I hate you. Don't hate me back. Understand me.

[Art]

Anyone really able to explain the relative foolishness of this? This, of course, being, the sentiment expressed by many of our deep-thinking liberal friends that the "cause" of "why they hate us" needs to be examined when addressing methods to resolve issues with those that do.

While in a generic sense it may be important to understand how an individual or a group of individuals come to despise another individual or group of individuals. But, there is no understanding here on our part that can be come to that would rationally explain the relative insanity of our fundamental friends.

Yes, we support Israel. Of course, that's meaningless since we've never really been attacked by terrorists from the Middle East for that support. Sure, they claim afterward it was part of it, but, the truth is, that's opportunism and not real. Bin Laden didn't care one bit about Palestine until he thought latching on to it might help his cause.

Still, even if we are to assume this lie is real and our support of Israel is a root cause of Middle East disdain for us, the question shouldn't be for us to understand why they hate us with the hint that we must change that but rather the question should be how can WE NOT do what we do given the radical and insane nature of the people over there who simply refuse to even grant Israel's basic right to exist.

We're not talking about an equal dance partner here. These are fanatics. The root cause isn't that we support Israel. It's that we're not under the thumb of Muslim rule and that we don't share their passion for killing Jewish people. So, unless we embrace a stance that actually assists in killing Jewish people, we're not going to be liked by those that enjoy that position.

So, why understand that position? Why not just make the executive decision that such a position is untenable and we should try to destroy it? Why don't they ask how come we support Israel and come up with, "Wow, is it because we want to drive the Jews into the sea?" as an appropriate, enlightening answer?

Why is it that we ask that WE understand everyone else but we never demand anyone else understand us?

Again. I hate you. Don't hate me back though. Understand me.

[phanatic]

That's simple Art. Since we are the "ALL MIGHTY" U.S. we do not deserve to be understood. We are those who have won lifes lottery and therefore we must be compassionate to those who have not met their goals yet. We should not stand in the way of those who wish to bring about genicide for they are only seeking to be in a position similar to our own. We should NEVER support anyone's agenda except for our own and in that I mean if it doesn't DIRECTLY concern our country we should stay the F... out of it. Why bother in the Congo? Let them kill another 3 million of their countrymen in the name of power. Screw them! Why continue to fund Egypt to the sum of 2.5 billion a year, more than twice the amount sent to Isreal? Why bother funding the prevention and treatment of AIDS in Africa to the tune of 15 billion. After all, the warlords of that continent will only steal the meds and use them for recruitment purposes. That money would be better spent on our own. remember the reaction from African leaders upon hearing the amount we were spending? Thats it?

I say we pull the fu/ck out of almost every overseas venture if we stand to gain nothing more than the stability of that region. Let the whole God damn world blow up in everyones face and THEN and ONLY THEN will the rest of the nations of the world understand why we have the right to intervene in what WE see fit. stop sending our tax dollars overseas to benifit these nations that seek our demise. Screw them! This is rediculous. Lets start drilling in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico. What do you think would happen to the middle east then? We have them by the balls and they know it. Where do you think the whole idea of "Jihad" on America came from? They know they need us and they can't stand it. Tough sh/it ass/holes. I'm right there with you Art. These people DO NOT deserve a voice! They chose their path. they bring a whole new meaning to the term belts.

[phanatic]

And furthermore, while we are on the subject of Palestinians, why did Syria slaughter thousands of their refugees? Could it be that these individuals REFUSE to cooperate with anyone? Interesting. It's no wonder that so many middle eastern nations pay those idiots to do their dirty work. They use them as tools but would never have them over for dinner.

Heres a term the left LOVES to use all the time!

WAKE UP PEOLPLE!!!

[codeorama]

I for one don't think we should do what ever it takes to "make the world love us", I don't think it's possible.

My only contention would be that if we want to end or minimize terrorism, then we should stop training and giving supplies and money to terrorists and terrorist regimes. We have a history of doing it and it seems that it always comes back to bite us.

I agree with phanatic in a sense that we should "mind OUR business" a little more and let the world ask us for help if they need it.

Just my opinion.

[phanatic]

Thank you code for your voice of reason, it is greatly appreiciated.:thumbsup:

[Cskin]

No one cares for the Palestinians in the Middle East, thinking of them as second class arabics in the region. The countries such as Syria, Jordan, and Iraq use the Palestinians as a pawn in their "Destroy Israel" campaign. Other than the holy sites being located in Israel, isn't it ironic that the Palestine people are jammed up into that small sliver of space. No other countries wants their refugees, for fear they will eventually claim the borrowed land as their own.

As for why THEY hate us, well.... Osama Murray (Dem) says it's because we haven't built enough hospitals and children centers in the region. We haven't "REACHED" out to them, choosing instead to butt in only in their political lives. Just like a Bleeding Heart Liberal to believe that the American citizen's hard earned money should be spent building hospitals and children's centers in the Middle East when our Dept. of Education is failing OUR children and our healthcare system leaves millions without affordable healthcare. NOOOooo!!! Let's build another hospital over there that they will eventually use as a military barracks, chemical weapons storehouse, or Islamic Fundamentalist meeting center.

[Larry]

Gotta admit, Art:

I can't help feeling that when Bush goes over there to present his latest peace plan, and points out all the things the Palestenians get in this proposal, that there needs to also be a little, private, message attached:

"Of course, you don't have to take this offer. I can't force you to stop this war you've been fighting (and losing) for generations. But:

"If you won't take this (generous) offer, then, well, I've got a fallback position prepared in case my plan doesn't work:

"This proposal, basically, draws a line on the map, and says one side is Israel, and one side is Palestine. If you want to keep up the war, then my fallback position is: For every terrorist attack on an Israeli citizen, the line moves one mile. If you folks keep this s*** up, then in a year or two your "occupied territory" won't exist, and you'll have irrevocably lost the war.

"I'd really much rather have a peacefull solution to this. I'm willing to contribute (pay) a lot to see it happen. But, if you folks are really committed to "death before surrender", then I'm not going to continue a situation where one side is fighting a war.

[fansince62]

Larry,

You're starting to sound reasonable....are you ok?

[Art]

Can't find any flaw in that Larry.

[Larry]

I still remember a story my dad told me some time ago:

It's set on old New Orleans, when dueling was considered acceptable. One rather famous individual was one of the smallest gentlemen in New Orleans, who also was famous because he was outrageously sensative about his height, and as such, was constantly challenging people to duels over percieved insults to him.

