Conflict has taught me that Israel loves and cherishes its people. their civil defense, their mandatory participation in the military, their protection of their borders and airports.

America in its thirst to become Europe and become politically correct until there is no right or wrong in any instance, has created CHAOS for all of us in America. We are all vulnerable to this sickness. You only have to read or hear the British, French, Italian, Spanish leaders. Tolerance for EVERYTHING but the JOOOOO.

Israel please stand up for us too.

Mark, well said my frined. Love the Burke quote. Americans understand the New Hampshire motto "Live free or die." Why should that be the standard by which we live but not for others around the world? Kind of hypocritical to me. The problem is that the violence on the news the elite media reposts incessantly with nothing positive as a counter balance becomes a nuissance to most Americans. Most would rather see "peaceful" scenes of the dictators being fawned over without any visual scenes of violence then "violent" uprisings which lead to the overthrow of the dictator. The libs just don't get it. They say they are for "peace" but fail to undersand that although things may look "peaceful" as you note correctly in the media, behind the scenes the average citizen lives in hell with no freedom-perennially in servitude. The only true way to attain true "peace" isoften times only achieved via force. But the lefties who are constantly propping up the dictators like their heros Castro and Chavez et al. don't understand that true "peace" is not the absence of war but the ability for people to live in societies where they are free to determine their own futures.

Live Free or Die. Good enough for us. Should be good enough for all human beings in every corner of the earth!

Gregg Jackson
Pundit Review Radio
www.punditreview.com

"...but when I have a choice between peaceful tyranny and war-torn freedom, I'll still choose freedo[m]..."

Let me just say that it's very easy to say that while you're sitting on your couch. Of course freedom is a worthy goal. But a statement like "if they are free, the people of the middle east will just work things out for themselves" is willfully naive.

Also, if the Iraqis are going to "work things out for themselves," why do we have to be there? They've had their elections. They are free. It seems to me that the only way they can work things out for themselves is if we are not there to interfere.

How about we "impose" Peace by getting out of Iraq and telling the Israeli's to stop killing children? Peace

You know my views on democracy in the middle east... it's not going to have the effect that we want it to. With all of the centuries-old hatred that festers there as we speak, it will turn in to two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner faster than you think.

Don't you realize that religion is the main destabizing factor in the middle east? Think about it: all of the refugees in palestine are there because they were muslims who didn't want to live in a Jewish state; the violence in Iraq is mainly sectarian Sunni v. Shiite violence; Al Qaeda declared Jihad against us because we "defiled the holy land" by stationing troops Saudi Arabia... I could go on.

The only way that we can get the Middle East to become stable is to get all of the parties involved to stop doing things "for God/Allah" and to start doing the right things for themselves and eachother.

It's time for rational thinking to replace "faith."

A free Iraq, and a free from Hezbollah Lebanon are important for the future of the Middle East.

I spent a few posts, last week, trying to explain this to someone who had just started a blog calling for a "Free Lebanon" by which was meant that Israel should be condemned.

The interesting thing was that someone so eager to support Lebanon has now not posted since the 26th, and not responded to my latest "letter". ;-D

Let me just say that it's very easy to say that while you're sitting on your couch. Of course freedom is a worthy goal. But a statement like "if they are free, the people of the middle east will just work things out for themselves" is willfully naive.

Sure it is. Another leftist explains how he knows what's better people than they do and how it would be wrong to actually let them determine for themselves how they should live. That really has become a one-note samba for you folks on the left...

Also, if the Iraqis are going to "work things out for themselves," why do we have to be there? They've had their elections. They are free. It seems to me that the only way they can work things out for themselves is if we are not there to interfere.

Ahhh. The John Murtha hypothesis. Still sounds about as silly coming from you as it did coming from Old "Cut-and-Run" Murtha. Iraq has had a pressure-cooker going in that country for a long, long time. Saddam kept the lid on with brutality, murder, and worse. We removed the evil from control and, of course, there will be a time of turmoil. Kurds, who for the most part are living peacefully in the North and Shiites in the South who have plenty of IOU's against the Sunni's and Baathists who imprisoned them, tortured them, killed them by the hundreds of thousands, gassed them, raped their daughters, and enslaved them, are bound to want vengeance. You would too. And to pull out now and let these forces take control of the society over there would guarantee failure, disaster, and probably a home state for Muslim terrorists even worse than Afghanistan under the Taliban. But as time goes by, and the advantages of living together are realized, the hate will simmer down. One success will build on another. It will take time and hopefully as the process continues our need to be there will diminish. But the country MUST be given a chance to pull out of this and the Murtha option is just plain stupid and guarantees failure.

