Whatever happened to the McCarthurs and the Pattons

[jaguar]

Yea those arabs have never invented anything, ever. Clearly Islamic culture is completely flawed. If you want to make ignorant racist (yes, it is racist) statements like that you're going to have to provide some pretty amazing proof that an entire peoples is destined to failure or some shit.

[Undertoad]

tw, that's why I said "the heart" - Iraq is not "the heart", and Iran isn't even all that Middle-Eastern at all.

Jag, every culture has a different level of productivity, and that level is determined roughly by a combination of the government in place and the character of the people. It's not racist to notice that some nations are productive while others sit there and stagnate. Here is Ralph Peters' "Seven Signs of Unproductive States":

# Restrictions on the free flow of information.
# The subjugation of women.
# Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
# The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
# Domination by a restrictive religion.
# A low valuation of education.
# Low prestige assigned to work.

It's not hard to see why these cultural factors would keep a people back. It's not racism to simply notice that cultural factors prevent a nation from becoming productive. The Arabic world has unfortunately started with a very tribal character and then has been gifted the greatest gift the planet has to offer: oil. Without getting them to send their kids to school, stop keeping the women at home, and stop blaming everyone else (the jews, the west) for their collective failure, further gifts would be a waste.

[jaguar]

How do you suggest those things are overcome? Bombing? You seriously think the entire population is unwilling to work? On a community scale with wealth comes enlightenment and a higher chance of progressive culture. I'd also question where and how you think the last two apply. If you can show me an example where wealth and these symptoms don't correlate I'll be interested.

As for oil, only about 0.01% of the population ever sees the money, particularly in saudi. One reason these places are in the sorry state they are is the corrupt, undemocratic regimes that have been artificially propped up and installed for decades. Now who did that...

[Undertoad]

Then I fail to see your differences with the Bush administration. The entire goal of the administration is to tear down the dictatorships and set Democratic reforms into place. Unfortunately the governments in place will not stand idly by while this happens so it may take a little force to start the process.

[jaguar]

Goal (though this admin has put more effort into getting the oil flowing than getting power and water to people) may be the same, methods used are abhorrent. In Iraq the elections are frankly, irrelevent, no matter what happens the outcome is unlikely to be democratic - if it is the US will balk at the government and *cough* modify the result anyway. What matters is whether there are basic services and beyond that, jobs and slowly, over decades, you might get somewhere. Invading places isn't the solution, the solution is to gradually empower the people to choose their own government. Democracy isn't the answer either for that matter, singapore runs quite nicely on a virtual dictatorship. Economic growth and stability are the key. If there is an example here it is, oddly enough, Iran. Sure, the current reform effort may have hit for now, a brick wall but wait, next time, my money is on success.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by jaguar

The Marshall plan was over 100billion in today's money (not far off what invading Iraq and creating another focus point for hatred cost), if you threw that at it you'd see real change...

Bombing people may be a satisfying simplictic solution to placate hyperpatriotic americans but it takes real balls to suck it up and solve the problem instead.

let's not forget that the marshall plan was put into place after completely leveling a few countries. you can't buy love where they already hate you and feel they are beating you. part of the reason the marshall plan worked as well as it did is that those who opposed the allies were absolutely crushed. the aid was intended to help those that had been hurt in the process.

[jaguar]

A few countries that had been invaded by one, the only one that needed crushing was Germany, a country led by a man who had risen to power on the back of hurt nationalism and economic colapse that followed the 'punishment' after that first world war. The levelling of parts of the UK, France, Belgium etc was collateral. I don't think the muslim world feels it's beating the US. I'm very much of the opinion that there are many correlations between germany circa '36-'40 and the Islamic world today. However the distributed nature doesn't lend itself to traditional war as you're rapidly learning, it plays into the enemies hand. The only way to win is to remove their support. The biggest danger at the moment, from the top of the US admin to the actions of individual soldiers is this eye for an eye mentality. We all known what ghandi said about that.

[Undertoad]

Well again, since the governments in place won't stand for that kind of meddling, the administration doesn't have the luxury of advocating politically impossible approaches.

[jaguar]

Well Saddam probably wouldn't have. Egypt probably would. Syria would bend fairly easily and the house of Saud is reliant on the US anyway. Turkey is trying to get into the EU, that's a wonderful lever. There's a fuckload of political capital there than can be used to squeeze pratically all of these countries. Explain how it's politically impossible.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well again, since the governments in place won't stand for that kind of meddling, the administration doesn't have the luxury of advocating politically impossible approaches.

The only way those people will get a new government (that works) is when they want one. You can take a horse to water, but ....

When will they want one? One condition necessary to make a stable government - massive internal war, numerous deaths, AND the people finally decide THEY want change. Only a fool (ie George Jr) would think we can fix their government. History is something that George Jr has no knowledge of - being that his entire knowledge of the world comes from a 1.5 year indoctrination from Rice and Wolfovitz.

How to get the entire world to hate Ameicans. Impose American values on other nations - especially when those other nations don't want those values.

Previously, when western nations tried to do just that - it was called the Crusades. If you believe in good and evil, then you know Christianity was the most evil power then. All good religions are tolerant. Extremist Christians instead want to save everyone else. That meets the definition of evil. This paragraph written for simplicity of those who see the world only in black and white - as extremist Christians do routinely. No wonder they never expected the Spanish Inquisition. They listened to perverted bible stumpers rather than learn god's laws. Many of god's laws are found instead in history books. Christian extremists would rather have those books rewritten (ie. ignore the history of Constantinople - once the center of then human universe). Instead they foolishly think their religion can save others.

The best thing we could have done for the Middle East is let them solve their own problems - and continue as the honest broker. America is no longer an honest broker. George Jr has literally destroyed what took American 40 years to create. It was working. But it violates extremist Christian morality.

