NationStates Jolt Archive

Was that during or in the aftermath of the Barbary pirates debacle?


if i recall correctly thats what officially ended the barbary pirates debacle. nice word there debacle.

Was that during or in the aftermath of the Barbary pirates debacle?
This was in direct response to it.

can we say "mob mentality"

thats all we've faced in iraq. sheep too stupid to figure out their own opinions


Sorry Jordan but ive gotta say it.
were you one of those sheep, or do you just not believe that some of those people could also be fighting for what they believe?

Look at the polls, there is a very large and significant segment of the Iraqi population that resent us and the democracy we're forcing upon them.
referring to my earlier post...

sheep too stupid to form their own opinions. theyre enjoying freedoms such as cell phones and cars, but when al-sadr calls america evil, the saddam-ites comform for fear of getting shot.

Correct. Isn't the oldest known recorded laws those of Hamurabi?
I'm not sure, but that sounds right.

we started the revolution and asked the french for help. thats where the comparison fails
The logistics of a revolution while the country was still under the control of Saddam would make said revolution nearly impossible. America was able to revolt against the British mainly because of the Atlantic Ocean. It played merry hell with the Brits communications and their supply lines. That and had Britain been smart enough to send it's best commanders, we probably would have been screwed.

referring to my earlier post...

sheep too stupid to form their own opinions. theyre enjoying freedoms such as cell phones and cars, but when al-sadr calls america evil, the saddam-ites comform for fear of getting shot.


Well when they grew up that way they just do it its a force of habit. also the government was pretty big and im sure some of the soldiers would have sold their own families to have money to live on and to protect themselves.

Look at the polls, there is a very large and significant segment of the Iraqi population that resent us and the democracy we're forcing upon them.Thats no reason to arm young teenagers with guns and send them off to fight against liberators. Thats just insanity.

The logistics of a revolution while the country was still under the control of Saddam would make said revolution nearly impossible. America was able to revolt against the British mainly because of the Atlantic Ocean. It played merry hell with the Brits communications and their supply lines. That and had Britain been smart enough to send it's best commanders, we probably would have been screwed.
you cant start a revolution if there are no revoutionaries.

Sorry Jordan but ive gotta say it.
were you one of those sheep, or do you just not believe that some of those people could also be fighting for what they believe?

what im trying to say is that the iraqi people were so used to being oppressed, theyre not used to freedom. theyre used to being told what to think. they dont want to form their own opinions because for a majority of most iraquis lives, if they did form an opinion, they would get shot or something. they have been trained by saddam to be docile and sheepish. since saddam is gone, they will support america when the troops come marching in, but when the troops leave and al sadr tells em to shoot americans, they have nothing better say than "ok"

Look at the polls, there is a very large and significant segment of the Iraqi population that resent us and the democracy we're forcing upon them.
Look at the polls? How friggin stupid of a response is that? Firstly, any reputable statistician could tell you that polls ain't exactly the best way of gathering information at any time. Throw in the probable bias of the researchers, the general unrest, and the probability that the poll was not properly randomized and the polls become near meaningless.

Thats no reason to arm young teenagers with guns and send them off to fight against liberators. Thats just insanity.


Did you ever think that they might not see us as liberators but oppressoprs. and some people would do anything for what they believe in.
but sadly i have to go to sleep now. i ish i could stay on to debate this but i bid you all adieu.

The logistics of a revolution while the country was still under the control of Saddam would make said revolution nearly impossible. America was able to revolt against the British mainly because of the Atlantic Ocean. It played merry hell with the Brits communications and their supply lines. That and had Britain been smart enough to send it's best commanders, we probably would have been screwed.Wow considering we had assembled a militia and army out of farmers who were mostly armed with outdated weaponry we did fare off pretty good against the most powerful nation of the time.

you cant start a revolution if there are no revoutionaries.
True, especially when the revolutionaries are being brutally suppressed by a tyrant.

you cant start a revolution if there are no revoutionaries.
amen

Look, as i see it unless people are all the same ther will always be hate. has any1 read "the giver"? the entire society is religion free genetically altered to be thae same colored skin hair etc. that is about the only way any1 will ever just stop hating. look at france we didnt help them with their revolution so they do things just to spite us. or catholicisms views on homosexuality, they are raised thinking its wrong so in turn they think its wrong.

the conflict in the middle east started with the battle of tripoli in the early 1800s. american ships wer boarded and sailers taken prisoner. for awile we actualy tried to help a dictators brother overthrow him. but before that was done they made an agreement to release the prisoners.and like americans do we quickly forgot about helping overthrow the dictator becuz we found a quick and easy solution.

as for them hating our freedom the only person i think that realy supports us is tony blaire....and he is perpetualy kissing bushes ass. if you noticed the quran forebays suicide, if you commit it you are intantly ostricized from the religion, wich realy makes me ask the question why we always associate terrorism with islamic suicide bombers. islamic leaders have called for the stop of sucide bombings...yet they still happen. this means that they are doing this for some other reason then religious.

as for our govt its far from perfectwevee still got problems with the govt arresting and filling up prisons with drug offenders wich i realy think dont belong in prison for being addicted or ingesting a drug. thers that big debate over abortions and stem cell research, stem cell research could realy help alot of diseases but ther could be some things injecting stem cells could awaken that coild be horrible. gay marrage is another issue. and with that the catholic parent groups wanting to ban the "pro homosexual" sponge bob sqaure-pants. i think america has problems we need to manage ourselves before we can be justified telling others how to run themselves...i dont think we ever can

Did you ever think that they might not see us as liberators but oppressoprs. and some people would do anything for what they believe in.
but sadly i have to go to sleep now. i ish i could stay on to debate this but i bid you all adieu.Good point but that brings us to my earlier claim of their ignorance.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!
"They hate freedom"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That is so freakin' funny. Doesn't anyone else see how funny that statement is?
Oh my.... I think I peed my pants.

