Quote from: Spike... What do you do with a nation that does not care about freedom? Nothing at all. It isn't your place to tell them how to live...

I agree fully that it is not our place to tell other peoples how to live.

However, we can have no idea what another people 'wants' unless it has democratic institutions.  If a people lacks democratic institutions (and attendant minimal individual rights), all we know is what the tyrant or ruling class wants.

The Taliban claimed to express the interests of the people of Afghanistan.  Yet they never bothered to consult them, especially women.

It doesn't make sense to attribute national self-determination if the members of that nation cannot participate in their own collective determination.

Quote from: Werekoala... I doubt we'll ever have such a rosy outcome in any dealings between the West and Islamic cultures - they're just TOO different, fundamentally. I'll go out on a limb and say we'll face similar problems with China in the not-to-distant future.

I've already made this point, but I don't understand your pessimism about the ability of cultures to change.

Your pessimism has been falsified by history many times.

Was Japan TOO different, fundamentally, for it to become a democracy?  Or South Korea?  Or India?  Or, hopefully, Turkey (it's not there yet, but it's moving in the right direction, and needs to before it can join the EU)?

Quote from: AkrasiaBritain?  :confused:

Are you aware of the Good Friday Agreement and the Belfast Agreement?  And the fact that the IRA has renounced terrorism and has decommissioned its arms?

And that all parties in Northern Ireland now agree that the political future of the province should be determined through peaceful democratic procedures?

It seemed to work out well for Britain in the end.

I'm not sure what alternative strategy the British should have pursued.  Giving in to the IRA demands?

Right, Britain came to their senses and STOPPED using the tactics that Israel (and now America) uses.

I wasn't saying Britain still has that policy. I was saying they were (past tense) part of the wave of nations attempting to leverage their military might to combat a non-military problem (terrorism).

Quote from: AkrasiaThis is fallacious reasoning.

India, Japan, and (South) Korea were all cultures radically different from the West.  

[If anything, they were more different from us than the Middle-East.  At least with the Middle-east, we share similar religions (the monotheistic faiths all have the same historical roots), and centuries of interaction (not always violent).  Western philosophy was heavily influenced by Arab philosophers during the Middle Ages, and vice versa.]

Yet, despite having radically different cultures from the West, India, Japan, and South Korea are all now functioning democracies in which people enjoy individual rights and liberties.

Why rule out similar transformations elsewhere?

Cultures aren't static.  They can -- and do -- change.

True, but none of those cultures had the centuries of baggage that the West and Islamic countries do. They were introduced to the West AFTER our own "enlightenment" period when we gave up things like Crusades and such. I know, we had wars and abuses of their cultures too, but in historical terms, they ended relatively quickly. Places like India, for example, had many years of colonial rule to adapt andadopt many Western ideas - not to mention the fact that their religion and culture were more "peaceful" than Islam in many ways.

Point is, the well between the West and Islam was poisoned centuries ago, and its not going to be cleaned anytime soon. That's a product of both cultures. We want instant results, they still hold grudges from 750 AD. Hard to reconcile those two world-views.

Quote from: Werekoala... Places like India, for example, had many years of colonial rule to adapt andadopt many Western ideas - not to mention the fact that their religion and culture were more "peaceful" than Islam in many ways.
...

You know that India has the second largest Muslim population in the world, right?    Sure they're a minority, but that's only because India has over a billion people.

But your point about the centuries of West-Islamic conflict is an important one.  Still, I'm less pessimistic than you.  I see hope for reconciling Islam and democracy in places like Turkey, Indonesia, and even Afghanistan.

Quote from: AkrasiaI've already made this point, but I don't understand your pessimism about the ability of cultures to change.

Your pessimism has been falsified by history many times.

Was Japan TOO different, fundamentally, for it to become a democracy?  Or South Korea?  Or India?  Or, hopefully, Turkey (it's not there yet, but it's moving in the right direction, and needs to before it can join the EU)?

Japan is the only one of those examples where there was significant external influence though.

And frankly, no one knows WHY Japan worked out as well as it did.

Still, if we assume the Japan analogy is valid, all we have to do is let Iraq simmer in civil war for approximately 500 years, emerge as a brutal power bent on world domination that engages in a massive, surprise military attack on the United States, then we go to full scale war costing millions of lives, nuke them, overthrow their government and instill democracy in their people.

For people who use Japan as an analogy and start at 1938 and then say "see, they went from brutality to democracy" seems to me to be missing the big picture in a big way.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI think if we left Iraq, all the folks in Iraq would stop killing us.

The central dilemma we are now playing out is this: for 100 years or so, terrorism was treated as a law-enforcement problem. You follow leads, sometimes trying to prevent a crime before it happens, but mostly chasing the perps after the deed is done.

After 9-11 we decided we were going to treat terrorism like a military problem, basically the way no country in the world, with the exceptions of Israel and Great Britain, has ever treated terrorism.

And it doesn't seem to be working out too well for us. But lots of folks could have told us that (and they tried) because we can look at what it's gotten Israel and Great Britain, which was more terrorism.