At a party, this guy determins that his honour has been offended by one of the largest men in town, and he immediatly challenges him to duel.

The large man states that no insult was intended, and offers to appologise.

The smaller man states that the insult was obviously intentional, and cannot be remedied by a simple apology.

The large man, knowing that even if he wins a duel against "tiny", he'll still look like a bully, again offers to apologise.

The small man calls him a coward.

The large man then points out that he has now offered to apologise, publicly, twice. He points out that if the smaller man rejects his third offer, then he will have no choice but to accept the duel, and that as challenged party, he will have the choice of weapons and terms for the duel. He wishes the smaller man to consider, before rejecting his third offer, that, if challenged, the larger man intends to chose sledgehammers in six feet of water.

[TheKurp]

Art,

You might as well substitute the word "Kurp" for liberal. Okay, you've cast your line, so I'll reciprocate with a bite.

Addressing the Sources of Middle Eastern Violence Against the United States

by Steve Niva

In the wake of the immense tragedy of the recent attacks on American soil it is difficult to get beyond the horror and shock of what has just happened and engage in serious reflection on the sources of violence against the United States. This is understandable given the almost unbelievable nature of this attack. Yet it is more necessary than ever if one is to find ways to prevent such attacks in the future.

What we will see in the next few days and weeks will be further investigations, arrests of individuals and intense speculation about which groups or states did this and how the United States should respond. Unfortunately, if the pattern of past responses to such attacks is repeated, we will probably not learn a great deal about the reasons behind why this attack happened, or the broader sources of violence against the United States over the past decade. Instead the usual array of retired generals and military analysts will be trotted out to explain the tactical elements of their favored military response.

We now have seen substantial evidence of a Middle Eastern connection to this attack and media coverage has frequently mentioned the name of Osama bin Laden as the number one terrorist suspect and mastermind of this operation. As we are inexorably led down the road to military confrontation in the Middle East, it is necessary to gain clarity about the specific actors and their motivations before one can even think about how to respond. For Americans who like their hero's and villains portrayed in simple dichotomies of good and evil, the result of this kind of clarity will be disturbing because the United States has created many enemies through its policies in the Middle East over the past century and bears a significant amount of responsibility for creating a fertile soil for anti-American hatred. Any American response that does not address this truth is doomed to further the cycle of violence.

Who is behind the attacks?

The recent attacks on U.S. soil are most likely related to an escalating series of attacks and bombings on U.S. targets over the past 10 years. In order, these attacks include: the recent bombing of the USS Cole in October, 2000 that claimed 17 lives; the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in which hundreds were killed; the 1996 car-bomb attack on a U.S. barracks in Dharahan, Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans; the 1995 car-bomb attack on an American National Guard Training center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that took 4 lives and, of course, the 1993 World Trade Center truck-bombing that killed 6 people and injured over a thousand others.

All of these attacks have been attributed to Islamic radicals based in the Middle East and Central Asia under the rubric of a very hazy notion of "Islamic fundamentalism." Indeed a number of people from these regions with links to certain militant Islamic groups have been arrested and charged in some of these actions. Breathless reports of a shadowy Islamic conspiracy against the U.S. led by Osama bin Laden have generated a steady stream of cliché's about this new enemy and its hatred of the U.S., but unfortunately precious little light has been shed on understanding why this is happening and what exactly these people believe. Their enmity towards the U.S. is explained as little more than the product of a fanatical and inherently anti-Western and anti-American world view. Stephen Emerson, a so-called terrorism expert who frequently appears in the media, claims that "the hatred of the US by militant Islamic fundamentalists is not tied to any particular act or event. Rather, fundamentalists equate the mere existence of the West-its economic, political and cultural systems-as an intrinsic attack on Islam."

Any explanation of Middle Eastern violence that relies upon the notion that Islam is an inherently violent or inherently anti-Western religion is false and misleading. First, Islam is one of the world's largest and most diverse religions and like Christianity or Judaism there are thousands of views within Islam about the religion and also about violence and the West. Secondly, there are major differences even among explicitly Muslim militants and activists regarding these issues-some insist upon non-violent struggle and others regard violence as a legitimate tool. There is no way one can generalize about Islam or any religion for that matter.

So who are the perpetrators and what drove them to carry this horrendous act? The most likely perpetrators of these attacks are related to an extremely small and fringe network of militants whose motivations do not derive from Islam so much as from a common set of experiences and beliefs that resulted from their participation in the U.S. backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's. These militants were recruited by the CIA and the Saudi Arabian and Pakistani intelligence services to fight against the Soviet Union during the 1980's. They came largely from the poor and unemployed classes or militant opposition groups from around the Middle East, including Algeria, Egypt, Palestine and elsewhere in order to wage war on behalf of the Muslim people of Afghanistan against the communist enemy.

Among the many coordinators and financiers of this effort was a rich young Saudi named Osama Bin Laden, who was the millionaire son of a wealthy Saudi businessman with close contacts to the Saudi royal family. Although accounts vary regarding his actual participation in the war, he played an important role in helping these groups recruit volunteers and build extensive networks of bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan after 1984.

This network of conservative Sunni Muslim militants, who became known as "the Afghans" in the Middle East, also served another purpose for the U.S. and its allies in the region. Not only were they anti-Communist due to their rejection of its atheism, they were also opposed to the brand of Islamic radicalism promoted by the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran and its leader Ayatollah Khomeini largely because it was based on Shiite rather than Sunni Islamic doctrine, a major doctrinal cleavage within Islam. The revolution had had toppled a major ally of the U.S., the Shah of Iran, who played a major role as a pillar of U.S. hegemony in the oil rich Persian Gulf and was threatening key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other oil rich states. Therefore, the clear aim of U.S. foreign policy therefore was to kill two birds with one stone: turn back the Soviet Union and create a counter-weight to radical Iranian inspired threats to U.S. interests, particularly U.S. backed regimes who controlled the massive oil resources.

The failure of U.S. policy in the Middle East

But this policy has now turned into a nightmare for the U.S. and has likely led to the recent attacks against the U.S. in New York and Washington D.C. After the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan in 1989 the "Afghan" network became expendable to the U.S. who no longer needed their services. In fact, the U.S. actively turned against these groups after the Gulf War when a number of these militants returned home and moved into the violent opposition against U.S. allied regimes and opposed the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991. They were particularly opposed to the unprecedented positioning of U.S. ground troops in Saudi Arabia on the land of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina. As a result, in the past decade there has been a vicious war of intelligence services in the region between America and its allies and militant Muslim groups. Many Egyptian Islamists believe the U.S. trained Egyptian police torture techniques like they did the Shah and his brutal Savak security police. Moreover, the CIA has sent snatch squads to abduct wanted militants form Muslim countries and return them to their countries to face almost certain death and imprisonment.