Originally Posted by The Hitler Jugend
There's several things to remember:

A) Arabs hate Jews (as do all Gentiles) - America gives $8.3million per day to Israel. What does Israel do with the money? Buy old Soviet guns and tanks and kill Palestinians (Arabs). Thats why 9/11 happened, and it will happen again if America continues to fund Israel

B) Democracy is a reltively new idea, and not many people like it. To be honest, I dont even think it works. Look at America now, we basically vote in a dictator. We voted in George Bush, he went to war against Iraq when the majority of his citizens didnt want to, and there's nothing we can do about it. Our national leaders are not being held responsible for their actions. Or look at Germany, look at all their anti-Nazi laws. Thats no democracy, thats a dictatorship! What kind of democracy tells its people what they can and cannot say, or wear? Germany has been royally screwed by the Allies.....twice.
Thus, I think democracy has had its day in the sun.

You're partially right on A. That wasn't the only reason for 9/11, but it was definitely on the list of top 5 reasons.

As far as B goes, you're wrong on several points. First of all, the majority of Americans were FOR the war at the time. Not a single major poll said otherwise. It wasn't by a large margin, but it was over 50% in every poll.

Secondly, I agree that democracy isn't a good form of government, but unfortunatley there isn't a better one right now.

Thirdly, democracy is the oldest form of government. It fell out of use for a little while, made a resurface in Greece, and has been coming back again since the 18th century and has been a steady seat of power since. I suspect that has to do with more efficient modes of communication. People in most any country can instantly send ANY text to anywhere in the world. If you don't have a computer, then pick up a phone, a cell phone or even a GPS tracker. All this communication is going to encourage those in worse situations to elevate their situation to the better situations they hear and learn about.

As far as B goes, you're wrong on several points. First of all, the majority of Americans were FOR the war at the time. Not a single major poll said otherwise. It wasn't by a large margin, but it was over 50% in every poll.


So... you do realize that that is utilitarianism, right? Just checking.
"The greatest good for the greatest number"

referring to my earlier post...

sheep too stupid to form their own opinions. theyre enjoying freedoms such as cell phones and cars, but when al-sadr calls america evil, the saddam-ites comform for fear of getting shot.
In some ways they're better and in some ways they're worse. Their access to natural gas, which they use to heat their homes in this cold part of the year (winter nights in a desert are VERY harsh and cold), is almost non-existant where as that didn't used to be a problem. Their access to petrol is still pitiful. Cold houses and cars that they can't drive don't over shadow the nice schools and hospitals they're getting.

True, especially when the revolutionaries are being brutally suppressed by a tyrant.
the definition of a revolutionary is somebody who stands against a brutally repressive tyrant. there wasn't a huge democratic movement in iraq, there wasnt one in the middle east. and no amount of explosions are going to turn the baath party into minutemen, period.

The logistics of a revolution while the country was still under the control of Saddam would make said revolution nearly impossible. America was able to revolt against the British mainly because of the Atlantic Ocean. It played merry hell with the Brits communications and their supply lines. That and had Britain been smart enough to send it's best commanders, we probably would have been screwed.
If it weren't for that pond called the Atlantic ocean, there wouldn't have been a revolution to start with. The gripes of the colonists were that they had no parlimental representation and the british government was neglectful.

Look at the polls? How friggin stupid of a response is that? Firstly, any reputable statistician could tell you that polls ain't exactly the best way of gathering information at any time. Throw in the probable bias of the researchers, the general unrest, and the probability that the poll was not properly randomized and the polls become near meaningless.
How stupid is my response? Apparently not as stupid as yours. Seriously, you can skew one or two polls, but not ALL of them. Also, I find it interesting that individuals will use polls when it agrees with them, but then condemn them when they disagree. Face it, there are a LOT of Iraqis that resent our presence and no amount of denial or legalize is going to change that.

So... you do realize that that is utilitarianism, right? Just checking.
"The greatest good for the greatest number"
I was simply contradicting the earlier point that essentially democracy is dead and pointless pointless because most Americans were against the war.

If it weren't for that pond called the Atlantic ocean, there wouldn't have been a revolution to start with. The gripes of the colonists were that they had no parlimental representation and the british government was neglectful.
My point was that the logistics of such a revolution in Iraq would make said revolution highly unlikely to really get started, let alone work.

Frankly, I'm surprised this thread has gotten this far without someone saying "Moslem" or "Mohammetanist".

My point was that the logistics of such a revolution in Iraq would make said revolution highly unlikely to really get started, let alone work.
and my point is there wasnt a tienamen square or stdent movement that made it seem even remotly likely that the iraqis wanted or were ready for democracy to be imposed on them

How stupid is my response? Apparently not as stupid as yours. Seriously, you can skew one or two polls, but not ALL of them. Also, I find it interesting that individuals will use polls when it agrees with them, but then condemn them when they disagree. Face it, there are a LOT of Iraqis that resent our presence and no amount of denial or legalize is going to change that.
The more unstable an area the less likely a poll is to be correct. Combine this with the fact that in areas where insurgents are active any known resistance to their ideology is rather, um, brutally taken care of and the polls become less than useless.