It's time for rational thinking to replace "faith."

But you have no suggestion as to how you would accomplish this. Democracy could do the trick. It did it here. Are you saying that we're far superior to the Muslims? When America was a colony, it was full of highly religious people who wanted to escape religious persecution where the came from. But religion was their motivation and their guiding light. Then came the American Revolution and democracy. And religion, although still tolerated thanks to that magnificent Constitution, does not set our policies for us. People, with their ballots do that. So tell me - are we some genetically superior race that could manage that where the lowly Muslim cannot?

Rev.-

I'm just looking at what Muslims in the middle east have already done with democracy:

-Iran elected they nut-job president.
-Palestine elected Hamas.
-Hizbollah has 20% of the seats in the Lebanese parliament.
-Iraq elected a Shiite government with close ties to the Iranian nut-job.
-The Saudi King tried to give women the right to drive, and public pressure kept him from doing so.

Being brainwashed has nothing to do with genetics, but nice straw-man though.

I'm just looking at what Muslims in the middle east have already done with democracy:

Oh, I see, just trying to be...thoughtful.

-Iran elected they nut-job president.

True that. But what did they have before that? And before that? And the last time they were American allies, they had a Shah but they also had a parliament and they didn't act like crazed religious fanatics. Thanks to the Carter administration we helped the Ayatollah and his henchman come to power and start Iran down this path.

-Palestine elected Hamas.

The did. Do you think they still think that was a good idea? Maybe, but I'd bet not.

-Hizbollah has 20% of the seats in the Lebanese parliament.

Which means 80 percent are not Hezbollah. And thanks to the Israelis, those numbers are likely changing as we watch.

-Iraq elected a Shiite government with close ties to the Iranian nut-job.

Did you mean close or really really really really close?

-The Saudi King tried to give women the right to drive, and public pressure kept him from doing so.

Ahhh. Great example of democracy. Votes and all - wait - what's this "king" stuff?

Being brainwashed has nothing to do with genetics, but nice straw-man though.

The fact that you exhibit arrogance typical of the left in your statements that "we" know better than they do whats good for them is no straw man. Perhaps you should look up that definition again. You are wrong. And your arrogance about the inability of any people to be able to sustain a democracy proves it. And still no suggestions...Why is that?

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Wait, if we are going to blanketly call the Iran President a "nutjob" without much reasoning other than a few public statements, what does that allow our muslim counterparts to label Bush from a few of his statements? That he doesn't regard muslim civilian deaths as equal to that of christians? That he is on a crusade to retake the holy land from the muslim? I mean you guys are calling a guy with a Ph.D. in transportation engineering and whose main job before being mayor of Tehran was as the head of civil engineering, a "nutjob" Wow, the guy must be off his rocker...

Here is a question for you, if Tehran is acting within the rules of the nonproliferation treaty, then on what grounds would they stop? Would you ask the president to bow down to the west, a main rival, simply because they want him to? Don't you think that would make him look weak to his own people? Imagine if Dubai sent a letter to Bush saying, "You can't cancel the ports deal, we have already made the decision and sale and you have nothing to do with it." Then Bush would just say "o.k.". Yeah, I'm sure we'd all be fine with that. The thing that missing from this page is any kind of respect. You guys never want to see anyone else as having the same amount of authority as you. Iran isn't breaking any rules, that's why this is so delicate.

On the spot Mark,

First, I want to agree with you, all the violence is orhestrated for American TV. We don't see the "behind the scenes" footage. All the good stuff.

We "know" theres plenty of good stuff happening all over Iraq. The "drive by media" never shows that good stuff.

You know, your observations on dictatorship and corruption are also on the mark. I "know" there is all kinds of good work going on in Iraq now. That corruption stuff is all behind us now. We have removed the "Saddamite" from power and things are getting better and better. Sure it will take an indeterminate amount of time, but we know it has to get better, it can't get any worse than it was, right?

As I reflect, we can find the same stuff you described in your post going on in Mexico nowadays. (well, in the past too!) I'm getting the feeling we should invade there too and help the poor people of Mexico with their corruption problem also. We could invade and help them free themselves from the unspoken tyranny and oppression they live under. I'm sure many a mexican woman were raped under the same circumstances you so aptly describe above.
Besides when we go in to free the oppressed in Mexico we can tighten the heck out of the borders and keep those freeloading illegals on their side of the fence.

