NationStates Jolt Archive

THIS IS WAR
Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005100)

It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the battleground has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists and those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to the confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word. You need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against. Most importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend from foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage of visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about "insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S. are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism. Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are their sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through terrorist activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists "militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of moderates willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to find moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though the majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation. We know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come from other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred emanating from Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal values that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to so polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing groups. On one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a common foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By appearing to be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of dollars from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to fund terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this "Palestinian know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people into fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of liberal ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they convince their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source of these democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S. and given free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the lesser evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are hated at home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they want in the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an alternative model. Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if America does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in focus. We are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and privileges of democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that the West is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge throughout the Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining Vladimir Putin's war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu Ghraib, but the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there because Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is not about defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as its representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N. Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of the democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly investigate any and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for plush U.N. offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism along antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role, but for the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war has freely crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax policy and social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the terrorist threat being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century Great Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform bills and home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in Europe but this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the right is against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The consequences of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack have yet to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks in Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules at all. WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom recognizes this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay catastrophe. Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it or not. Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending that this battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their hands--both real and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the Free Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

Interesting article!

I wonder what our Candian friends will say? Steph? Canuck? ;)

Interesting article!

I wonder what our Candian friends will say? Steph? Canuck? ;)

It is an interesting article, but what does being Canadian have to do with anything?????

Interesting article!

I wonder what our Candian friends will say? Steph? Canuck? ;)

It is an interesting article, but what does being Canadian have to do with anything?????

Interesting article!

I wonder what our Candian friends will say? Steph? Canuck? ;)

It is an interesting article, but what does being Canadian have to do with anything?????

A batch of people here have argued basically that the US is the source of most of the worlds problems.

Just curious as to what they would think but am probably not surprised to the silence. ;)

Though I will give them the benefit that they have not read this.....

Interesting article!

I wonder what our Candian friends will say? Steph? Canuck? ;)

It is an interesting article, but what does being Canadian have to do with anything?????

A batch of people here have argued basically that the US is the source of most of the worlds problems.

Just curious as to what they would think but am probably not surprised to the silence. ;)

Though I will give them the benefit that they have not read this.....

That's pretty generous of you.

SHL

I swear, it's almost like these leftist politicians WANT us to lose.

if not bush, then at least Lieberman in '04...

I swear, it's almost like these leftist politicians WANT us to lose.

if not bush, then at least Lieberman in '04...

aww c'mon, we all know that Howard Dean was the only real option, if only to see his state of the union address...

Okay, this guy has some good points. However, overall I don't like I see here. I'll try to be specific and cover what I need to without droning on endlessly.

First paragraph; Not a bad start, he highlights the importance of properly framing a conflict to make it have objectives that can be won and lost. Without this you are fighting purely on emotions and whims; totally ineffective, and promising only endless conflict.

Second paragraph; after the good point about al Qaeda not being hard to bomb even without a central command, it quickly becomes horrific:

"We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about "insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S. are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism."

This is unacceptable. Even allowing for the argument that all terrorism is bad terrorism, preventing any ideas that may be valid from being taken seriously just because a proponent of it became violent is inexcuseable. Why do I say this? Because Pro-life activists who DON'T use violence have a legitimate complaint that I do not support. I'm pro-choice, but just because some pro-life extremist becomes a terroist doesn't mean that pro-life groups are somehow all terrorists who need to be actively condemmed at every turn. Do you see the argument here? Forcing people to condemn every terrorist group and action is garunteed to bleed over into the topic itself. There is a fine line here that must not be crossed and the author is proposing that we try out our long jump.

Moving on, his third paragraph is also troubling. Mostly because he uses a contidiction in his argument.

"Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to find moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even though the majority of their victims are Muslim...We know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come from other than Syria and Iran?"

First he tells us that just about everyone outside Turkey is gonna be an extremist, then tells us that Syria and Iran are only to blame. Did someone turn over two pages at once? What about the rest of the nations in the mid-east that have a proven record of sponsoring terrorism? I'm sure we can all come up with a couple if we think hard...

So the question now becomes why didn't he mention Lybia or Saudi Arabia, or just about anyone else? Wait, he does a little later, but talks about them as our allies who are facing troubles.

Ah, here's why. Lets skim through his paragraphs about what a jerk Arafat has been, and how Pakistan can't be trusted, ah! Here we are...

"U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an alternative model."