Look, as i see it unless people are all the same ther will always be hate. has any1 read "the giver"? the entire society is religion free genetically altered to be thae same colored skin hair etc. that is about the only way any1 will ever just stop hating.
Um, did you completely miss the message behind that book?

and my point is there wasnt a tienamen square or stdent movement that made it seem even remotly likely that the iraqis wanted or were ready for democracy to be imposed on them
Compare populations. The same percentage of people in the movement makes it much easier to cover up and suppress.

Compare populations. The same percentage of people in the movement makes it much easier to cover up and suppress.

there were student revolutions in cuba, el salvador, nicaragua, iran, all with comprable populations. iran overthrew the terribly represive shah. iraq wasnt ready for democracy. its something you cant do for a country. you cannot rebel for them. you cant make a baby get born any faster. you cant cut a caterpillar out of a cocoon to make it a butterfly any faster. take the cake out of the oven too soon and it collapses. some things take time and democratic revolution is one of them.

What if they had invaded (I'm sorry 'pacified') the US instead of the other way round, would you be happy about that?
Of course not. Apparently one of us is having trouble with our sense of humor. I think it's you.

So why does the Middle East hate us?


There are so many things wrong with the idea behind this sentence.

First of all the Middle East is a descriptive term for a region. Within that region live 259 million people, slightly less than the population of the United States. The variety of ethnic groups, religions, languages, and political aspirations of the people living in that region is no less diverse than is found in the U.S.

Within the geographic region of the Middle East live Kurds, Turks, Bedouins, Egyptians, Berbers, Azeris, Armenians, Sephardic and Ashkenazi Israelis, Persians, Indians, and a dozen smaller ethnic groups, in addition to Arabs. This does not even take into account the many tribes within those ethnic groups. There are an estimated 100 major tribes and several hundred cohesive clans in Iraq alone.

Throughout the Middle East people speak Farsi, Hebrew, Kurdish, Turkish, Berber, Coptic, Armenian and Arabic. Religiously they are Syrian Catholic, Maronite, Orthodox and Coptic Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrians, Bahai, Alawite, Druze, and of course, Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim. Politically and economically they are just as diverse.

"They" do not all hate Americans.

The attitude Middle Eastern peoples have toward the United States is complex. There is a history of economic colonialism, but also of economic aid. The United States continues to support the region's most repressive and hated regimes, but also holds out hope for freedom and democracy. U.S. foreign policy has long been blind to Israeli transgressions against the Palestinian people, but a peaceful resolution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will not come without the aid and support of America. America continues to be the region's largest arms dealer as well as its greatest proponent of peace. The United States builds ever more military bases in the region, asserting its military muscle, yet is also the protector of smaller nations against their more aggressive neighbors.

"The Middle East" cannot be understood through bumper sticker answers, even if we have a president whose proposals are only slightly more complex.

*yawn*

They hate you because you're dicks. Do I really have to elaborate? Come on, you know it - you're a nation of dicks. And everybody knows of your inherent dickheadedness. People will inevitably tell you things like, 'well of course it's not YOU per se, it's your government - they're dickheads', but you know what? They're really thinking what a dick you are anyway.

*yawn*

Hmmm you seem to like talking about dicks! ;)

*yawn*

They hate you because you're dicks. Do I really have to elaborate? Come on, you know it - you're a nation of dicks. And everybody knows of your inherent dickheadedness. People will inevitably tell you things like, 'well of course it's not YOU per se, it's your government - they're dickheads', but you know what? They're really thinking what a dick you are anyway.

*yawn*

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck a asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate. And it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. Because pussies are a inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this. If you don't let us fuck this asshole we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit.

There are so many things wrong with the idea behind this sentence.

First of all the Middle East is a descriptive term for a region. Within that region live 259 million people, slightly less than the population of the United States. The variety of ethnic groups, religions, languages, and political aspirations of the people living in that region is no less diverse than is found in the U.S.

Within the geographic region of the Middle East live Kurds, Turks, Bedouins, Egyptians, Berbers, Azeris, Armenians, Sephardic and Ashkenazi Israelis, Persians, Indians, and a dozen smaller ethnic groups, in addition to Arabs. This does not even take into account the many tribes within those ethnic groups. There are an estimated 100 major tribes and several hundred cohesive clans in Iraq alone.

Throughout the Middle East people speak Farsi, Hebrew, Kurdish, Turkish, Berber, Coptic, Armenian and Arabic. Religiously they are Syrian Catholic, Maronite, Orthodox and Coptic Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrians, Bahai, Alawite, Druze, and of course, Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim. Politically and economically they are just as diverse.

"They" do not all hate Americans.

The attitude Middle Eastern peoples have toward the United States is complex. There is a history of economic colonialism, but also of economic aid. The United States continues to support the region's most repressive and hated regimes, but also holds out hope for freedom and democracy. U.S. foreign policy has long been blind to Israeli transgressions against the Palestinian people, but a peaceful resolution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will not come without the aid and support of America. America continues to be the region's largest arms dealer as well as its greatest proponent of peace. The United States builds ever more military bases in the region, asserting its military muscle, yet is also the protector of smaller nations against their more aggressive neighbors.

"The Middle East" cannot be understood through bumper sticker answers, even if we have a president whose proposals are only slightly more complex.