When Edmond burke used the word "relgon" he was probably referring to Chrisianity. It is umlikely he was referring to Islam. Islamic Extremism is incompatible with liberty, furthermore, Islam itself may be incompatible with liberty. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, we seem to be unable to publicly have a frank discussion about the true nature of Islam.

"Still sounds about as silly coming from you as it did coming from Old "Cut-and-Run" Murtha."

You've completely missed my point. Mark said that he wants the people of the Middle East to work things out for themselves. How can they possibly work things out for themselves with us in the way? Unless "working things out for themselves" means "working things out exactly the way we want them done." Is that what you meant?

Wyckyd,

Same reason we didn't cut and run from Europe in 1945, or South Korea in 1953...some times, some people need help setting their house in order so that they may govern their own affairs.

As for me sitting safe and dry here at home - a source of continuing shame on my part: a burden of shame I'll never live down, and I can never apologise enough to, or do enough for, those men and women who are over there fighting my battle for me.

On the other hand, I'm 41 and would more likely be a burden to the young, fit troops we've got over there than a benefit. I joined the Navy in 1983 and for four years I was ready to go at the nation's call...the call never came. When the 1991 Gulf War came about, I was still at that time only 26 years old and was informed that there were no openings for me should I desire to re-enlist. Before anything could come of it, the war was over. On 9/12, I called the recruiter and asked if I could join - and was told that at the age of nearly 37 I was too old to join. Subsequent to that I found that there was a sort of back-door way to return to the military, but by the time I found out about that, my mother had died and I had become the primary caregiver of my aged and ill father.

We do what we can, wyckyd; not necessarily every thing we'd want.

1. Clearly the violence in Iraq is orchestrated to have the greatest impact on Americans, and with the complicity of the media it is doing just that. Does anyone really believe that the carnage would continue unabated if we simply stopped publicizing it? I certainly don't. They want attention, and the left-leaning Bush-hating media are giving it to them, with the cold-blooded calculation that while it may result in hundreds or thousands more deaths, many of them American soldiers, it will also help undermine the Bush administration and is, therefore, a fair trade.

2. The reason the terrorists believe this to be an effective strategy is a recent look at American history. We never lost a battle in Viet Nam, yet we cut and run, simply because the American 'public' lost its will to continue the fight, based solely on the misrepresentations of the American media.

3. John Kerry's success in the 70's, of creating an emotional firestorm in America, based on lies, resulting in the snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory, have emboldened him to try the same thing again.

4. The demands of the Left for either an immediate Utopian success according to their lights or calling something a total failure is really tiresome. Life is not perfect. People are not perfect. Changing a centuries-old culture and attitude is not going to happen overnight. It is going to be a slow, step-by-step process, with some backsliding. But every step away from theorcratic dicatorships is progress, even measured in baby steps, and even when it is sometimes a case of three steps forward, two steps back.

And we have to remember that many of the populace of those countries is just as ignorant and subject to media pressure as at lease half of the people in the Unites States. So, just as about half of the people in this country believe that Bush lied, etc., the majority of the people in the Arab countries believe that there was no Holocaust, Jews are the cause of all evil, etc. It will take time for them to start acting in their own self-interest instead of just being AGAINST something and voting accordingly.

Too bad this country can't offer a better example for that.

Steve----

I don't care what the president of Iran has on his resume---when a man calls for the total elmination of whole countries (including ours, in case you overlooked that minor point) and bases his entire concept of ruling his country on the belief that he was sent by Allah to personally create the worldwide death, destruction, and chaos necessary for the return of the 12th Mullah, thereby assuring Islam of world dominance, he is a nutter. And yes, the guy IS "off his rocker". Unless you believe that a pursuit of personal sainthood which involves the massacre of millions if not bilions of people is a sign of rational sanity, that is.

And from your posts that you seem to think reflect rationality, that may very well be true.