In the meantime, great generals such as Patton and McAurthur demonstrated that god's laws work. Not the perversion promoted from the bible or koran. They used god's laws as learned and recorded by god's profits - such as Tze Szu in 500 BC and the authors of a Declaration of Indepence.

[Undertoad]

tw would you advocate the "complete disengagement" idea?

Jag, does the New Marshall Plan have a problem as being seen as cultural imperialism, making the world safe for Coca-Cola(TM) etc?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

tw would you advocate the "complete disengagement" idea?

An honest broker does not disengage. An honest broker does not take sides. America earned unmatched popularity among the entire world - no other nation even came close - when we operated as an honest broker. That means talking softly, carrying a big stick, and never using it until the smoking gun makes the need obvious.

Korean war was an example of an honest broker that finally was forced to take sides. In the early days of Lebanon's last civil war, we operated as an honest broker - until Lt Col Oliver North decisions made us the enemy of two sides. We remained the honest broker in Eisenhower's day when we stopped an earlier Lebanon civil war AND when we stopped the British and French from attacking Egypt.

These are historical examples that appear in bold letters. America was even far more effective when we supported the UN to detooth Saddam, confronted arparthite in South Africa, encouraged reconcilation and political stability in Argentina, gave the Panama Canal back to Panama as promised, left the Philippines when they demanded, took advantage of and encouraged Libya to enter an almost 10 year process of becoming a responsible nation, permitted Japan to restore its cultural integrity without a destructive militaristic mentality, advocated international trade through various means such as international air transport standards, the Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights, etc.

There was nothing in the Middle East that was a threat to the US - unless we made it so. An honest broker would have empowered the UN. Instead we now undermine it because we now want to impose Christian bias upon the world. IOW we are no longer considered an honest broker even by Canada and Mexico. George Jr has been that destructive to American prestige. In fact, you are now watching a world try to create new honest brokers due to a vacuum left by America.

We made the same mistake in Vietnam. The parallels are shocking - in part because (for example) most here never read the Pentagon Papers. Most have knowledge about Watergate from the grossly distorted movie "All the President's Men" - and have so little idea of how McCarthyism is so easy to create. These are cancers that also pervet the honest broker. We cannot be an honest broker when too many Americans believe biblical parables (children stories) rather than god's lessons in history.

But again, there was nothing in the Middle East that should have caused war other than a rescue of Kuwait. We have now encouraged every nation there to go nuclear - as Iran now must. A Kuwait invasion that happened, in part, because we accidently told Saddam it would be OK. Even an honest broker can make mistakes.

How to solve problems as an honest broker? We kept out of the Balkan until the Balkans were ready to have their problem solved. Therefore we did not foolishly kill 100+ Americans every month. We did same in Argentina. It is how honest brokers work. We negotiated Milosevik and his friends right out of power. Diplomacy - properly applied as an honest broker - and we should all be singing praise of Richard Holbrook - is far more powerful than a military solution.

An honest America need not disengage. But an honest America also uses military force only as a last resort - the smoking gun. An honest broker cannot takes sides - as anti-humanity religions would have us do.

[Undertoad]

Ressurecting this thread,

this article addresses the question of root causes of Muslim anti-US sentiment and is kinda compelling because it lists counter-examples:

Muslim states have never supported Pakistan on Kashmir because most were close to India in the so-called nonaligned movement while Pakistan was a US ally in CENTO and SEATO.

When Hindu nationalists demolished the Ayodhya Mosque, no one thought it necessary to inflame Muslim passions.

Nor has a single Muslim nation recognized the republic set up by Muslim Turks in northern Cyprus. The reason? Greece has always sided with the Arabs on Palestine and plays occasional anti-American music while Turkey is a US ally.

When the Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica 10 years ago, not a ripple disturbed the serene calm of Muslim opinion. At that time, the mullahs of Teheran and Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were in cahoots with Slobodan Milosevic, supplying him with oil and money because Yugoslavia held the presidency of the so-called nonaligned movement. Belgrade was the only European capital to be graced with a state visit by Ali Khamenehi, the mullah who is now the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Republic.

And what about Chechnya which is, by any standard, the Muslim nation that has most suffered in the past two centuries? Last October the Muslim summit in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, gave a hero's welcome to Vladimir Putin, the man who has presided over the massacre of more Chechens than anyone in any other period in Russian history.

Right now there are 22 active conflicts across the globe in which Muslims are involved. Most Muslims have not even heard of most of them because those conflicts do not provide excuses for fomenting hatred against the United States.

Next time you hear someone say the US was in trouble in the Muslim world because of Israel, remember that things may not be that simple.

[Clodfobble]

But that last statement doesn't logically follow. All the previous examples show is 'they hate the US, and everyone who is friends with the US.' That doesn't mean there's no step before the US. Why can they not hate the US because we're allies with Israel, just like they can hate Turkey (apparently) only for being allied with the US?

It even mentions that "Greece has always sided with the Arabs on Palestine"... They hate the US, but they hate Israel way, way more.

[iamthewalrus109]

Truth be told Israel is one of the strongest symbols of American/western hemogeny of post WWII Earth. It's not only that the US supports Israel, but that they are in continous support of foriegn policy doctrine that recognizes a world order that was the result of agreements made at the end of the war. The parceling of Arab land, the reclaiming of land to form the state of Israel, and the pre-contstruction of the cold war infrastructure. All this ties into the mess we are all in now. All of these factors, mixed with the basic greed and averest of the United States has landed us here, its pure and simple really. Israel stands as a world order detested by Arabs, and reinforced by the military might of the US. Get ready for hardball

-Walrus