I think I love you. ;) :fluffle:

Keruvalia, I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curious: is 'Moslem' considered derogatory rather than an alternative spelling? I've always spelled it 'Muslim' but I always thought it was just how some people spelled it. I know 'Mohametan' is...archaic, at best (though I don't think I've ever heard it used, only seen it in some older books). I am actually pretty ignorant about Islam, although I do know a few bits about it and I know it isn't eeeeevil like some people seem to think.

Also, in re: the founding fathers, weren't an awful lot of them Masons rather than Christians? That was my understanding, anyway. (Plus there were a few Quakers, who are pacifists. Imagine if America was mostly Quaker today!)

thanks

I'm baaack. Bring it on ^_^

Keruvalia, I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curious: is 'Moslem' considered derogatory rather than an alternative spelling? I've always spelled it 'Muslim' but I always thought it was just how some people spelled it. I know 'Mohametan' is...archaic, at best (though I don't think I've ever heard it used, only seen it in some older books). I am actually pretty ignorant about Islam, although I do know a few bits about it and I know it isn't eeeeevil like some people seem to think.

Also, in re: the founding fathers, weren't an awful lot of them Masons rather than Christians? That was my understanding, anyway. (Plus there were a few Quakers, who are pacifists. Imagine if America was mostly Quaker today!)

Some "moslems" are picky about the spelling, but I don't see the offense unless you're saying the word in a distorted manner. As long as you pronounce it the normal way you're not doing anything wrong, though it would be best if everyone spelled the same word the same way. The spelling of muslim was just derived as being the best spelling of the pronounciation of an arabic word.

And Mahamatans or whatever is offensive because it implies that a muslim worships mohammed. Do I have to explain that?

And the founding fathers weren't masons, atleast not to my knowledge. Jefferson was a deist I think, and most of the others were Christians self conscience of the wrongdoings of the Chruchs and following of Christ. Or whateve.r I'm not certain.

Keruvalia, I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curious: is 'Moslem' considered derogatory rather than an alternative spelling? I've always spelled it 'Muslim' but I always thought it was just how some people spelled it. I know 'Mohametan' is...archaic, at best (though I don't think I've ever heard it used, only seen it in some older books). I am actually pretty ignorant about Islam, although I do know a few bits about it and I know it isn't eeeeevil like some people seem to think.


Well, "Moslem" is really just a misspelling and nothing offensive. It's like saying "Osama bin Laden" when his name is actually, when put in English, "Usama Ibn Ladin". The "u" or the "o" doesn't matter so much.

Mohametan is actually offensive because it implies that we worship Mohammed(pbuh). Nobody worships Mohammed. He was just a man.

EDIT: Oops ... Perisa beat me to it. :D

The United States should mind its own F*cking business :mp5: . And that's coming from an American. (Blue-Stater and proud :p )

We have about as much business in Iraq as penguins do in Death Valley.

Certain governments work for certain regions of the world. Not all. And the Democratic REPUBLIC of the U.S. has nerve, imposing its "Democracy" on other nations, when it itself isn't a Democracy. Go figure.

The reason the U.S. is hated so much is because it's a warmachine, and Bush feels that the only way to stabilize the plummeting economy is with a constant state of war, martial law, and lots of Iraqi oil. Hmmm....Police State comes to mind... Saddam Hussein killed fewer Iraqis and did more good for his country than the U.S., and we're supposed to be the Good Guys.
Hell, we're even supporting a warcriminal (Israeli Sharon) who ordered the murders of thousand of Lebanese POWs....
God Bless America.

Thanks Perisa and Keruvalia! :)

I don't know where I got the Mason thing from...I think there are some Masonic symbols on some of our money, and occasionally people over here will come up to me and say "George Washington was a Mason, you know" and sort of wait for a reaction, as if I'm going to become wildly offended and scream at them. All they ever get is a raised eyebrow and a "...yeeees...and your point is?" though. :p Maybe I'll google it, I've got nothing better to do (ok I should be cleaning the house, but, meh.)

Certain governments work for certain regions of the world. Not all. And the Democratic REPUBLIC of the U.S. has nerve, imposing its "Democracy" on other nations, when it itself isn't a Democracy. Go figure.
:confused:
The US is quite certainly a democracy. That's where the "Democratic" in "Democratic Republic" comes from.

Thanks Perisa and Keruvalia! :)

I don't know where I got the Mason thing from...I think there are some Masonic symbols on some of our money, and occasionally people over here will come up to me and say "George Washington was a Mason, you know" and sort of wait for a reaction, as if I'm going to become wildly offended and scream at them. All they ever get is a raised eyebrow and a "...yeeees...and your point is?" though. :p Maybe I'll google it, I've got nothing better to do (ok I should be cleaning the house, but, meh.)
Well, for some odd reason, everybody seems to think that Freemasonry is evil. Some people theorize a connection with the Bavarian Illuminati. I theorize that they are all paranoid-delusional.

Well, for some odd reason, everybody seems to think that Freemasonry is evil. Some people theorize a connection with the Bavarian Illuminati. I theorize that they are all paranoid-delusional.

Hehe you may be right. I never saw what the big deal was with Freemasonry, apart from potentially causing an unfair "Old Boys Network" in certain professions which would make it difficult for non-members to progress in their careers. I wasn't aware they sacrificed kittens in horrific bloody rituals or plotted genocide or anything actually 'evil', though!