Remember kids, if you get tired of people complaining about you are interfereing with their lives, kick their tail and show them how much better you are at running things than they are. Okay, perhaps that's not what he's saying exactly, perhaps something more alongs the lines of "If it works in Iraq, I see a couple of other nations that could be 'changed' for the better"

He mentions cleaning up abuses and "impressing" our Western model upon the eastern world. Well, that's good. If the US, UN, Russia and France can avoid abuses of power and becomes a model nation for others to emulate, I daresay we all could sleep easier at night.

And from that uplifting paragraph we descend once again into the mire.

"It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism along antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role, but for the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war has freely crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax policy and social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the terrorist threat being generated in the Islamic world."

I'm curious, since when did unity come before rational discussion of policy? This man is arguing that party affiliation is not a factor in a battle between the US and the Islamic world (his words), however he fails to mention the simple fact that declaring war on the Islamic world is not the intention of many on both sides of the political spectrum. It is fairly obvious that this is simply a call to turn off your brain and allow this "war" to be conducted without any concern as to how or why.

Adding further to my ire is this little gem:

"The consequences of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack have yet to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks in Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European leaders."

There you have it. SPAIN is soley responsible in this man's eyes for all attacks on Europe from now on. Never mind that pulling out of Iraq was the new leader's intention from day one and that the vast majority of the Spanish people wanted nothing to do with the war. These people have brought calamity to all of Europe by voting against a party that tried to blame an obviously Al-Queda style attack on the Basque sepratists who generally call ahead before bombing an empty shopping mall at 5am on a sunday.

Well, he raises a few good points. He states the obvious about WMDs, telling his readers that there is no way a terrorist will ever have access to a WMD would have seemed a little illogical wouldn't it? A better way to frame his argument is state perhaps WHY or WHERE such WMDs might come from? The poorly guarded stockpiles of Russia perhaps? Or the programs of any number of nations with a chip on their shoulder about the US? Nah. He's just stating the obvious here as a scare tactic to make you feel the need to pursue these terrorists.

...I'm curious, since when did unity come before rational discussion of policy? This man is arguing that party affiliation is not a factor in a battle between the US and the Islamic world (his words), however he fails to mention the simple fact that declaring war on the Islamic world is not the intention of many on both sides of the political spectrum. It is fairly obvious that this is simply a call to turn off your brain and allow this "war" to be conducted without any concern as to how or why...

While the last part of the paragraph I am quoting has significant merit, I'll take issue with the first sentence when you wrote, "...rational discussion of policy..." would you include the behavior of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd at the televised Senate Committee Hearings as rational? Recall that Byrd didn't ask questions of the witnesses, nope, he used his time to roll out the DNC's talking points while reading (painfully slow I might add) from a prepared document (probably written by the DNC Chairman); and then Kennedy's "...open under US management." rhetoric. In my view, it doesn't pass the rational discussion test..but then again, the Democratic Party is becoming less and less rational IMHO.

His point about Putin being highly authoritarian is a valid one, but guess what, if Russia was quickly turned into a nice fluffy liberaly democracy, who would be in power? The oil men; and who is standing in the shadow of the oil men, the Russian Mafia, that is who. Putin had no choice but to not allow his main opponent airtime for the election, as the opponent was backed by the Mafia. Is this what the US wants? Organised crime sitting on top of god knows how many nukes?!

...I'm curious, since when did unity come before rational discussion of policy? This man is arguing that party affiliation is not a factor in a battle between the US and the Islamic world (his words), however he fails to mention the simple fact that declaring war on the Islamic world is not the intention of many on both sides of the political spectrum. It is fairly obvious that this is simply a call to turn off your brain and allow this "war" to be conducted without any concern as to how or why...

While the last part of the paragraph I am quoting has significant merit, I'll take issue with the first sentence when you wrote, "...rational discussion of policy..." would you include the behavior of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd at the televised Senate Committee Hearings as rational? Recall that Byrd didn't ask questions of the witnesses, nope, he used his time to roll out the DNC's talking points while reading (painfully slow I might add) from a prepared document (probably written by the DNC Chairman); and then Kennedy's "...open under US management." rhetoric. In my view, it doesn't pass the rational discussion test..but then again, the Democratic Party is becoming less and less rational IMHO.
Oh, sure, the only example of rational political discourse nowadays is Sen. Inhofe (R-Overflight Territory)

While the last part of the paragraph I am quoting has significant merit, I'll take issue with the first sentence when you wrote, "...rational discussion of policy..." would you include the behavior of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd at the televised Senate Committee Hearings as rational? Recall that Byrd didn't ask questions of the witnesses, nope, he used his time to roll out the DNC's talking points while reading (painfully slow I might add) from a prepared document (probably written by the DNC Chairman); and then Kennedy's "...open under US management." rhetoric. In my view, it doesn't pass the rational discussion test..but then again, the Democratic Party is becoming less and less rational IMHO.