Rev.-

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.
-Wikipedia

Are you saying that we're far superior to the Muslims? When America was a colony, it was full of highly religious people who wanted to escape religious persecution where the came from. But religion was their motivation and their guiding light. Then came the American Revolution and democracy. And religion, although still tolerated thanks to that magnificent Constitution, does not set our policies for us. People, with their ballots do that. So tell me - are we some genetically superior race that could manage that where the lowly Muslim cannot?
-The "good" reverend

Here is my argument (laid out in premise form):

P1). People vote based on the principles represented by their ideology.
P2). Many (if not most) of the people in the Arab countries we are trying to Democratize believe in a fundamentalist Islamic ideology.
----------------
Therefore, many (if not most) of the people in the Arab countries that we are trying to democratize will vote for Islamic fundamentalists.

My argument has nothing to do with genetics, and religion is not tied to one's genes. So, you are arguing against a straw man. The last thing we want in the Middle East is are democratically elected Islamic Fundamentalists.

I believe that Democracy is not the means to an ultimate peaceful end; Democracy is the end. If we rush them to democracy, then they will happily vote for the Islamic fundamentalists that we are currently fighting.

You asked if Palestine is sorry about their decision to elect Hamas, to you I pose another question:

How many more mistakes are we going to allow them to make? How many deaths are we going to tolerate?

We need to find a way to attack the ideology.... it may be time for some good ole' fashoned propaganda.

I love it. LiBS always bring up that Hamas, Hizbollah, the "Iranian nut-job" were elected by the people in fair elections and everyone has to accept what their goverenments do. That justifies everything and we have to accept it.

Once again, history rears its ugly head....

Hitler was elected in free elections.

Damn, reality is a bitch ain't it.

Bullshit walks liBS, get steppin'.

Mark, I'm not trying to shame you into enlisting. I'm just saying that there are no easy answers. Just doing "more of the same" in Iraq is not acceptable for most Americans.

"We never lost a battle in Viet Nam, yet we cut and run..."

58,226 American soldiers died in Vietnam. How many more would have died if we hadn't "cut and run"? And look...we're still here. The whole world didn't turn commie. Would you like to return to finish the job? See, that would really send a message to the terrorists that we won't quit. And we could liberate the Vietnamese people, too! If spreading freedom is so important, how many more American lives would it be worth to have a free Vietnam?

Therefore, many (if not most) of the people in the Arab countries that we are trying to democratize will vote for Islamic fundamentalists.

You were going real good up until then. Then you in your "therefore" concluded (based on those premises?) that the Arab (BTW: not all are Arab, but go ahead and stereotype them, yet another sign of the arrogance you display) cannot rise above their religious beliefs to form their own free governments.

From "Levels of Knowing and Existence" by Harry L. Weinberg, a respected semanticist, you have made an inference. And by definition, inferences can neither be true nor false since they describe behavior or events that have not yet occurred. I think you will be proved wrong, but the events have to play out before we will know. But the fact you consider them incapable of rising above the religious fundamentalism that dominates their lives now shows me your own arrogance about whot they are and of what they are capable.

You can call that a straw man or a baloney sandwich, but you know what I am saying. Many countries have overcome much more than that to become free - so why can't they? Because you say so? I think not.

Rev.-

Are you saying that Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon aren't Arab countries? I didn't know that you were a member of the PC police...

I made no inference in my statement. I flat out said that they will vote for people that will work against us. There is no inference to be made... that is what I said.

Saying that I am saying that I believe that we are inherently better than the middle easterners is a fundamental misrepresentation of my argument.

Getting a person who believes in radical islam to vote against radical islam is like trying to get Mr. Noonan to vote for abortions; it just ain't gonna happen.

Iraq is free? Sure -- it is the freedom of a Hobbesian state of nature that they enjoy, which, as Hobbes wrote, is characterized by being nasty, brutish, and short.

TiredofLibBullshit-

Exactly. That's why, when it comes down to it, the US doesn't want "freedom." We want allies. You don't see us invading Saudia Arabia, do you? Or China? Or Vietnam? These places are not free. We don't mind. The problem with elections is that someone gets elected. That may or may not be a good thing for US interests.

Are you saying that Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon aren't Arab countries? I didn't know that you were a member of the PC police...

I'm not saying that. But Iran, which is one of the most troubling nations in the region is Persian. I once worked with a technician from Syria and he said, "I am not Arab. I am Assyrian." I'm sure there are many cultures, races, and bloodlines living in the middle east and they're not all Arabs. Scooping them up under that label is stereotyping, plain and simple. You can't even say they're all Muslims. Most are, but even there you have warring factions. Many are Christian and some are Jewish and who knows what else.