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.
Iraqi "democracy" equation:

American invasion + American control of economy + 24 US bases + 20,000 civilian deaths + pro American puppet (Alawi) - (less Islamic fundamentals + less "freedom") = hate for American style "democracy"

Iraqi "democracy" equation:

American invasion + American control of economy + 24 US bases + 20,000 civilian deaths + pro American puppet (Alawi) - (less Islamic fundamentals + less "freedom") = hate for American style "democracy"
Actually, putting aside your rhetoric and screed (and questionable accuracy with numbers), look at this:
"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."
Sounds like he basically understands democracy and hates it for its own sake to me.
Or Osama bin Laden:
In his December statement, Osama bin Laden "ruled" — as if he has any right to do so — that Iraqi forces who aid the upcoming elections "are apostates who should not be prayed over upon their deaths. They cannot inherit, and they must not be inherited from [after their deaths]. Their wives are divorced from them, and they must not be buried in Muslim cemeteries."

Actually, putting aside your rhetoric and screed (and questionable accuracy with numbers), look at this:

Sounds like he basically understands democracy and hates it for its own sake to me.
Or Osama bin Laden:
So you are suggesting that American style democracy is "superior" to the people in the Middle East who would prefer to have an Islamic state?

Shouldn't the choice be up to them?

So you are suggesting that American style democracy is "superior" to the people in the Middle East who would prefer to have an Islamic state?Yes. I think it is pretty obvious when 8 year old boys are getting 40 lashes in the street in Saudi, when women caught in adultery are flogged close to death, when beating of wives is protected by religious courts, when women have and official legal status as half important as a man...
The differences and proofs are endless. I'll say it plainly:

American-style democracy is superior to Islamism.

EDIT:And if the choice were truly able to be made by them, we wouldn't have having this debate. Unfortunately, religious and physical terror are great weapons to keep totalitarians in power. Just ask the mullahs in Iran.

Yes. I think it is pretty obvious when 8 year old boys are getting 40 lashes in the street in Saudi, when women caught in adultery are flogged close to death, when beating of wives is protected by religious courts, when women have and official legal status as half important as a man...
The differences and proofs are endless. I'll say it plainly:

American-style democracy is superior to Islamism.

EDIT:And if the choice were truly able to be made by them, we wouldn't have having this debate. Unfortunately, religious and physical terror are great weapons to keep totalitarians in power. Just ask the mullahs in Iran.
So American style "democracy" will also change the Islamic religion and traditions?

Interesting.....

So American style "democracy" will also change the Islamic religion and traditions?

Interesting.....
I didn't say it would change them. I said it is superior. The difference is subtle, but it is there. It ought to change them, but that is another topic.

As for stealing natural resources, you must be high. If we steal them then why does OPEC exist? The oil producers set their own prices.

You fool!
Obviously the US goes in to the drill and pipelines first with their own company (Halliburton) and extracts the oil without OPEC's interference.

Well, for some odd reason, everybody seems to think that Freemasonry is evil. Some people theorize a connection with the Bavarian Illuminati. I theorize that they are all paranoid-delusional.

Both the Freemasonry and the Illuminati were painted as evil by the Catholic church. Apparently a non-religious group of intellectuals wasn't welcome competition in the struggle for power.

Yes. I think it is pretty obvious when 8 year old boys are getting 40 lashes in the street in Saudi, when women caught in adultery are flogged close to death, when beating of wives is protected by religious courts, when women have and official legal status as half important as a man...
The differences and proofs are endless. I'll say it plainly:

American-style democracy is superior to Islamism.

EDIT:And if the choice were truly able to be made by them, we wouldn't have having this debate. Unfortunately, religious and physical terror are great weapons to keep totalitarians in power. Just ask the mullahs in Iran.


You should probably rephrase that to "the current day's American-style democracy" is better. Go back less than a century and you find that women and minorities had legal status half as important as a man, that men could beat their children and women with relative impunity, and that your own penal system included treatment of prisoners since declared "Cruel and unusual" and discontinued.

So they are a few decades behind. They will get there, and many countries have made huge strides - including IRaq on many of those issues, although saddly those advancements were under Saddam and have since been removed by the current government who re-implemented facets of Sharia that had been struck from Iraq's legal code under Hussein. Iraq, for example, was the first Islamic country to allow women to initiate divorce preceedings against their husbands.

But if you think you can force a generation to change it's mindset all at once on too wide a range of their fundamental beliefs then you are deluding yourself. And you are being disrespectful of all those who struggled, fought, and sometimes died in your own country to bring you up to where you are today when you pretend like your current rights have always existed for you.

They haven't.

Both the Freemasonry and the Illuminati were painted as evil by the Catholic church. Apparently a non-religious group of intellectuals wasn't welcome competition in the struggle for power.
Well, as far as I know, the Bavarian Illuminati are entirely made-up on top of all that. Most of the "information" about them comes from works of fiction which for some odd reason people are unable to comprehend why it's in the fiction section at the library.

Anyway, Masonry is well and good, but what's with those funny numbers? Like the 33 followed by a degree symbol?

But if you think you can force a generation to change it's mindset all at once...I never said I could, or anyone could. I said American democracy is superior to Islamism. Please read my post before responding. This isn't meant as a flame, just a clarification. And perhaps I should rephrase it to
The American federalist republican* style of government is superior to Islamism.

*Small "r" republican.

What's "Islamism"?