The primary belief of this loose and militant network of veterans of the Afghanistan war is that the West, led by the United States, is now waging war against Muslims around the world and that they have to defend themselves by any means necessary, including violence and terrorism. They point to a number of cases where Muslims have born the brunt of violence as evidence of this war: the Serbian and Croation genocide against Bosnian Muslims, the Russian war in Chechnya, the Indian occupation of Kashmir, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, the UN sanctions against Iraq and the U.S. backing of dictatorships in Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, for example. They claim that the US either supported the violence or failed to prevent it in all of these cases. It is these beliefs that enable them to justify not only targeting U.S. military facilities but also its civilians.

It should be clear that this network is only a very radical fringe of militants who have decided that they must use armed tactics to get their message out to the U.S. and others. They differ in important ways with the wider current of Islamic activism in Arab world and more globally which in addition to its Islamic orientation has an agenda about social justice and social change against the dictatorships and corruption in many of the pro-Western countries in the region. They are anti-Iranian. They are now anti-Saudi. Their actions have sometimes even been condemned by militant Muslim organizations ranging from the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt to the FIS in Algeria to HAMAS in Palestine. They are somewhat disconnected from these movements in that they do not locate their struggle in a national context, but rather in a global war on behalf of Muslims. Nevertheless, they certainly share many common sentiments with this wider current of Islamic activism. There is no question that the one-sided U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. sponsorship of sanctions against Iraq as well as U.S. support for dictatorships across the region have created a fertile ground for some sympathy with such militancy.

Osama bin Laden is not the mastermind of these attacks as is often claimed in the media; he just facilitates these groups and sentiments with logistics and finances, as do others. He is simply a very visible symbol of this loose network and the U.S. obsession with him most likely works to increase his standing as an icon of resistance to the U.S. The network with which he is linked has no geographical location or fixed center; it appears to be a kaleidoscopic overlay of cells and interlinkages that span the globe from camps on the Afghan-Pakistan borderlands to immigrant communities in Europe and the U.S.

The rise of this militant network and their adoption of violence against the United States represents a clear failure of U.S. strategy in the region, especially the U.S./Saudi/Pakistani model of alliance between conservative Sunni Islamic activism and the West. The problem is that US has no alternative political strategy because they see all Islamic activists as their enemy and refuse to address the root causes of anti-American sentiments in the region. Moreover, the U.S appears to have no long-term strategy to address the sources of grievances that the radical groups share with vast majority of Muslim activists who abhor using violent methods that would include, for starters, a more balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ending the sanctions on Iraq, moving U.S. military bases out of Saudi Arabia, and supporting the legitimate aspirations of regional peoples for democracy and human rights.

How to truly defeat terrorism

Many of us accept the premise that terrorism is a phenomenon that can be defeated only by amelioration of the conditions that inspire it. Terrorism's best asset, in the final analysis, is the anger and desperation that leads people to see no alternative to violence.

While only a fringe element has seized upon violence as their solution, many of the world's 1.2 billion Muslim people are understandably aggrieved by double standards. The U.S. claims that it must impose economic sanctions on certain countries that violate human rights and/or harbor weapons of mass destruction. Yet the U.S. largely ignores Muslim victims of human rights violations in Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya. What's more, while the U.S. economy is propped up by weapon sales to countries around the globe and particularly in the Middle East, the U.S. insists on economic sanctions to prevent weapon development in Libya, Sudan, Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the crippling economic sanctions cost the lives of 5,000 children, under age five, every month. Over one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of over a decade of sanctions. Finally, the U.S. pro-Israel policy unfairly puts higher demands on Palestinians to renounce violence than on Israelis to halt new settlements and adhere to U.N. resolutions calling for an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands.

That anger cannot be extinguished by Tomahawk missiles or military operations. The present U.S. strategy for ending the threat of terrorism through the use of military force will only exacerbate this anger and desperation. When innocent U.S. citizens are killed and harmed by blasts at US embassies or bases, or used as cannon fodder for suicide hijackings, the U.S. government expects expressions of outrage and grief over brutal terrorism. But when U.S. Cruise missiles kill and maim innocent Sudanese, Afghanis, and Pakistanis, the U.S. calls it collateral damage. Even if Osama bin Laden is killed or captured, the fertile soil that creates such figures will still be there. Moreover, any attacks may simply serve to inflame passions and create hosts of new volunteers to their ranks

There is no justification for the horrendous attacks on innocent American civilians in New York or Washington. These attacks have served no cause; they have likely set back efforts to build popular movements and international solidarity that, in the final analysis, are the best chance of achieving social justice and change in the Middle East and elsewhere. Yet, at this difficult time, Americans should critically examine policies with which Arabs, Muslims and many others have legitimate grievances. Instead our leaders refuse to admit the flaws in their policies and find it easier to demonize those in the Arab world who oppose them as a way of diverting attention from their own mistakes.

Military solutions to the problems in the Middle East and the terrorism that has resulted from these problems is not a policy but a recipe for more violence and bombings.

Steve Niva teaches International politics and Middle East Studies at the Evergreen State College.

[NASMTrainer]

Like my father once said, "You don't have to love me, but you will respect me!"

[Art]

Kurp,

I appreciate the nibble at the cast, but, I'm not sure what the article you posted is supposed to do. I read it and I said, "That is PRECISELY the type of self-loathing, liberal hack job that lacks facts, distorts reality, forgets the truth and ultimately blames us for what they do that I'm wondering about."

The great minds of Evergreen State College (when did Evergreen become a state?) in your article has multiple factual errors and distortions and puts America to blame (loved the passage, "In fact, the U.S. actively turned against these groups after the Gulf War when a number of these militants returned home and moved into the violent opposition against U.S. allied regimes and opposed the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991." Wait, SO we're to blame for turning against groups that were in violent, presumably armed, opposition to our war to kick Iraq out of Kuwait? It's OUR fault we had to fight the people who were fighting us? Scary.) even where the facts are jumbled to create a wrong that reality would demonstrate as something different.

This article is precisely the type of liberal nonsense that makes no sense.

The article tickles the edges of a pretty important point though. The article outlines that Muslims don't like us because they feel there's a double standard where they exist, as the article put, "Yet the U.S. largely ignores Muslim victims of human rights violations in Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but how can the author, and the America left come this far and fail to see the rest? I'm no math genius but I remember a little poem that may apply here and here's the first line of it, "When you add or subtract you find a common denominator."

