There are thousands (millions) of wacko-s who have one axe to grind or another. My point is that our response has empowered bin Laden.

Kicking in doors of (relatively) innocent Iraqis may or may not be justified. My real objection is that it is STUPID because it creates allies for bin Laden.

Trampling on Arab male pride is a good thing in theory (I am hardly an advocate or paragon of macho) yet doing so empowers bin Laden and therefore is STUPID.

I am not wringing my hands at America being immoral. I am horrified that we are fighting this war arse-backwards.

= = =

We destroy Najaf and let Sadr leave with his weapons. We kick in doors and let the let bad guys escape.

We pay the price of "being Roman" and get none of the benefits.

= = =

By the way, when Saddam was dictator of Iraq, some Shia radicals holed themselves up in the Najaf shrine and dared Saddam to storm the place. Just like Sadr did.

Saddam was too timid (clever?) to storm and destroy the shrine and enrage the Shia. Instead, he drove up a few tanker trucks and send in envoys to tell the radicals he was going to use poison gas and then send in cleaning crews to scrub down the mess.

The shrine would be undamaged and they would be dead.

He offered safe passage and they surrendered. Within weeks, every insurgent was rounded up and executed.

I DO NOT condone such behavior, however, that is what the Iraqis have experienced as being strong. When we allow Sadr to leave we prove our weakness.

Bottom line, we insult Arab male pride and then exhibit personal weakness in the face of a tough challenge.

Of course the average Iraqi longs to lob an RPG into a Hum-vee because they neither like us nor respect us.

Palomar · 2004-09-29 08:48:24

The Right elevates the threat from a small band of thugs to justify their own hold on power. Politically, Bush needs bin Laden to remain a major threat.
*Bin Laden has stated he wants all Americans dead. If the translators are have interpreted him correctly and without twisting his words to help along an agenda. But I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it's true that Bin Laden has uttered such a genocidal wish, then he's nothing more than a brown-skinned Nazi and we're the Jews.
There are thousands (millions) of wacko-s who have one axe to grind or another. My point is that our response has empowered bin Laden.
Kicking in doors of (relatively) innocent Iraqis may or may not be justified. My real objection is that it is STUPID because it creates allies for bin Laden.

*Well, I'm about as far removed from being an authority on international affairs as anyone could possibly be I suppose...

I see your point. And perhaps it was also a mistake to focus so much media attention on Bin Laden himself (another way of empowering him).

Perhaps the U.S. gov't decided to use him as a scapegoat figure. Not that he's innocent or nice; rather, singling him out as the poster boy for Bad Arab Behavior. Isn't it true that nations/societies "must" have a scapegoat figure onto which to vent all their rage and frustration? Seems, based on a bit of sociopolitical studying I did a few years ago, that's what is done.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-29 08:58:32

Trampling on Arab male pride is a good thing in theory (I am hardly an advocate or paragon of macho) yet doing so empowers bin Laden and therefore is STUPID.

Agreed, but on a basic level we can't avoid it entirely, only minimize occurances during occupation. We can't protect ourselves without using military force in some cases. Defeating them militarily is by nature an affront to their pride. We just have to learn to minimize the damage.

Saddam was too timid (clever?) to storm and destroy the shrine and enrage the Shia. Instead, he drove up a few tanker trucks and send in envoys to tell the radicals he was going to use poison gas and then send in cleaning crews to scrub down the mess.
The shrine would be undamaged and they would be dead.

And this sort of thing may be what is required to regain some lost credibility. If we threaten to do it we'll get their attention. If we actually do it just one time we'll be taken seriously ever after when making such threats. I don't like it, it'll have some international consequences, but if that's what it takes perhaps we should put it on the table when the situation is appropriate.

In a way it fits perfectly with our goals. Kill the enemy, don't kill the populace, don't destroy the local shrines and infrastructure.

Just something to think about. :hm:

BWhite · 2004-09-29 09:14:34

Trampling on Arab male pride is a good thing in theory (I am hardly an advocate or paragon of macho) yet doing so empowers bin Laden and therefore is STUPID.
Agreed, but on a basic level we can't avoid it entirely, only minimize occurances during occupation. We can't protect ourselves without using military force in some cases. Defeating them militarily is by nature an affront to their pride. We just have to learn to minimize the damage.

Exactly!

One way to do that is: "Walk Tall and Talk Small"

BWhite · 2004-09-29 09:16:37

*Bin Laden has stated he wants all Americans dead. If the translators are have interpreted him correctly and without twisting his words to help along an agenda. But I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it's true that Bin Laden has uttered such a genocidal wish, then he's nothing more than a brown-skinned Nazi and we're the Jews.
There are thousands (millions) of wacko-s who have one axe to grind or another. My point is that our response has empowered bin Laden.
Kicking in doors of (relatively) innocent Iraqis may or may not be justified. My real objection is that it is STUPID because it creates allies for bin Laden.
*Well, I'm about as far removed from being an authority on international affairs as anyone could possibly be I suppose...
I see your point. And perhaps it was also a mistake to focus so much media attention on Bin Laden himself (another way of empowering him).
Perhaps the U.S. gov't decided to use him as a scapegoat figure. Not that he's innocent or nice; rather, singling him out as the poster boy for Bad Arab Behavior. Isn't it true that nations/societies "must" have a scapegoat figure onto which to vent all their rage and frustration? Seems, based on a bit of sociopolitical studying I did a few years ago, that's what is done.
--Cindy

Yup.

And in my opinion Bush/Cheney wanted to offer us Saddam's head as a surrogate for bin Laden since bin Laden had gotten away at Tora Bora.