Most of the actual intelligent analysis of terrorism I've read suggests that, in fact, military action CAUSES terrorism, especially the interventionist variety.  

Terrorism is what happens when a people feels desperate and weak in the face of a superior threat, and so find other ways to affect violent change.  

Personally, I think that our whole bull in a china shop approach is liable to create more terrorism than ever before.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckRight, Britain came to their senses and STOPPED using the tactics that Israel (and now America) uses.

I wasn't saying Britain still has that policy. I was saying they were (past tense) part of the wave of nations attempting to leverage their military might to combat a non-military problem (terrorism).

When did Britain ever use the tactics vis-a-vis the IRA that Israel uses vis-a-vis the Palestinians?  Your analysis is fundamentally flawed.

And for the record, the British never changed their 'military strategy' for dealing with terrorism.  Rather, both the British and Irish governments put pressure on the sectarian groups in Northern Ireland to find a peaceful solution to the Troubles.  They predicted that, should such a solution be put on the table, that there would be huge domestic support for it in Northern Ireland, which would further undercut support for sectarian paramilitary groups.  And they were right.

Quote from: AkrasiaYou know that India has the second largest Muslim population in the world, right?    Sure they're a minority, but that's only because India has over a billion people.

Of course, but they weren't subjected to centuries of conflict with the West. All conflicts - as with all politics - is local.

QuoteBut your point about the centuries of West-Islamic conflict is an important one.  Still, I'm less pessimistic than you.  I see hope for reconciling Islam and democracy in places like Turkey, Indonesia, and even Afghanistan.

It possible, sure. Anything can happen. Just not in our lifetime - or several, I'd wager. Hope to be around to pay off the bet if it does come to pass.

Quote from: AkrasiaI agree fully that it is not our place to tell other peoples how to live.

However, we can have no idea what another people 'wants' unless it has democratic institutions.  If a people lacks democratic institutions (and attendant minimal individual rights), all we know is what the tyrant or ruling class wants.

The Taliban claimed to express the interests of the people of Afghanistan.  Yet they never bothered to consult them, especially women.

It doesn't make sense to attribute national self-determination if the members of that nation cannot participate in their own collective determination.

Of course, you could validly argue that the 'tyrant' or 'ruling class' DOES represent what the people want.  It is possible... no... EASY to find Russians of a certain age that miss the 'old days' and think that Putin should be MORE dictatorial, more "Strong Hand on the Tiller".  I don't mean 70 year old former party leaders, I mean fourty year old 'man on the street'...  

The Taliban imposed a largely unpopular regime upon a largely unwilling population. The US had no difficulties invading, finding people that liked our intervention among the local population.   If the Taliban had been popular, then our military actions would have been horribly bogged down.  But one key to our success there is that we are NOT attempting to impose our own vision of how things should be upon the Afghans. In Iraq, however, we imported our own leaders, and began attempting to impose our vision upon the nation.  Saddam was unpopular, he was a tyrant... these things are true. But he didn't really impose his tyranny on how people lived, unlike the Taliban. Iraq, ironically, was very free culturally, at least compared to their neighbors.  I saw women in skirts, wearing high heels in Iraq. I saw men sitting on the side of the road while their neighbors prayed at a Mosque.  I saw women with cleavage and tight teeshirts for christ's sake, hardly the vision of a repressive theocracy with no rights.

Ironically, it may be our attempts to impose our vision of what 'Women's rights' should be in Iraq that could drive the population to close ranks and become worse.  Think of it as you would an abusive relationship, though this imposes a value judgement we aren't qualified to make. Attack the abusive partner and the abused partner will leap to the defence. Always.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck... Still, if we assume the Japan analogy is valid...

You're missing the overall (and more important) point by fixating on irrelevant details.  The point is that it is simply false to think that simply because a culture is very different right now (say, inegalitarian, undemocratic), that it can never become a liberal democracy.

If you don't like the Japan example, consider South Korea, which has a very different history and route to democracy.

In any case, I hope that, for the sake of the world's future, democracy and Islam can be reconciled.  Otherwise, we're in for a lot more bloodshed as the century progresses.

Quote from: SpikeOf course, you could validly argue that the 'tyrant' or 'ruling class' DOES represent what the people want.  It is possible... no... EASY to find Russians of a certain age that miss the 'old days' and think that Putin should be MORE dictatorial, more "Strong Hand on the Tiller".  I don't mean 70 year old former party leaders, I mean fourty year old 'man on the street'...  

Of course, without polling and voting, we wouldn't know that there exists so much support for Putin's 'strongman' approach.  

But you're right that people might choose regimes that we find noxious (strongmen, theocrats, etc.).  Nonetheless, we have no idea whether people want the government that they have unless they have a free vote, and enjoy freedom of the press and freedom of association (at least to some adequate degree).

(Can people freely choose to be unfree?  I have philosophical views about that, but best not get into them here.)

Quote from: Spike... Iraq, ironically, was very free culturally, at least compared to their neighbors...

Unless you were a Kurd or a Marsh Arab.  Or a political opponent.  In which case you were gassed.  Or tortured.  Or worse.