What is the common demoninator in conflicts in Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya? On one side there may be Jews, or Hindus, or Russians, or Croats, or whatever. But on the other side there's Muslims. There's your common demoninator. These people simply can't live peacefully anywhere they are where they are not in full control and THEY are the reason globally that so much conflict exists.

It's not difficult. There's one group at the heart of almost every world conflict. That's probably the group we should be somewhat concerned about and that's probably the group we shouldn't seek to understand, but, rather, we should seek to educate the elite leftists who can't see past their own flaws rhetoric that there's something wrong when this group is always at the heart of every damn conflict. Always on one side of it.

While I find it amusing and terribly sad at the same time to see a low-level college professor write against how sanctions kill children in Iraq while never mentioning Saddam, I am not so much struck by this dishonest and distorted view of the world so much as I'm curious to if you meant this link as a bolster to what I was talking about?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

I appreciate the nibble at the cast, but, I'm not sure what the article you posted is supposed to do. I read it and I said, "That is PRECISELY the type of self-loathing, liberal hack job that lacks facts, distorts reality, forgets the truth and ultimately blames us for what they do that I'm wondering about."

Me think Art doth protests too much. I would think that if the article is guilty of all you say, your counter-points could stand on their own without the vitriol. To your credit you do make somewhat of an attempt below. Read on.

The great minds of Evergreen State College (when did Evergreen become a state?) in your article has multiple factual errors and distortions and puts America to blame (loved the passage, "In fact, the U.S. actively turned against these groups after the Gulf War when a number of these militants returned home and moved into the violent opposition against U.S. allied regimes and opposed the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991." Wait, SO we're to blame for turning against groups that were in violent, presumably armed, opposition to our war to kick Iraq out of Kuwait? It's OUR fault we had to fight the people who were fighting us? Scary.) even where the facts are jumbled to create a wrong that reality would demonstrate as something different.

Art, read the statement again but this time pay special attention to the words "after the Gulf War". In other words, the U.S. made it a point to continue the fight [after the war] with the same group of militants they trained and depended on to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Now the point here is to try and understand why this would so inflame these people. Combine that with the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi holy sites and you have the recipe for some very pissed off militants; who are by the way, very adept at carrying out violence because they were trained to do so by the U.S.

This article is precisely the type of liberal nonsense that makes no sense.

Perhaps the fault in comprehension doesn't lie with the sender, but with the receiver.

What is the common demoninator in conflicts in Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya? On one side there may be Jews, or Hindus, or Russians, or Croats, or whatever. But on the other side there's Muslims. There's your common demoninator. These people simply can't live peacefully anywhere they are where they are not in full control and THEY are the reason globally that so much conflict exists.

You're exactly right Art, but not for the reason you believe to be true. Maybe you glossed over the portion of the article that stated in part that Muslims have born the brunt of violence because of the "...U.S. backing of dictatorships in Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia...". In fact Muslims aren't in control and their inability to exercise self-determination is the result of dictatorships blessed and backed by the U.S.

It's not difficult. There's one group at the heart of almost every world conflict. That's probably the group we should be somewhat concerned about and that's probably the group we shouldn't seek to understand, but, rather, we should seek to educate the elite leftists who can't see past their own flaws rhetoric that there's something wrong when this group is always at the heart of every damn conflict. Always on one side of it.

Name one other part of the world where the U.S. depends heavily on its natural resources. Why do we give a $hit what happens in the Middle East, which just so happens to have Islam as the dominant religion? Do you honestly think if we stayed out of that part of the world we'd still be faced with militant Muslims? I can think of a few neutral pro-Western countries that have no quarrel with Muslims, nor do they with them.

Now I'm not suggesting that we not protect our interests and our way of life. But there are consequences for the strategies we've used in the past and the chickens are coming home to roost. We've been reckless in our Middle East policies and a different approach is needed.

While I find it amusing and terribly sad at the same time to see a low-level college professor write against how sanctions kill children in Iraq while never mentioning Saddam, I am not so much struck by this dishonest and distorted view of the world so much as I'm curious to if you meant this link as a bolster to what I was talking about?

Uh, one question Art. Who's responsible for arming Iraq (Saddam) to begin with? You accuse the American left of not being able to see the rest. Well, I'd respond by saying that there are those of you who either cannot see the past, or selectively forget the past, to arrive at how we've come to the present.

[chiefhogskin48]

Kurp, are you serious??????

That article was absolutely atrocious. Do you actually believe that tripe? If I didn't know better, I would think Neville Chamberlain wrote it. It, quite simply, advocates appeasement, "sensitivity", and "seeing it from their perspective". I'm honestly shocked that you find such ideas appealing. You seem like an astute person in the rest of your posts.

There are certain sad truths that some people just have to accept. The first being that radical Islam has religious justification for hatred of Christians, Jews, and Hindus. This isn't about politics, though that is a part of it I suppose. What exists is a grassroots hatred of the West based on the Koran, so what can you really say? It's a myth that fundamental Islam is completely compatible with the Christian West. Sure, they CAN coexist with us, but it's just not part of the present Middle Eastern worldview. They drive out the progressives in their midst, the intellectuals and the like, whom unquestionably thrive in America and elsewhere because they can fathom, and support, the idea of "live and let live" religious diversity that currently exists in Western nations.

Unfortunately I have run out of time in what could be a lengthy discussion of the the problem, and the flaws in the leftist (not mainstream Democratic) "solutions", the few times they list ANY. But back to the article, it is a pathetic--- probably the worst--- effort I've ever seen to quasi-justify the attack by saying "the chickens have come home to roost". Horrible. :puke: Do you truly believe that? Perhaps I should watch my back, for if I mismanage the soccer team I coach, the kids might have the right to dispose of me under Mr. Niva's logic.

[Art]

Kurp,

I hate to break it to ya buddy, but, you'd be much better at playing the outraged, blame-America first guy if you actually asked questions in which the answer was "America".

You asked, "Uh, one question Art. Who's responsible for arming Iraq (Saddam) to begin with?"

There's an axiom among lawyers that says never to ask a question that you don't know the answer to. Here, you think the answer is, "the United States." In actuality, the answer to, "Who's responsible for arming Iraq (Saddam) to begin with?" is the Soviet Union followed by France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark and Libya before you get to the United States of America.