Add: making bin Laden a scapegoat for the US has the side effect of making him a hero for any angry Muslim kid who feels aggrieved by the world.

Euler · 2004-09-29 11:24:52

Saddam is now running for president of Iraq.
http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international& … 2424]story

clark · 2004-09-29 11:25:02

Guess who said this:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering.

John Creighton · 2004-09-29 11:27:25

Once you said guess who said this I figured there was a NAZZI connection. I would of guessed Hittler though.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … ering.html

What conclusions should we draw? Should we say the masses are too naive or too ill-informed to make accurate assessments of when to go to war.

BWhite · 2004-09-29 11:34:04

Guess who said this:
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Goering.

Yup.

= = =

Saddam on the Iraqi election ballot? I am laughing and crying at the same time over that.

= = =

What conclusions should we draw? Should we say the masses are too naive or too ill-informed to make accurate assessments of when to go to war.

No, the people need to be strong and avoid being herded into a stampede. Force their leaders to answer tough questions. That is the true road of patriotism.

clark · 2004-09-29 11:42:08

Anytime you wish to place people into opposition, it matters not if it be two brothers, or two nations, you create opposition through the definition of ideas. We are good, they are bad. We are peaceful, they are warlike. They wish to kill us, we wish to live in peace. We are human, they are not.

Other chants of opposition: We are American, they are immigrants. We are hard working, they are lazy. We have virtue, they have none. They are infidels, we are the chosen. We, they. Us, them.

It's basic human sociology. Define the pack and the pack will follow. Play the parts against something else, and you can control.

Bin laden is the enemy of moderate Islam, by making us the enemy, he makes himself the leader of all of Islam because we take his place as the enemy of moderate Islam.

BWhite · 2004-09-29 11:49:41

Anytime you wish to place people into opposition, it matters not if it be two brothers, or two nations, you create opposition through the definition of ideas. We are good, they are bad. We are peaceful, they are warlike. They wish to kill us, we wish to live in peace. We are human, they are not.
Other chants of opposition: We are American, they are immigrants. We are hard working, they are lazy. We have virtue, they have none. They are infidels, we are the chosen. We, they. Us, them.
It's basic human sociology. Define the pack and the pack will follow. Play the parts against something else, and you can control.
Bin laden is the enemy of moderate Islam, by making us the enemy, he makes himself the leader of all of Islam because we take his place as the enemy of moderate Islam.

Wisdom urges "us" to grasp that there are no "thems" only us.

You can only convert an equal.

John Creighton · 2004-09-29 11:51:32

Bin laden is the enemy of moderate Islam, by making us the enemy, he makes himself the leader of all of Islam because we take his place as the enemy of moderate Islam.

Ahhh, i is all about strategy. What do we do to get what we want? Do we you force or persuasion. What alliances should we build and how do we build them? How do minimize of casualties to the economy and people now and in the future. It is too bad that we still must play these barbaric games. I have a feeling trust is lost again. Without trust there is no peace. Arms buildups were historically always a precursor to war.

John Creighton · 2004-09-29 12:01:14

Bin laden is the enemy of moderate Islam, by making us the enemy, he makes himself the leader of all of Islam because we take his place as the enemy of moderate Islam.

How do we make Bin laden enough of an enemy of moderate Islam so that they will deal with the problem.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-29 12:05:21

Saddam is now running for president of Iraq.

I know I should be annoyed, but I just can't help but grin. Ah, the farce of democracy.

Guess who said this:

Goering used the term "fascist dictatorship"? That's a bit unusual. What's the source on that, out of curiosity?

It's basic human sociology. Define the pack and the pack will follow. Play the parts against something else, and you can control.
Bin laden is the enemy of moderate Islam, by making us the enemy, he makes himself the leader of all of Islam because we take his place as the enemy of moderate Islam.

Yes, that's all wonderful analysis but it doesn't really get us anywhere. We still have the touchy little problem that if we do nothing they kill our people in our own lands.

clark · 2004-09-29 12:10:32

Don't kill muslims under false pretense.

A larger population of the Muslim people did not begrude us our actions in Afghanistan. They could understand that, and it was done with UN backing (we don't have to respect the UN, but we must realize that a lot of the world does- many feel it is the only outlet by which their voice may be heard among the greater nations).

We went into Iraq for WMD. We did a good thing by getting rid of Saddam, but that in itself dosen't makethat good thing right.

Capture Bin Laden, then allow the Muslim people to try him for his crimes based on their laws.

Edit: in answer to Cobra, "this comment was made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail." Published in Nuremburg Diary. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.ht … oering.htm

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-09-28 20:58:09

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#102 2004-09-28 21:19:58

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#103 2004-09-29 01:30:24

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#104 2004-09-29 05:56:50

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#105 2004-09-29 07:32:41

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#106 2004-09-29 07:50:54

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#107 2004-09-29 07:55:39

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#108 2004-09-29 08:02:44

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#109 2004-09-29 08:22:29

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#110 2004-09-29 08:24:01

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#111 2004-09-29 08:40:56

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#112 2004-09-29 08:48:24

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#113 2004-09-29 08:58:32

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#114 2004-09-29 09:14:34

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#115 2004-09-29 09:16:37

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#116 2004-09-29 11:24:52

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#117 2004-09-29 11:25:02

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#118 2004-09-29 11:27:25

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#119 2004-09-29 11:34:04

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#120 2004-09-29 11:42:08

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#121 2004-09-29 11:49:41

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#122 2004-09-29 11:51:32

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#123 2004-09-29 12:01:14

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#124 2004-09-29 12:05:21

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#125 2004-09-29 12:10:32

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Board footer