Quote from: SpikeIronically, it may be our attempts to impose our vision of what 'Women's rights' should be in Iraq that could drive the population to close ranks and become worse.  Think of it as you would an abusive relationship, though this imposes a value judgement we aren't qualified to make. Attack the abusive partner and the abused partner will leap to the defence. Always.

I don't disagree with this at all.  Trying to promote acceptance of basic human rights is hard work, and in this respect much of what the U.S. is doing in Iraq now is quite destructive to that end.

Quote from: J ArcaneMost of the actual intelligent analysis of terrorism I've read suggests that, in fact, military action CAUSES terrorism, especially the interventionist variety.  

Terrorism is what happens when a people feels desperate and weak in the face of a superior threat, and so find other ways to affect violent change.  

Personally, I think that our whole bull in a china shop approach is liable to create more terrorism than ever before.

Historically, open democratic societies breed more domestic terrorism than oppressive military juntas, by a huge fucking margin.  

Interventionalist military action is not causing terrorism in Iraq. What we have here is a confusion of terms. Terrorism is a wildly different creature than guerrilla warfare, though they do look the same.  Iraq, ironically, is free. And some people are using that freedom to commit terroristic actions against their neighbors. Kill enough Shites and maybe they'll convert or leave... or maybe they'll all be dead and you won't have to tolerate them anymore.  Like all terroristic acts it is largely self defeating. The Terrorist can not let the fight go, can not LET GO... even in victory.   That is one reason you see so much fracturing in terrorist groups when peace is on the table.

Guerrilla warfare is assymetrical combat against a superior force. The guerilla attacks military targets with the goal of crippling operations and reducing morale. He can not defeat the military in a tactical engagement, so he adopts the strategy of breaking the military cohesion and morale.  

In 9/11 none of the planes attacked a military base, they attacked symbols, and MOST of those symbols were civilian in nature. Yes, the pentagon is more a symbol than a military target.  The goal is to scare, or terrorize, the populace into changing into what the terrorist wants.  Attacking military targets would be an act of war, and would mobilize the population.  The US is, or was, relatively unique in how they responded to Pearl Harbor, and for a time to 9/11.  There was a very real expectation on behalf of the strategists in Japan in WWII that pearl harbor, in addition to crippling our naval assets, would break our will to fight.  One can suppose Al-Qaeda thought the same of 9/11.

Now, as I miss a lot more news than I used to: has there been a terrorist attack against the US since 2001?  I haven't seen one.

Quote from: AkrasiaOf course, without polling and voting, we wouldn't know that there exists so much support for Putin's 'strongman' approach.  

But you're right that people might choose regimes that we find noxious (strongmen, theocrats, etc.).  Nonetheless, we have no idea whether people want the government that they have unless they have a free vote, and enjoy freedom of the press and freedom of association (at least to some adequate degree).

(Can people freely choose to be unfree?  I have philosophical views about that, but best not get into them here.)



Unless you were a Kurd or a Marsh Arab.  Or a political opponent.  In which case you were gassed.  Or tortured.  Or worse.



I don't disagree with this at all.  Trying to promote acceptance of basic human rights is hard work, and in this respect much of what the U.S. is doing in Iraq now is quite destructive to that end.

Again, you worship at the Alter of Democracy so feircely that you view anyone who would chose to live differently as 'not having a say'.  People always have a say.  Recall that the government always rules at the whim of the people. Without people, no government can prevail.

While  I don't have any polls, I do have quotes from magazines.

As for chosing to be unfree: Haiti, in the wake of abolition, there are documented incidents of former slaves rioting and destroying their former plantations because their masters would not take them back.  Damning.  Instituionalized? Perhaps.  

When you consider the tendancy of Americans to vote in dynastic politcal families over common men, you get the idea that for many of us the words Democracy are paid more lip service than actual faith.  Who do I mean? Kennedy, Gore, Bush. What about the wife of Sonny Bono, who 'inherited' his seat?  There are more, but those names should suffice for now.

Quote from: SpikeThe only thing I take exception to in T-Willards post is the description of Arabs.

Are they cowards because they run in packs and ambush soldiers?

Of course not. They are cunning and ruthless.  How else are they going to fight a larger, more organized military with better gear?

To frame it another way: Are American Soldiers cowards because they wear body armor, ride in armored vehicles, and never go anywhere without at least a dozen buddies?

No, that's how you fight and survive in a warzone.


Asking the other side to play nice, be fair is blinkered foolishness.

My opinion was actually formed in the years before the current Iraq war.

I saw they were all horrendously brave in pack, but singly, they were quick to retreat to gather reenforcements. They'll beat a woman, but knuckle under to a man. They'll get a crowd together and start throwing rocks, but when you wade into them with 2 other guys wielding axe-handles, suddenly you're being brutal and they're the victim.

But it's a nasty part of my I don't like any more than you do. I just have the balls to admit it.

As far as their guerilla tactics, it's standard warfare for a weaker foe against a stronger one. It's not cowardly, it's survival. I don't belittle that.

I'm talking about in other parts of life.

Familiarity bred contempt.