So, when you wrote, "You accuse the American left of not being able to see the rest. Well, I'd respond by saying that there are those of you who either cannot see the past, or selectively forget the past, to arrive at how we've come to the present," I have to say, that this is precisely more of the liberal drivel that is compromised by reality that is adopted as truth and thrown in the face of all Americans as proof that we are somehow the root cause of all that happens.

In order to have a point, as is typical of the liberal argument, you have to lie and distort and openly believe something untrue to make it at all meaningful. The facts are, as discovered by a highly leftist organization -- the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute -- that the following is the list of suppliers of conventional arms to Iraq from 1973 through 2002.

USSR: 57%

France: 13%

China: 12%

Czechoslovakia: 7%

Poland: 4%

Brazil: 2%

Egypt: 1%

Romania: 1%

Denmark: 1%

Libya: 1%

USA: 1%

UK: 0%

I only chose SIPRI here because it is a leftist organization and it takes from you the ability to attack the messenger, as I was able to do with your quaint little professor at Evergreen State College.

But, now that you know something you didn't, let me respond to the other quotes you have in the reply.

"Me think Art doth protests too much. I would think that if the article is guilty of all you say, your counter-points could stand on their own without the vitriol. To your credit you do make somewhat of an attempt below. Read on."

Sorry, Kurp. There's no vitriol there. It's not at all abusive to recognize the liberal bent at tossing up canards as a basis for their flimsy views. When I read the article you put up, I was struck by just how impressive it was in mocking the left and making my argument for me by being more of the same self-loathing, blame America first nonsense that has infected the left and turned normally bright people into drones of such fiction.

"Art, read the statement again but this time pay special attention to the words "after the Gulf War". In other words, the U.S. made it a point to continue the fight [after the war] with the same group of militants they trained and depended on to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Now the point here is to try and understand why this would so inflame these people. Combine that with the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi holy sites and you have the recipe for some very pissed off militants; who are by the way, very adept at carrying out violence because they were trained to do so by the U.S."

Funny thing Kurp is I actually put the whole quote up, so it's likely I saw it. Funnier thing is, it's still an incredible leftist slant to actually BLAME America for turning against people who were in violent opposition to them. You understand that don't you? Iraq invaded Kuwait. We led a team of countries in to expel them. And in the process some people we once supported came at us. We kicked them around too. And, then, after the fact, we didn't kiss and make up. We continued to go after them. And guess who's fault that was? I know you think it's ours, but, really, it was the guys who were attacking us in the first place that might actually have some of the blame you know? So, when you wrote, "Now the point here is to try and understand why this would so inflame these people," I'd counter with "No, the point here is to try to understand why this would so inflame US." These were people we supported who went into open opposition against us. Yet we should understand THEIR anger? Blame them Kurp. It's not our fault.

By the way, it's such utter foolishness for the American left to think that because we once allied ourselves with a country or a group that we are therefore always responsible for their behavior forever thereafter. We were once allied with the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean we were to blame for how Putin put down his terrorist issue.

"Perhaps the fault in comprehension doesn't lie with the sender, but with the receiver."

And perhaps comprehension of the sender requires a certain fantasy realm occupation, because facts aren't helpful to you here.

"You're exactly right Art, but not for the reason you believe to be true. Maybe you glossed over the portion of the article that stated in part that Muslims have born the brunt of violence because of the "...U.S. backing of dictatorships in Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia...". In fact Muslims aren't in control and their inability to exercise self-determination is the result of dictatorships blessed and backed by the U.S."

Sorry Kurp, but you should go back to class and learn what it is to be an American, because you don't seem like you recall an essential belief of Americans that it is the people's right and duty to fight repressive regimes. We were founded on that belief. We were founded upon the belief that the people of a nation have a DUTY to grant power to the government and if that government is too oppressive, it must rise up and take the power away. In fact the people of the Middle East do have total control and are fully able to enjoy self-determination. Hell, you've seen the massive street protests AGAINST America. If these people wanted out from under their regimes, they could make it happen. Remember, these people are so numerous and so crafty that WE as a nation must take great care not to inflame them for fear of their rising. Well, they'd first have to rise locally. Until they do, their life is on them, which is why I don't believe in taking to war for humanitarian purposes. It's their fault. Let them deal with their problems. And, yeah, let us continue to support people we want. That's kind of how it works guy.

"Name one other part of the world where the U.S. depends heavily on its natural resources. Why do we give a $hit what happens in the Middle East, which just so happens to have Islam as the dominant religion? Do you honestly think if we stayed out of that part of the world we'd still be faced with militant Muslims? I can think of a few neutral pro-Western countries that have no quarrel with Muslims, nor do they with them.

Now I'm not suggesting that we not protect our interests and our way of life. But there are consequences for the strategies we've used in the past and the chickens are coming home to roost. We've been reckless in our Middle East policies and a different approach is needed."

Kurp, would it surprise you to discover the percentage of oil we actually receive from the Middle East may be less than other regions in the world and therefore the answer to your question as to one other part of the world where the U.S. depends heavily on natural resources might just be South America. In fact, the South Atlantic region of the world supplies more than double what the Middle East supplies us in oil. So, again, quit asking questions you don't know the answer to.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy's petroleum import reports, just 18 percent of oil imported into our country came from the Middle East. There are better than 40 nations not in the Middle East who supply oil to us. Once again, what we see here is a typical drone of fiction as repeated by every good liberal. You have heard so much that we rely exclusively on Middle Eastern oil and no other region or country is as important, and yet, the truth of the matter is, that's wholly untrue, and our policy in the Middle East probably has LESS to do with oil than it does the knowledge that wherever Muslims live, they are in turmoil with those they live with, and probably supporting governments that are secular in Muslim nations isn't all that bad an idea.

The single biggest flaw in our policies in the Middle East over the last 10 years has been the weakness we've shown in dealing with the provocations of Islamic fundamentalists. Had we struck them hard and without hesitation 10 years ago we wouldn't have had 9/11 and the necessity to do what we're doing now when we should have done it long ago.

But, what you seem to want is a Middle East policy that rewards these idiot killers. Men who are so fringe they can't even lead their own countries. And yet we should cater policy to people who think killing civilians is a means to an end. They are right. I just hope the end isn't your end where we cave and quiver at their rage, but, where they do that at ours.

Kurp, you know I find you to often be a compelling discussion. I have seen you shred people with information that they are left unable to challenge, leaving you the clear victor in a conversation. Here is such a case against you, since much of your belief system is based upon fictional liberal arguments that all center around the same basic premise. My liberal sister summed it up best after returning from Chili a few years back. "The U.S. is to blame for third world countries. We keep everyone down."