I made no inference in my statement.

The semantic definition of an inference is a prediction of a future event. Your whole "therefore" was indeed an inference. And by the rules of General Semantics can be neither true nor false since it hasn't happened yet. Once something has happened it and you make a statement about your observation of the event, that statement is called a factual statement and is either true or false.

I suggest you read a book on the subject of Semantics - good ones are by Korzybski (the father of Semantics) and the Weinberg one I cited earlier as well as S.I. Hayakawa's books including "Language in Thought and Action."

Don't sell this science short - it is not "the meaning of words" as most people try to portray it - it is a system of logic and thinking that solves many paradoxical problems that Aristotelian logic (the logic most Americans use) cannot solve. But your statement was an inference. Period.

Saying that I am saying that I believe that we are inherently better than the middle easterners is a fundamental misrepresentation of my argument.

I know you think that, but that's because you are blinded by your sense of superiority to the people you say cannot muster the ability to do what Americans did over 200 years ago.

Wow, those are some technical arguments. Lewis would be proud!

One thing I don't understand is the notion of 'rising above islamic fundamentalism'. If you are a fundamentalist Muslim I seriously doubt you think you have a problem to overcome. That's like asking a Christian fundamentalist to overcome being a christian.

I'm going to go way out on the branch here...

Christian fundamentalists think that pornography is essentialy wicked because of what it can do to society and families. Islamic fundamentalists believe that woman should not have their heads bare because their beauty revealed outside of the home corrupts society and other families.

Please tell me what Christian feels that he or she needs to overcome the belief that porn is bad.

Rev.-

First of all, I was using the definition of inference that was "something implied." Though, your premise that I am only inferring things that are yet to (and may not) happen is false, considering that Middle Eastern countries have already done exactly what I said that they would do. Lebanese Shi'ites voted for Hizbollah, the Palestinians voted for Hamas, and Iran voted for their crazed president.

For someone who is going on about my "blinding sense of superiority," you seem to be pretty condescending.

The fact of the matter is: Why would any of us be here if we didn't think that our opinions were superior to those of others? It would be pointless to argue a point if we didn't think that it was the right one.

People vote based on their beliefs. Mark, being a Catholic, will vote based on his Catholic principles. You, as a Conservative, will vote on your Conservative principles. I as a secular humanist, will vote based on those principles.

Why is it so hard to believe that Islamic Fundamentalists will vote based on their Islamic Fundamentalist principles?

People won't magically turn into enlightened thinkers when they first get to vote; if their minds are still shackled by Fundamentalist Islam, then they will almost certainly vote accordingly.

Like the song goes:

Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

First of all, I was using the definition of inference that was "something implied." Though, your premise that I am only inferring things that are yet to (and may not) happen is false, considering that Middle Eastern countries have already done exactly what I said that they would do. Lebanese Shi'ites voted for Hizbollah, the Palestinians voted for Hamas, and Iran voted for their crazed president.

You say you were using the definition of inference where something is implied. The definition of implied I just looked up indicates:

To express an intended meaning through suggestions or inferences.

An inference, by the Semantics definition that I stated more than once is based upon the idea that a statement is a prediction of future events. And as such can never be true nor false since the events have not yet occurred. You list two premise statements which are factual statements (not inferences), P1, and P2. You proved no citation as to their truth or falseness and I suspect that at least P1 may not be true. It behooves he who makes the statement to provide the proof. Just as an example, I am an atheist but I routinely vote for candidates and ideas that are supported by Christians. Are you saying you vote against every proposed law and candidate that has Christian backing? If not, P1 is certainly false. But all that's beside the point.

Next I provide a dictionary definition of the word "will" as you use it in your conclusion:

Shall and will are both modal verbs in English mainly used to express futurity.

The point is that given the Semantic definition I provided, and the definition of the word "will" in this context, your next statement (conclusion as it were) is an inference.

Therefore, many (if not most) of the people in the Arab countries that we are trying to democratize will vote for Islamic fundamentalists.

That is the last time I hope to have to explain that. You may find it condescending, but I find it precise.

The fact of the matter is: Why would any of us be here if we didn't think that our opinions were superior to those of others?

Interesting how you pose a question (I assume one you wish answered) whilst calling it a fact. To answer your question, some are here for that purpose - like you - and you "know" whats best for everyone else. We on the Right call that the arrogance of the Left. Some are here to learn. Some are here to act as friction in the system, trolls per se, just to cause ill will. And there are likely other reasons as well.