And don't start thinking democracy is a froeign concept to muslims. Plenty of Iranian activists have been striving for it for decades. Many have died for the prospect in Iran by hands of the cruel, conservative, Islamic Shi'a Theocracy.

And let me remind you that Iran was a very pro Western state under the Shah who really just was another machievillian dictator. Relations were good enough that America even sold F-16s to Iran. There are still some in the IR air force, but after years without spare parts (America stopped all deals after the revolution), they're really falling apart.

I never said I could, or anyone could. I said American democracy is superior to Islamism. Please read my post before responding. This isn't meant as a flame, just a clarification. And perhaps I should rephrase it to
The American federalist republican* style of government is superior to Islamism.

*Small "r" republican.

But why? Because you have evolved over the past 100 years in ways that you think others have been too slow to? Should countries that have evolved even further such as the Netherland be right to tell you that your system in inferior to theirs simply because they have carved out a social system that suits them that is different to yours?

Should I point out that there are many persons in the US who feel that this form of democracy has resulted in a country that has made some poor decisions and wish many of it's decisions overturned? (Abortion, gay rights, racial segregation, etc. etc.)?


What exactly makes your system enherently better?

Yes, it has resulted in a current legal atmosphere that you are mostly fond with, but it took time to get there and still has a ways to go in some people eyes.

The evolving of Islamic states is no diferent, they are just at a different point in their development and have different issues that are their priorities than your own system.

It is not an indictment of one or the other, just an observation that societies evolve at theiir own pace according to what issues are most important to them. The fact that these issues differ does not imply any sort of inherent advantage of one over the other.

less "freedom") = hate for American style "democracy"
You've invented a freedom barometer? Cool, can I have one?

So American style "democracy" will also change the Islamic religion and traditions?

Interesting.....
It changed the Japanese.


Actually, it would be more correct to say there was a positive correlation between the number of Japanese it changed and the number of years it was in place.

It is better because in a utilitarian sense, it allows the greater amount of freedom for the greater amount of people, without compromising safety. And the Netherlands can say what it wants, they might have some valid points, but we are talking about West vs. East.
And in that, the western way of thinking, the ideals of free inquiry and equality that have guided western society (at least in theory) since the time of the Greeks are far and away superior to the ideals of the east, which have largely resulted in dictatorship and totalitarian nightmare regimes.(Think China (even before the Communists), Cambodia, Iran, Egypt, Syria... Communism and its resultant totalitarianism (in practice, mind you) may have been invented in the West, but it only really took off in the East. Even eastern Europe, after a brief dalliance with it, grew restless and threw off the Russian yoke. That is another topic.
The "Middle East" hates us in the west because we are free, because our way of life is a direct threat to theirs. The reverse is also true. I am saying that the freedom we have is the result of a system that is superior to theirs. It isn't the result of the last 100 years, but rather the result of the last 2500 years (give or take a century or two). Sure, changing those perspectives would be hard, and I don't know that we should try, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that the West is superior to the East.

It is better because in a utilitarian sense, it allows the greater amount of freedom for the greater amount of people, without compromising safety. And the Netherlands can say what it wants, they might have some valid points, but we are talking about West vs. East.
And in that, the western way of thinking, the ideals of free inquiry and equality that have guided western society (at least in theory) since the time of the Greeks are far and away superior to the ideals of the east, which have largely resulted in dictatorship and totalitarian nightmare regimes.(Think China (even before the Communists), Cambodia, Iran, Egypt, Syria... Communism and its resultant totalitarianism (in practice, mind you) may have been invented in the West, but it only really took off in the East. Even eastern Europe, after a brief dalliance with it, grew restless and threw off the Russian yoke. That is another topic.
The "Middle East" hates us in the west because we are free, because our way of life is a direct threat to theirs. The reverse is also true. I am saying that the freedom we have is the result of a system that is superior to theirs. It isn't the result of the last 100 years, but rather the result of the last 2500 years (give or take a century or two). Sure, changing those perspectives would be hard, and I don't know that we should try, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that the West is superior to the East.
Too many LOTR comparisions. :cool:

Too many LOTR comparisions. :cool:
Which is of course the reason Tolkein wrote the book. But shhhhh, you don't want all the people who don't realize that to get disenchanted. :)

It changed the Japanese.


Actually, it would be more correct to say there was a positive correlation between the number of Japanese it changed and the number of years it was in place.
Perhaps it did change the Japanese to the extent that they tend to concentrate their "religion" towards the noble goals of peace and happiness. Perhaps George W. could learn something from them?

It is better because in a utilitarian sense, it allows the greater amount of freedom for the greater amount of people, without compromising safety. And the Netherlands can say what it wants, they might have some valid points, but we are talking about West vs. East.
And in that, the western way of thinking, the ideals of free inquiry and equality that have guided western society (at least in theory) since the time of the Greeks are far and away superior to the ideals of the east, which have largely resulted in dictatorship and totalitarian nightmare regimes.(Think China (even before the Communists), Cambodia, Iran, Egypt, Syria... Communism and its resultant totalitarianism (in practice, mind you) may have been invented in the West, but it only really took off in the East. Even eastern Europe, after a brief dalliance with it, grew restless and threw off the Russian yoke. That is another topic.
The "Middle East" hates us in the west because we are free, because our way of life is a direct threat to theirs. The reverse is also true. I am saying that the freedom we have is the result of a system that is superior to theirs. It isn't the result of the last 100 years, but rather the result of the last 2500 years (give or take a century or two). Sure, changing those perspectives would be hard, and I don't know that we should try, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that the West is superior to the East.
Please explain how your "freedom/way of life" is a direct threat to those of the Middle East.