Perhaps one could look at such displays of empty rhetoric as a subtle attack against the dogmatic assertions that flow of the current administration and their own talking points. Perhaps one could veiw the degrading state of affairs that you assign to the DNC and look for similarities that may show up in the RNC as well. It may be that the tiring and irritating speeches that the two Senators gave actually had some underlying purpose to them. Some message that they wished to put foreward.

Still, it could be that they are just as you indicate, irrational people who are painful to watch and listen to, blindly agreeing to the party line that was handed down from their superiors. Strange though...I could have sworn thats what those very Senate hearings were about.

Perhaps one could look at such displays of empty rhetoric as a subtle attack against the dogmatic assertions that flow of the current administration and their own talking points. Perhaps one could view the degrading state of affairs that you assign to the DNC and look for similarities that may show up in the RNC as well. It may be that the tiring and irritating speeches that the two Senators gave actually had some underlying purpose to them. Some message that they wished to put foreward.

Yes, you are right on the money - you and someone else who also posted words to the same effect. These bouts of irrationality run through both parties. Perhaps we wont agree where most of the irrational and extreme views lie though.

Still, it could be that they are just as you indicate, irrational people who are painful to watch and listen to, blindly agreeing to the party line that was handed down from their superiors. Strange though...I could have sworn thats what those very Senate hearings were about.

Very well done, I like subtlety. Subtlety and nuance is great.

I thought that the hearings took place in order to get to the bottom of things and not exclusively to get to "the top" of them. If one is inclined to believe that these enlisted people were ordered, they could read the 10-page pdf document of Jeremy Sivits' sworn statement in mid January. Of course that would require that one could shake the idea that this isn't some cover-up by the HalliCheney Corporation.

Didn't think the article was very good personally, it chose to misrepresent the political mainstream of both Europe and liberalism and smear them with the usual, casual American Conservative rhetoric. Words like "appeasers" and "concession makers", are not applied to anything of substance and so one can only assume that such terms are being generalised to any ideology in contravention with its own. The article talks in effect about wanting to establish a clear dialogue concerning terrorism, yet he does anything but that.

I find it amusing the manner in which he speaks of the U.S as the representative of western values and beliefs, this smacks of the “you’re either on our side or with the terrorists” crap which the Bush administration seems intent on perpetuating, this idea is reinforced by his reference to Israel and U.S as somehow being the only nations committed to fighting terrorism. This kind of nationalist arrogance is precisely what had alienated large parts of the world from America and ironically I believe that if Iraq has shown one thing it is that the U.S cannot simply ‘go it alone’ and that policies of multinationalism are the only way in which the U.S can fight the “war on terror”.

The idea that Islamic moderates do not exist outside of Turkey is rubbish, pure and simple. Many of the Conservative Islamic rulers throughout Arab nations are deeply unpopular and there is enormous pressure on them to enact reforms, take the recent fiasco in the Iranian elections for example. Unfortunately the war in Iraq has been a setback for this process and has caused an increase in reactionism among Muslisms and a growth in the perception that liberal Western values are incompatible with those of Islam. One year ago I naively believed that turning Iraq into a prosperous, independent and democratic state with both Islamic and Western values would be a relatively straightforward process allowing a modern equivalent of West Berlin during the cold war. Now, looking at the chaotic quagmire that the country has become and the repercussions the whole conflict is having across the Arab world the decision to invade has been a profound failure and a body blow for Islamic moderates and reformists across the world.

It is much easier to fight terrorism if they are alienated from their own communities than if they are embraced by them as freedom fighters or counter-revolutionaries. Thus targeted interventionism rather than wholesale invasions must be the policy we ought to be pursuing since the relatively indiscriminate killing that results from an invasion affects terrorists and innocents alike and thus it is not seen as a battle against terrorism. That is the origin of the word “freedom fighter” not as Kasparov seems to think, some liberal politically correct European agenda.

You do not fight terrorism by polarising world opinion against you, insulting your allies, ignoring international institutions and opinion, and engaging in military activities that will result in the loss of innocent life on a vast scale. You fight terrorism by engaging with the Arab world and persuading it to reform, by treating other countries with respect and as allies, by attaining legitimacy and support through the use of international organisations, by using specifically targeted interventionism when necessary and by establishing a more clear and coherent dialogue on the subject than is advocated by the current “war on terrorism”.