It would be pointless to argue a point if we didn't think that it was the right one.

Never had a debate class, have you? Some people enjoy debate for debate's sake. In debate classes you are assigned a point of view and must argue it - even if you don't believe in it. I suspect some here do that just for the fun of debate. I don't waste my time with that kind of debating because I am not here just to debate for debate's sake. And I usually take the position that I think is right based on my research and experience.

People vote based on their beliefs. Mark, being a Catholic, will vote based on his Catholic principles. You, as a Conservative, will vote on your Conservative principles. I as a secular humanist, will vote based on those principles.

You are not a secular humanist. You support the beliefs of one. Big difference. And as time goes by those beliefs can change. For example, when I was young, I was a Catholic. Now I am an atheist. When I was in high school, I volunteered to work on John Kennedy's presidential campaign. I voted for Jimmy Carter (man! do I hate having to admit that!). But as I learned more, experienced more, and gained the wisdom of some age, I realized my youthful days as a liberal were a lie. That is how I arrived where I am today. And I am not unique in that respect. So it is a big mistake to say "I am ...." rather than "I support the beliefs of..." because as your learning adds to your experience and your values change, it is much easier to adapt to them if you only have to change your belief system rather than who you are.

Why is it so hard to believe that Islamic Fundamentalists will vote based on their Islamic Fundamentalist principles?

Inference. Is it likely, sure. Is it possible they'll do anything else? Sure. Time will tell.

People won't magically turn into enlightened thinkers when they first get to vote; if their minds are still shackled by Fundamentalist Islam, then they will almost certainly vote accordingly.

Throughout this thing you have made the assumption that all those who bend to the harsh mandates of Islam are also wholly committed to the system as their core belief structure. But there are plenty of Islamic people outside of the ME that don't behave in that fashion. I Wonder why.

zat a blue screen again?

Answer me this, Rev...

Why would anyone vote against their beliefs?

Why would anyone vote against their beliefs?

Umm, because the alternative was worse, maybe? Example?: Rudy Giulani is mentioned as a possible candidate for the GOP nomination for 2008. I will do anything I can to defeat any chance he might have to get the nod because he supports abortion on demand and homosexual "marriage."

But on election day, should he be my only choice other than any possible Democrat they can dredge up to oppose him, I would be compelled to vote for him. He would be supporting things that are against my beliefs, but NOTHING would be worse than a Democrat win.

I can think of dozens more situations where that Hobson's Choice might result in similar decisions. I'll be you can too if you just think about it. Go ahead and try to convince me you've never done something against your beliefs. Last guy I know of that could claim that had holes in his hands and feet and died on a cross.

You scream, I scream we all scream for blue screen

I will do anything I can to defeat any chance he might have to get the nod because he supports abortion on demand and homosexual "marriage."

He would be supporting things that are against my beliefs, but NOTHING would be worse than a Democrat win.

Wouldn't not voting for Guliani be an expression of your belief that gay marriage and abortion are wrong?

Wouldn't your voting against the Democrats be an expression of your belief that Democrats are bad?

Aren't you still voting based on your beliefs?

Aren't you still voting based on your beliefs?

Are you playing games? I said that if Giulani were the candidate, even though he supports positions against my beliefs, I would vote for him before a Democrat. I would be voting against my beliefs. Is that hard for you to see?

we all scream for blue screens

This has been a fun thread to read. I think Scaramonga adequately demonstrated a situation where a person can justify voting against a belief because one or more other beliefs are more central. And it appears that Frawg understands that, at least implicity. And I take as evidence of that his statement: "People won't magically turn into enlightened thinkers when they first get to vote; if their minds are still shackled by Fundamentalist Islam, then they will almost certainly vote accordingly." So I think what Frawg is really saying is that fundamentalist Islam is a very central belief among many people in the Middle East. Is that about right, Frawg?