Also explain how the "way of life" of those in the Middle East, is a "direct threat" to your "freedom/way of life".

Please explain how your "freedom/way of life" is a direct threat to those of the Middle East.

Also explain how the "way of life" of those in the Middle East, is a "direct threat" to your "freedom/way of life".

For the first one, I suggest that you read some of Osama Bin Laden's writings, or better yet, most speeches by Wahhabi clerics.

Our Western culture is anathema, and a threat to the existence of their religious thought and the preservation of a reactionary culture.

They feel more strongly about this than a Southern Baptist feels that a gay man at Disney World is a threat to their way of life.

Wahabis are the minority in Saudi Arabia. They're vastly outnumbered by thee Sunnis who are mast majority and are much more liberal when comapred to the Wahabi aristocrats and royal family.

You'd be surprised how many Saudis are dissatisfied with their government.

I'll agree with that. Your typical terrorist or Wahhabi would find the West a threat - but the typical "anyone else" in the Middle East probably find the US to just be a pain in the ass - not a threat to existence.

I'll agree with that. Your typical terrorist or Wahhabi would find the West a threat - but the typical "anyone else" in the Middle East probably find the US to just be a pain in the ass - not a threat to existence.
With the exception of say.....IRAQ, possibly IRAN, and maybe SYRIA???

I also imagine that the US is not too happy with Saudi Arabia either???

Wahabis are the minority in Saudi Arabia. They're vastly outnumbered by thee Sunnis who are mast majority and are much more liberal when comapred to the Wahabi aristocrats and royal family.

You'd be surprised how many Saudis are dissatisfied with their government.
Actually no, they aren't. And lest you promulgate your confusion, Wahabbism is a part of Sunni Islam.
Edit: And it is the major sect in Saudi Arabia. The dissatisfaction you reference is actually turning the populace into more conservative Islamists, as a reaction to the liberalism of their leaders. And even their leaders say crazy things like "the Jews were behind this tsunami."

Please explain how your "freedom/way of life" is a direct threat to those of the Middle East.

Also explain how the "way of life" of those in the Middle East, is a "direct threat" to your "freedom/way of life".
I figures you are a Canadian. To enlighten yourself, should you honestly care, I would recommend perusing www.memri.org
They translate most of the major events in the Arab world, from Osama bin Laden's speeches, to the speeches of the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Absolutely authoritative, and there is so much evidence there addressing your first point, I won't even bother.
As to your second point. This is where you betray your nationality. Maybe it has escaped you, but a large portion of the world is at war over the fact that fundamentalist Islam, the direct result of the trends I discussed in my previous post, has finally acquired the means to continue the violent conquest of the non-Islamic world that Mohammed started and that Islam as a whole has never given up. Things like the bombing of the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, blowing up airplanes over Scotland, and say, the attacks of September 11 are all pretty good examples of the fact that people like Zarqawi and bin Laden want to directly threaten my way of life. I think we'll win, so I say with my president, "bring it on."

I figures you are a Canadian. ...This is where you betray your nationality. Maybe it has escaped you, but a large portion of the world is at war ...you call that a large portion of the world?

Dude your brain has escaped you!

I figures you are a Canadian. To enlighten yourself, should you honestly care, I would recommend perusing www.memri.org
They translate most of the major events in the Arab world, from Osama bin Laden's speeches, to the speeches of the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Absolutely authoritative, and there is so much evidence there addressing your first point, I won't even bother.
As to your second point. This is where you betray your nationality. Maybe it has escaped you, but a large portion of the world is at war over the fact that fundamentalist Islam, the direct result of the trends I discussed in my previous post, has finally acquired the means to continue the violent conquest of the non-Islamic world that Mohammed started and that Islam as a whole has never given up. Things like the bombing of the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, blowing up airplanes over Scotland, and say, the attacks of September 11 are all pretty good examples of the fact that people like Zarqawi and bin Laden want to directly threaten my way of life. I think we'll win, so I say with my president, "bring it on."
Ahhh so you believe that it is I that needs some enlightenment?

Could you please "enlighten" me to how the following has anything to do with the US invasion of Iraq:

"Things like the bombing of the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, blowing up airplanes over Scotland, and say, the attacks of September 11 are all pretty good examples of the fact that people like Zarqawi and bin Laden want to directly threaten my way of life."

Ooooppppss!! :eek:

It's funny...

Great Britian has freedom, liberty, and all those other qualities them Moozlebms hate, yet they're never getting attacked.

Hmm, must be the foreign policy.

For the first one, I suggest that you read some of Osama Bin Laden's writings, or better yet, most speeches by Wahhabi clerics.

Our Western culture is anathema, and a threat to the existence of their religious thought and the preservation of a reactionary culture.

They feel more strongly about this than a Southern Baptist feels that a gay man at Disney World is a threat to their way of life.
First off, I don't buy into this "extremist/fundamentalist" dogma that permeates these threads, for the main reason that it exists on BOTH sides of the equation. One could reasonably argue that George W. was re-elected due to an overwhelming support by the "extremist/fundamentalist" factions in the US.

Secondly, it is kind of sad that you had to use the analogy about Southern Baptists and gay men for it really demonstrates the intolerance within your own society, although it perfectly enhances my argument about the "extremist/fundamentalist" factions that are prevalent in the US.