Kasparov may be good at chess but I wouldn’t want him as my foreign minister.

To say the war is about terror is a damnable lie.

Didn't think the article was very good personally, it chose to misrepresent the political mainstream of both Europe and liberalism and smear them with the usual, casual American Conservative rhetoric. Words like "appeasers" and "concession makers", are not applied to anything of substance and so one can only assume that such terms are being generalised to any ideology in contravention with its own. The article talks in effect about wanting to establish a clear dialogue concerning terrorism, yet he does anything but that.

I find it amusing the manner in which he speaks of the U.S as the representative of western values and beliefs, this smacks of the “you’re either on our side or with the terrorists” crap which the Bush administration seems intent on perpetuating, this idea is reinforced by his reference to Israel and U.S as somehow being the only nations committed to fighting terrorism. This kind of nationalist arrogance is precisely what had alienated large parts of the world from America and ironically I believe that if Iraq has shown one thing it is that the U.S cannot simply ‘go it alone’ and that policies of multinationalism are the only way in which the U.S can fight the “war on terror”.

The idea that Islamic moderates do not exist outside of Turkey is rubbish, pure and simple. Many of the Conservative Islamic rulers throughout Arab nations are deeply unpopular and there is enormous pressure on them to enact reforms, take the recent fiasco in the Iranian elections for example. Unfortunately the war in Iraq has been a setback for this process and has caused an increase in reactionism among Muslisms and a growth in the perception that liberal Western values are incompatible with those of Islam. One year ago I naively believed that turning Iraq into a prosperous, independent and democratic state with both Islamic and Western values would be a relatively straightforward process allowing a modern equivalent of West Berlin during the cold war. Now, looking at the chaotic quagmire that the country has become and the repercussions the whole conflict is having across the Arab world the decision to invade has been a profound failure and a body blow for Islamic moderates and reformists across the world.

It is much easier to fight terrorism if they are alienated from their own communities than if they are embraced by them as freedom fighters or counter-revolutionaries. Thus targeted interventionism rather than wholesale invasions must be the policy we ought to be pursuing since the relatively indiscriminate killing that results from an invasion affects terrorists and innocents alike and thus it is not seen as a battle against terrorism. That is the origin of the word “freedom fighter” not as Kasparov seems to think, some liberal politically correct European agenda.

You do not fight terrorism by polarising world opinion against you, insulting your allies, ignoring international institutions and opinion, and engaging in military activities that will result in the loss of innocent life on a vast scale. You fight terrorism by engaging with the Arab world and persuading it to reform, by treating other countries with respect and as allies, by attaining legitimacy and support through the use of international organisations, by using specifically targeted interventionism when necessary and by establishing a more clear and coherent dialogue on the subject than is advocated by the current “war on terrorism”.

Kasparov may be good at chess but I wouldn’t want him as my foreign minister.

Let me interject.

We are not really "going at it alone"...this is a myth. What we don't have is some significant permanent players from the UN Security Council onboard.

The term "Conservative" Islamic ruler is not the same kind of conservatism practiced in the western world. In fact the words "liberalism" and "conservatism" have been perverted from their Revolutionary War days. In its classical definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), liberalism meant free from government dictatorship, or autocracy, or theocracy. A conservative during the Revolutionary War was a Tory!

We saw what happened when we kept "world opinion" on our side. I don't know about you, but when I saw that jihadist pilot of that second plane gun the throttle of the aircraft moments before he slamed into the other tower...well, let's just say that "world opinion" became irrelevent for me. Point blank: did we deserve that, that or any of the other handful of smaller attacks against us?

You may have let the "rest of the world" (those who report the news) sway your opinion of "the quagmire" in Iraq, but I believe that history will show that our actions were badly needed and badly welcomed by the people of that region despite what may be reported out of there now.

I believe that liberalism [in its classical sense] is worth fighting for! :idea: If you haven't already done so, maybe you could check out that link I've provided :idea:

Didn't think the article was very good personally, it chose to misrepresent the political mainstream of both Europe and liberalism and smear them with the usual, casual American Conservative rhetoric. Words like "appeasers" and "concession makers", are not applied to anything of substance and so one can only assume that such terms are being generalised to any ideology in contravention with its own. The article talks in effect about wanting to establish a clear dialogue concerning terrorism, yet he does anything but that.