This is the emerging liberal mantra. It oozes from everything you utter. Our friendly Evergreen State University professor wrote a lovely piece that simply drips with self-loathing and equivocation as to who is to blame. And I opened this thread asking to get a better idea of how the left has come to such a state that they will let themselves believe we're to blame for pretty much everything.

Unfortunately it was you who answered and provided the clear reasons. You believe things that aren't true. You state them as true. You've heard them spoken as true for so long they become facts in your minds. And it is from this slanted, fictional, elitist false intellectual dominance among leftists in this nation that much of this view stems.

And it doesn't resonate with Americans. It does, clearly with some. A rapid few socialists and American hating people latch on to this. But, to most of the country, we know when someone hits us in the nose the reaction shouldn't be to inspect every action we may have made prior to that punch that could have precipitated it. Because we know the answer. We know you hit back.

I suspect even the left knows this. And they don't want us to because they know something else. Hitting back will alter the balance. We already know what doing little to nothing brought us. I suspect they know our current action will make the world a safer place and affirm American's love of country. And in the end, they don't share that love and for them it'll be sad. I hope it won't be for you my friend.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Art I must say I agree with 99 percent of what you have said in this thread. I cant stand the "liberal elite" that tends to blame America for Iraqi children not getting medicine when Saddam was building palaces and selling oil to France and Germany.

However your common denomitor is the fact that Muslims in each of these places are not just being repressed, but brutally repressed. And thats a point that conservatives like us cannot deny unless we are trying to completely distort the facts.

No it is not America's fault that Muslims are being punished in every global hot spot and yes Muslims have brought this upon ourselves thanks to our inept leadership and lack of will to fight the right battles.

However to say that Muslims are being violent just because they are violent doesn't fly, not with me at least. Each of these places, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir, and Chechnya Muslim populations were either being exterminated (Bosnia, Kosovo) or there basic rights to self determination violated (Kashmir is yet to have a plebicite that was to occur 50 years ago) or basic independence (Chechnya declared Independence in October of 1991 along with many of the other Soveit Republics and the Russians invaded in December of 1994 sparking this brutal war)

All 4 of these conflicts could have ended a lot earlier and with a lot less death had the West put pressure on the major players earlier (in the case of Bosnia and Kosovo) and if they do at all with Kashmir and Checnya. To say that Muslims are violent just because they fight back is wrong.

And none of it is America's fault but America can help fix it.

Yes we are the common denminator in a lot of the worlds hot spots but those 4 cases were and are a fight for survival.

[luckydevil]

There is a tendency on the left to defend the weak( even when they are wrong) over the strong( even when they are right).

[Yomar]

There is a tendancy on this message board to spew platitudes

[luckydevil]

nm

[Art]

SHF,

I don't believe I said Muslims are violent just for the sake of being violent. I said everywhere they live THEY are the common demoninator in conflicts throughout the globe. There may be reasons they are violent. But, when it doesn't matter who the dance partner is, and the other dance partner is the same group of folks, we need to closely examine that group first before worrying about much else.

Yomar,

Good call. It's why debating the left is easier than the left realizes armed as they are with little more than canards and platitudes.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

There's an axiom among lawyers that says never to ask a question that you don't know the answer to. Here, you think the answer is, "the United States." In actuality, the answer to, "Who's responsible for arming Iraq (Saddam) to begin with?" is the Soviet Union followed by France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark and Libya before you get to the United States of America.

So, when you wrote, "You accuse the American left of not being able to see the rest. Well, I'd respond by saying that there are those of you who either cannot see the past, or selectively forget the past, to arrive at how we've come to the present," I have to say, that this is precisely more of the liberal drivel that is compromised by reality that is adopted as truth and thrown in the face of all Americans as proof that we are somehow the root cause of all that happens.

In order to have a point, as is typical of the liberal argument, you have to lie and distort and openly believe something untrue to make it at all meaningful. The facts are, as discovered by a highly leftist organization -- the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute -- that the following is the list of suppliers of conventional arms to Iraq from 1973 through 2002.

USSR: 57%

France: 13%

China: 12%

Czechoslovakia: 7%

Poland: 4%

Brazil: 2%

Egypt: 1%

Romania: 1%

Denmark: 1%

Libya: 1%

USA: 1%

UK: 0%

I only chose SIPRI here because it is a leftist organization and it takes from you the ability to attack the messenger, as I was able to do with your quaint little professor at Evergreen State College.

Art, you should know better than to garner statistics from any biased source, whether it be from the left or the right. You and I both know that so-called "facts" can be skewed to provide a statistical basis for any argument.

What you so conveniently omit from your quoted statistics is that U.S. money ear-marked for economic and technological aid to Iraq often found its way to funding nuclear and chemical weapons programs. If you want to bolster your arguments then I'd suggest you stay away from simple-minded statistics and spend your time reading documents posted at the National Security Archive website. Here's a good place to start: http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm

But, now that you know something you didn't, let me respond to the other quotes you have in the reply.

If I know something it isn't because you've enlightened me. But I''ll play along and keep reading.

Sorry, Kurp. There's no vitriol there. It's not at all abusive to recognize the liberal bent at tossing up canards as a basis for their flimsy views. When I read the article you put up, I was struck by just how impressive it was in mocking the left and making my argument for me by being more of the same self-loathing, blame America first nonsense that has infected the left and turned normally bright people into drones of such fiction.

As is yours and some other people's modus operandi on this board, you attack the messenger without addressing the message. Or if you address the message it's buried deep in the vitriol. You attack both the professor and the school he represents. What purpose does that serve other than to add a heaping of garnish on an otherwise neglible entree. I have to ask Art, exactly what qualifications does your current or past jobs provide that I would give greater weight to your words than a professor whose income depends on his knowledge and research of the Middle East?

Funny thing Kurp is I actually put the whole quote up, so it's likely I saw it. Funnier thing is, it's still an incredible leftist slant to actually BLAME America for turning against people who were in violent opposition to them. You understand that don't you? Iraq invaded Kuwait. We led a team of countries in to expel them. And in the process some people we once supported came at us. We kicked them around too. And, then, after the fact, we didn't kiss and make up. We continued to go after them. And guess who's fault that was? I know you think it's ours, but, really, it was the guys who were attacking us in the first place that might actually have some of the blame you know? So, when you wrote, "Now the point here is to try and understand why this would so inflame these people," I'd counter with "No, the point here is to try to understand why this would so inflame US." These were people we supported who went into open opposition against us. Yet we should understand THEIR anger? Blame them Kurp. It's not our fault.