Thirdly, perhaps the chore of reading some material on this topic, should be assigned to you and your ilk. Here is an interesting one:

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html)

It is also interesting to note that this article was written in 1991 and used these words:

"a country was either with the United States or against it"

I guess George W. must of read this article?

So why does the Middle East hate us?
Because you're ugly and square
You don't belong there
You'd look a lot better as beer cans.

With the exception of say.....IRAQ, possibly IRAN, and maybe SYRIA???

I also imagine that the US is not too happy with Saudi Arabia either???

Funnily enough, those aren't the only countries in the Middle East. Hell Qatar and the UAE (and maybe sometime in the future, Yemen) would tell you that they owe the Western World a great bit of thanks. They parallel (or even exceed!) the Western world in several categories in relation to quality of life.

Don't make em bring up Oman, Bahrain, or any of several other up and coming Middle Eastern countries with high GDP per capita, high life expenctency, immense positive growth, constitutional monarchies (the precursor of the modern Europeon Republic), and other signs of great civilization. You can pick on the problem children of the Middle East all you want, but remember there are quite a few nations there who are quickly approaching the Western world on several fronts.

Funnily enough, those aren't the only countries in the Middle East. Hell Qatar and the UAE (and maybe sometime in the future, Yemen) would tell you that they owe the Western World a great bit of thanks. They parallel (or even exceed!) the Western world in several categories in relation to quality of life.

Don't make em bring up Oman, Bahrain, or any of several other up and coming Middle Eastern countries with high GDP per capita, high life expenctency, immense positive growth, constitutional monarchies (the precursor of the modern Europeon Republic), and other signs of great civilization. You can pick on the problem children of the Middle East all you want, but remember there are quite a few nations there who are quickly approaching the Western world on several fronts.
Perhaps you should read a bit more on Qatar? Here is one quote from an article that I read:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31718.pdf

The government maintains strict limits on the freedom of assembly and association. P o l i t i cal parties and demonstrations are not allowed in Qatar, and private professional and cultural associations must register with
and are monitored by the state.

They certainly don't uphold the old US benchmarks of "democracy and freedom"? But they do have OIL and US bases!!

Ahhh so you believe that it is I that needs some enlightenment?Yes. And you prove it with your next comment.

Could you please "enlighten" me to how the following has anything to do with the US invasion of Iraq:

"Things like the bombing of the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, blowing up airplanes over Scotland, and say, the attacks of September 11 are all pretty good examples of the fact that people like Zarqawi and bin Laden want to directly threaten my way of life."We weren't talking about the invasion of Iraq. We were (at least I was, and I made it perfectly clear) talking about the fact that Islamism threatens the West, which is true. And all of those examples prove it. Again, I would recommend you actually do some reading on the topic before you make yourself appear any more foolish.

...Again, I would recommend you actually do some reading on the topic before you make yourself appear any more foolish.mirror time

It's funny...

Great Britian has freedom, liberty, and all those other qualities them Moozlebms hate, yet they're never getting attacked.

Hmm, must be the foreign policy.
Well, the muslims have alredy gotten a law into the works in Britain that will basically make it a serious crime to state bad things about them, even if they are completely true.

That's because the British government is bunch of PC Nazi pricks. That part they're doing wrong.

Yes. And you prove it with your next comment.
We weren't talking about the invasion of Iraq. We were (at least I was, and I made it perfectly clear) talking about the fact that Islamism threatens the West, which is true. And all of those examples prove it. Again, I would recommend you actually do some reading on the topic before you make yourself appear any more foolish.
Well you detailed a series of terrorist attacks by an extremist organization but it really doesn't prove that the "way of life" of those in the Middle East is a direct threat to you.

In regards to Iraq, the illegal invasion of that country by the US, has invariably led to increased hatred of the US by people living in the Middle East and would satisfy the topic material of this thread (So why does the Middle East hate us?)?

In regards to the web site you linked in an earlier post, I was not able to see any direct topic that would immediately back up your claims.....perhaps if you could be more specific, then it would be easier to understand your cause for concern?

In the meantime, cut the rhetoric and do some research about US intervention in the Middle East and you might learn something?

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the head members of Al-Qaeda (you might recognize him, he's the guy that is cutting off all those hostages' heads), gave the real reason why he is in Iraq killing Americans and anyone who supports them.

That's right. Democracy is the "wrong" ideology. What's the right ideology? An Islamic dictatorship in which individualism is destroyed, women are oppressed and beaten, and voting is strictly prohibited. You think Bush is trying to make gays sub-standard? What if we lived under Islamic rule?

The reason terrorists and the Middle East hate America has nothing to do with our foreign policy and everything to do with our freedom and liberty.

If they hate freedom and liberty why dont they attack places like Sweden?

If they hate freedom and liberty why dont they attack places like Sweden?

Because Sweden is no *threat* to them; we are. When is the last time that Sweden deployed any troops in the Middle East? Or even exertied any political pressure?

That said, they are attacking (overtly or covertly) the Spain, Netherlands, France, Germany, UK... just to name a few.

Because Sweden is no *threat* to them; we are. When is the last time that Sweden deployed any troops in the Middle East? Or even exertied any political pressure?

That said, they are attacking (overtly or covertly) the Spain, Netherlands, France, Germany, UK... just to name a few.
Who are "they", and WHY are they attacking?