I find it amusing the manner in which he speaks of the U.S as the representative of western values and beliefs, this smacks of the “you’re either on our side or with the terrorists” crap which the Bush administration seems intent on perpetuating, this idea is reinforced by his reference to Israel and U.S as somehow being the only nations committed to fighting terrorism. This kind of nationalist arrogance is precisely what had alienated large parts of the world from America and ironically I believe that if Iraq has shown one thing it is that the U.S cannot simply ‘go it alone’ and that policies of multinationalism are the only way in which the U.S can fight the “war on terror”.

The idea that Islamic moderates do not exist outside of Turkey is rubbish, pure and simple. Many of the Conservative Islamic rulers throughout Arab nations are deeply unpopular and there is enormous pressure on them to enact reforms, take the recent fiasco in the Iranian elections for example. Unfortunately the war in Iraq has been a setback for this process and has caused an increase in reactionism among Muslisms and a growth in the perception that liberal Western values are incompatible with those of Islam. One year ago I naively believed that turning Iraq into a prosperous, independent and democratic state with both Islamic and Western values would be a relatively straightforward process allowing a modern equivalent of West Berlin during the cold war. Now, looking at the chaotic quagmire that the country has become and the repercussions the whole conflict is having across the Arab world the decision to invade has been a profound failure and a body blow for Islamic moderates and reformists across the world.

It is much easier to fight terrorism if they are alienated from their own communities than if they are embraced by them as freedom fighters or counter-revolutionaries. Thus targeted interventionism rather than wholesale invasions must be the policy we ought to be pursuing since the relatively indiscriminate killing that results from an invasion affects terrorists and innocents alike and thus it is not seen as a battle against terrorism. That is the origin of the word “freedom fighter” not as Kasparov seems to think, some liberal politically correct European agenda.

You do not fight terrorism by polarising world opinion against you, insulting your allies, ignoring international institutions and opinion, and engaging in military activities that will result in the loss of innocent life on a vast scale. You fight terrorism by engaging with the Arab world and persuading it to reform, by treating other countries with respect and as allies, by attaining legitimacy and support through the use of international organisations, by using specifically targeted interventionism when necessary and by establishing a more clear and coherent dialogue on the subject than is advocated by the current “war on terrorism”.

Kasparov may be good at chess but I wouldn’t want him as my foreign minister.

Let me interject.

We are not really "going at it alone"...this is a myth. What we don't have is some significant permanent players from the UN Security Council onboard.

The term "Conservative" Islamic ruler is not the same kind of conservatism practiced in the western world. In fact the words "liberalism" and "conservatism" have been perverted from their Revolutionary War days. In its classical definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism), liberalism meant free from government dictatorship, or autocracy, or theocracy. A conservative during the Revolutionary War was a Tory!

We saw what happened when we kept "world opinion" on our side. I don't know about you, but when I saw that jihadist pilot of that second plane gun the throttle of the aircraft moments before he slamed into the other tower...well, let's just say that "world opinion" became irrelevent for me. Point blank: did we deserve that, that or any of the other handful of smaller attacks against us?

You may have let the "rest of the world" (those who report the news) sway your opinion of "the quagmire" in Iraq, but I believe that history will show that our actions were badly needed and badly welcomed by the people of that region despite what may be reported out of there now.

I believe that liberalism [in its classical sense] is worth fighting for! :idea: If you haven't already done so, maybe you could check out that link I've provided :idea:

I believe as you do that for Iraqis more good than evil will come out of the war on Iraq, my initial support for the conflict was based on this contention, yet that was in ignorance of wider issues that I have already highlighted. I do not feel that my opinion has been swayed by any biased reporting but rather I have come to a more balanced conclusion based on my having matured a little and being aware of more of the facts.

I hope that your question was a rhetorical one but I will answer it nonetheless, no the US did not deserve 9/11, nor does anyone else. Yet it is precisely because of events like 9/11 that the U.S should care about world opinion, if it wishes to fight terrorism then not only does it need allies but it also needs to demonstrate to the nations from which most terrorists originate that the U.S is not a tyrannical imperialist monster intent upon destroying Islam, as Muslim extremists would advocate.

I too believe that liberalism (as defined by that website) is worth fighting for, yet only when fighting for it will have a positive impact upon its cause. In this case I feel that the war on Iraq has provided a stronger case for Islamic conservatisim (which I appreciate differs from its western equivalent) and has set back the processes of liberalisation and democratisation which I hope will one day be prevalent throughout the Middle East.