Anyway, if it's not your position, I'd say it's pretty close to mine. Or stated more specifically, to the extent that extremist Islam is a very central belief to a person, that's almost certainly how they will vote. But I think it is also true that any given belief can shift in importance to a person over time. Certainly in this country there aren't all that many "one issue" voters. And although I can't state it as an absolute fact, it seems to me that it is probably true of any other country as well. Unfortunately, I also think it is the case that Islamic extremism is on the rise. But I don't think it's because of anything inherent in the belief structure (although I'm sure Warrior1 would disagree), I believe it's because of pragmatic considerations. For one thing, in many countries in the Middle East, the mosque is the place with the least government control. Thus, it is the place where people can most freely express their views. Second, because of the repressive, corrupt, and generally authoritarian nature of most of those regimes, many people are shut out of any attempt at social or economic advancement. So they turn to religion as a form of empowerment. Third, many of these same regimes have shown themselves to be powerless against the activities of outside forces such as the US and Israel, and it is basically only the fundamentalists who are willing to fight back. So there's a pride thing there as well. Fourth, particularly in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah (but by no means exclusively), they aren't just religious or military organizations, they are social support organizations as well. So that's another thing that draws people to them.

Those four things are not intended to be completely accurate or inclusive. But I hope they serve to illustrate my point, which is that many of the things that contribute to the growing influence of the extremists has nothing to do with the teachings of Islam per se -- they are pragmatic considerations. Obviously extremism isn't limited to Islam -- there are many examples of extremism throughout history which have nothing to do with Islam. Likewise, extremism isn't ubiquitous within all Islamic factions. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find many Islamic extremists within the Iraqi Kurd population. However, if you go over the border to Turkey you'll find some among the Kurdish population there. That right there should tell you something. The thing it tells me is that extremism has a lot more to do about perceived oppression than it does about religion per se.

Thus, it seems to me, the way to fight fundamentalist Islam is not to attack the religion directly, but to disentangle the religious institutions from those pragmatic considerations that propagate perceptions of oppression. That's easier said than done, of course. Much easier, I'll wager. But if it isn't done then I think it's safe to assume that Frawg is right -- a premature push toward democracy will result in Islamic theocracies which will probably be more or less extremist in nature.

With that in mind, let me speak to Mark's opinion in the original topic. First of all, I think that's a terrible quote from Burke. I disagree with it completely. But Mark's real point, I think, is that there are only two choices: peaceful tyranny and war-torn freedom. I disagree with that completely too. To me, "war-torn freedom" might not exactly be a contradiction in terms, but it comes pretty close. Either way, there is a much more desirable option: peaceful freedom. That is supposed to be the goal. And likewise, "peaceful freedom" implies a certain level of stability. And thus, the dichotomy between "stability" and "freedom" is a false one, because they really need to go together. Further, with regard to Iraq, to the extent that the situation remains "war-torn freedom", Iraq will remain a destabilizing influence in the region, and will mitigate our efforts to prevent instability from spiraling out of control in other places.

Finally, let me ask: is Iraq now free? If so, then we can leave and let them "work things out for themselves", right? And if it's not, or we can't, then Iraq is not yet a really free, war-torn or otherwise. You can't have it both ways. So which is it? Be honest.

I think Almiranta, in certain ways, has a better handle on it when he(?) said: "Changing a centuries-old culture and attitude is not going to happen overnight. It is going to be a slow, step-by-step process, with some backsliding." The trouble with that is... I get all these dollar signs popping up in my head. Considering it's costing us something like $2 billion/wk to stay in Iraq right now, and considering that Gen. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, estimates that "we're closer to the beginning than to the end" in Iraq, your scenario sounds unbelievably expensive, especially if we have to extrapolate over several more locations. And that, I would argue, was a factor in ending the Viet Nam war: it simply wasn't cost-effective to keep going. Yes, the American public lost the will to fight, and there were a lot of reasons for that. But for the generals, one big factor is that it just didn't make sense in cost-benefit terms. And I remind you that the US economy took a major hit after the war. And again, there were lots of reasons for that (the Arab oil embargo was also a biggie), but one of them was the cost of the war itself. The USSR in Afghanistan ended up the same way. In their case, though, they didn't pull up stakes fast enough and weren't able to recover (especially once Reagan instituted his Star Wars initiative, which was basically aimed at challenging the USSR's weakened economy). Too bad for them. I wonder what will happen to us. What, exactly, is in our own self-interest?

Here's another thing: no one has yet mentioned South Korea and Taiwan. Both of them are our allies, and both of them are now strong democracies. But does anyone remember how both of those places developed? In neither place did democracy exactly thrive for a very long time. Both of those places had US-supported autocratic rulers for decades until democracy finally came to the fore. Perhaps China is headed in the same direction. So maybe stability, in the form of an autocratic government, isn't always such a bad idea, huh?