You say we supported the Arabs in their fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. That would be the typical "right" slant in projecting some sort of benevolent face on our motives. We in fact trained and fed whatever bodies stood in line to do our bidding so as to keep the Russians out of Afghanistan. We cared little for the plight of Arabs since the only objective was to defeat the Russians. What was left over after the war was an oppressive form of government controlled by the Taliban whom we assisted in achieving power.

By the way, it's such utter foolishness for the American left to think that because we once allied ourselves with a country or a group that we are therefore always responsible for their behavior forever thereafter. We were once allied with the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean we were to blame for how Putin put down his terrorist issue.

If you're going to use analogies at least make them relevant. How did the U.S. influence and shape Russia's government after WWII? Now ask yourself the same question about Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, et al.

And perhaps comprehension of the sender requires a certain fantasy realm occupation, because facts aren't helpful to you here.

When you start giving me the facts then perhaps I'll find them helpful. Most of what I get from reading you is anti-liberal bashing. It becomes tedious in trying to sort out the noise from the points you're attempting to make.

Sorry Kurp, but you should go back to class and learn what it is to be an American, because you don't seem like you recall an essential belief of Americans that it is the people's right and duty to fight repressive regimes. We were founded on that belief. We were founded upon the belief that the people of a nation have a DUTY to grant power to the government and if that government is too oppressive, it must rise up and take the power away. In fact the people of the Middle East do have total control and are fully able to enjoy self-determination. Hell, you've seen the massive street protests AGAINST America. If these people wanted out from under their regimes, they could make it happen. Remember, these people are so numerous and so crafty that WE as a nation must take great care not to inflame them for fear of their rising. Well, they'd first have to rise locally. Until they do, their life is on them, which is why I don't believe in taking to war for humanitarian purposes. It's their fault. Let them deal with their problems. And, yeah, let us continue to support people we want. That's kind of how it works guy.

That's pretty rich Art, and you accuse me of fantasy realm occupation. Money Art, money is what it takes to "rise up and take the power away." You cannot fight against tanks and heavy artillery with sticks and stones. It's very romantic of you to suggest otherwise but it's a fantasy nonetheless.

Let's start with your statistics above. This from the DNSA website I link I provided.

Some have called Iraqgate-related criticism of the Reagan and Bush administrations spurious, discounting allegations that the U.S. provided arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war for instance, and declaring untrue or unprovable charges that specific officials were engaged in illegal activities. As late as the beginning of 1995, the facts of the U.S.-Iraq relationship were still very much a matter of public dispute. In January 1995 the Clinton administration released the Hogan report, a review of the Iraqgate affair, which reported finding no evidence to prove that the U.S. provided weapons to Baghdad. While defenders of the two previous administrations would like this to be seen as final proof that Iraqgate allegations were groundless, ongoing investigations have continued. For example, shortly after the Hogan report’s release, former NSC official Howard Teicher submitted an affidavit as part of a trial involving allegations of export law violations. In that affidavit he indicated that during the Iran-Iraq war high-level CIA officers ensured that Iraq was provided with weapons, including cluster bombs, pursuant to a National Security Decision Directive signed by Ronald Reagan authorizing U.S. military resupply of Iraq.

So Art, unless you can prove to me that your provided statistics take into account the covert supply of arms to Iraq by the U.S., then I'd say those statistics are rendered meaningless.

Now, on to your idealistic notion that people under an oppressive regime can overthrow that government if they so choose. Again from the Digital National Security Archives:

Questions about illegal acts and about U.S. arming of Iraq, however, were only one aspect of larger overall concerns raised by the Iraqgate affair. Questions about policy itself were at least as critical. The Reagan administration was clearly committed to providing Iraq with assistance in those areas where it was needed most. This included helping it to cope with its increasingly severe economic difficulties, and supplying it with intelligence information, apparently throughout the course of (and after) the Iran-Iraq war. Iraqgate inquiries focused on the U.S. commitment to protecting and expanding relations with a dictatorial and oppressive regime. At the very least, this commitment included providing high technology, and committing the funds of U.S. taxpayers to guarantee financial assistance for a recipient with exceedingly dubious economic prospects.

Critics of U.S. policy toward Iraq during the Reagan and Bush administrations charged that it was based on short-term calculations, a commitment to a risky economic relationship, and the mistaken belief that Iraq could be persuaded to adopt policies compatible with U.S. objectives. Instead of addressing these criticisms, both presidents chose a path which simply reinforced existing policy choices. When the Bush administration confronted reports of widespread abuse by Iraqi officials of U.S. government-backed programs in late 1989, for example, its response was to ensure that an additional $1 billion in credit guarantees would be authorized in 1990. When concerns were expressed both within and outside the administration that Iraq’s purchases of U.S. technology were destined for its nuclear and other nonconventional weapons programs, the White House dismissed them in favor of continued efforts to increase exports and protect the U.S.-Iraqi economic relationship.

For its part, the Reagan administration had downplayed Iraq’s systematic – and illegal – use of chemical weapons throughout the Iran-Iraq war, again for stated foreign policy reasons. Reagan officials went through the motions of responding to the issue by expanding controls on chemical agents and by approaching other governments on the subject. However, there was no serious U.S. or international response to Iraq’s sustained violation of international law through use of these agents. As some government officials have since commented, Iraq got away with using these weapons; demonstrated that they could be used effectively; and undermined inhibitions that had prevented their use in previous conflicts.

So answer me this Art. How exactly should have the Kurds responded and succeeded in their revolt when Saddam was pouring chemicals over their bodies? The fact that those chemical and biological weapons were developed and funded by diverting U.S. funds should have had nothing to do with the Kurds ability to deliver themselves from an oppressive regime, right?

According to the U.S. Department of Energy's petroleum import reports, just 18 percent of oil imported into our country came from the Middle East. There are better than 40 nations not in the Middle East who supply oil to us. Once again, what we see here is a typical drone of fiction as repeated by every good liberal. You have heard so much that we rely exclusively on Middle Eastern oil and no other region or country is as important, and yet, the truth of the matter is, that's wholly untrue, and our policy in the Middle East probably has LESS to do with oil than it does the knowledge that wherever Muslims live, they are in turmoil with those they live with, and probably supporting governments that are secular in Muslim nations isn't all that bad an idea.

Why don't you pay attention to gas prices Art? Quite simply, whatever percentage of oil we receive from the Middle East has a dramatic effect on our economy. If the price of gas goes up .25, .50, or 75 cents per gallon, the effect reverberates throughout our economy. Now, if you want to dispute how OPECs prices directly influence the price at the pump, have at it. Otherwise your points ring hollow.

The single biggest flaw in our policies in the Middle East over the last 10 years has been the weakness we've shown in dealing with the provocations of Islamic fundamentalists. Had we struck them hard and without hesitation 10 years ago we wouldn't have had 9/11 and the necessity to do what we're doing now when we should have done it long ago.

This coming from who? I again must ask why you are qualified to make unequivocal judgements on U.S. policy and why I should I should listen. Pay attention Art. There is no one group of people who bear greater witness to our military strength and our ability to bring that might down in the most lethal manner than the people of Iraq. Yet this has not stopped militants from picking off our soldiers one by one since the official declaration that announced the end of the war. You think all it takes is a show of force and a willingness to use it to give militants pause about killing Americans. If this is true, why hasn't it worked? Why did al Qaeda kill 5 Germans over the weekend? Why have 7 U.S. soldiers been killed by hostile actions and countless others injured if frightening the enemy into submission is a sure fire way to stop the killing?

But, what you seem to want is a Middle East policy that rewards these idiot killers. Men who are so fringe they can't even lead their own countries. And yet we should cater policy to people who think killing civilians is a means to an end. They are right. I just hope the end isn't your end where we cave and quiver at their rage, but, where they do that at ours.

When you get past your hysteria Art you might be able to discern that we both want the same thing. I want to reward no one for killing Americans. What I want is an effective means for stopping the terror. You seem hell bent on revenge killing. I tend to think that this only breeds more militants and gives others motivation to view themselves as oppressed by the U.S. Isn't the net objective to stop terrorism? I'm beginning to think that your judgement is clouded by your disdain for any strategy that might be viewed as coming from the left. Who cares if it comes from the left if it works? Right now I'd be comfortable in stating that no one administration bears the brunt of our Middle East failures, nor has any administration, conservative or liberal led, been effective in solving the Middle East problems.

You have yet to offer any viable solution that hasn't already met with disaster in the past. You know what they say, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Short of exterminating every Muslim and Arab in the Middle East, your game plan for quelling terrorism is no different than Israel's failed attempt to stop suicide bombings by Palestinians.

Okay, time for lunch.

[Riggo-toni]

I've made this statement before, but I'll repeat it again here since it's pertinent to this dispute.

The US did not directly support the mujiheddin in Afghanistan. We did send $3b in aid/arms, but we funneled all this to them via the ISI (Pakistani Secret Service). The common misperception that we had groups of our guys in there training Binny and his Boys how to shoot straight is simply not accurate. We didn't want to get our hands dirty, so we let the Pakis funnel the aid into the rebels while we stood on the sidelines. What we failed to appreciate was the role that ethnicity would play regarding to whom the goods would be delivered. The majority of the ISI working in Afghanistan were Pashtun, so they provided the lion's share to the more fanatical pashtun factions loyal to Hekmatyar. These were the people who eventually formed the nucleus of the Taliban. In retrospect, we actually should have been more involved and funneled nearly all the aid the Massoud, who was very moderate, pro-Western, far more competent, and more acceptable to the entire Afghan population as a whole (which is why Binny made sure to knock him off before 9/11). Kurp, I suggest you read the book Holy War, Inc. I think you will find it to be very balanced and informative regarding US involvement and Bin laden's motives.

Also, it should be noted that Bin Laden turned against the US when we became involved in Somalia. He felt that we were interfering in Muslim affairs, trying to dictate our will on the Muslim world. Ironic that such resentment and suspicion should emerge from what began as a humanitarian mission to feed a starving Muslim population. Perhaps if we had withdrawn after a month as Bush 41 originally suggested instead of going after Aideed we might have avoided incurring the wrath of Al Quaeda. Of course, it was Bush 41 who placed soldiers in Saudi Arabia, so I'm not trying to start another one of those stupid debates over "If (fill in opposition party's President here) hadn't been President, 9/11 never woulda happened... :doh: ..."

Finally, the biggest reason we are the victims of terrorist attacks is our support of Egypt, not Israel. Al Zawahiri convinced Binny to step up the campaign to include civilians, and his sole motivation is hatred of the Egyptian regime, which he views (rightly or wrongly) as a US puppet because of the $$$ we send to Egypt as a result of the Camp David agreements.

[Art]

Kurp,

To do fair justice to that post of yours I couldn't cut short a reply and I've had a busy day. I will try to give the full measure of reply yours deserves.

I will focus greatly on the contradictory positions you strike -- like on one hand saying you can't fight tanks and artillery with sticks and stones while on the other hand pointing out militants in Iraq killing our soldiers with what amounts to the same comparison.

I will attempt to remove you of your belief that some special awe must be paid to educators among intellectual elite of Evergreen State College and compel you to go ahead and let common sense, and actual knowledge assist you, rather than being led by what any $40K a year low-level college professor may have to say at any given time.

I expect children in college to be brainwashed. I don't expect you to be. I will go into much of this in full. I just give you the heads up so you know I haven't ignored you willfully and I do intend a rather fun conversation, at least for me.

[Larry]

I realise I'm picking on a side-item in this post, but it's a side-item that was (at least, in my opinion) gratuitously inserted in the original post, and it's a point that increasingly becoming a "hot button" for me.

I'm seeing a great increase in what I guess I'll call "right-wing class warfare". The fundamental basis for this position is that people can, and rightly should, be ranked in society according to how much money they make. It's as though everybody, when they file their taxes, should be issued a little insignia they can pin on their shoulders, and if my pin is higher than yours, then my opinion is more important than yours on any subject.

I see it when people are complaining about the airline security screeners, and how the fact that they actually searched ME clearely demonstrates that "all these people" are simply in that job because of their desire to push around "their betters".

Ask a cop how many times a day they pull somebody over who has just violated a law in front of a police officer, and the guy they stopped feels obligated to point out that he makes more than the cop.

Now, Art, I'm willing to bet that you've got some factual arguments to back up your positions in this discussion. I'm also willing to admit that Evergreen State College isn't Georgetown. But, I do think it'd be decent of you to recognise that the guy you're referring to makes his living based on his expertise in the particular field being discussed here (mid-east politics). And even a lower-level expert in the field being discussed doesn't deserve to have his position ridiculed, simply because, say, Dan Snyder makes more money than he does (by trading cable TV companies).

(His theories may be arguable. But he's certainly not unqualified to have them.)