As soon as we stop "blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor," and pull our country together, we will do just what you said.

A few more beheadings and a domestic chemical attack ought to do it.

Yup - As I said to Michele at A Small Victory a while ago, my first reaction was that this was a very stupid move on Al Qaeda's part. It was one thing for them to sit back and gloat while we indulged in collective self-flagellation. This is something else entirely, reminding us again why we're fighting these animals in the first place.

It occurs to me on reading both Bill's original post and the subsequent comments that this point of view probably mirrors *precisely* that of Islamic fundamentalists railing against the United States and the West in general. Doesn't it seem likely that, upon viewing the pictures from Abu Ghraib, many Muslims probably said "Well, this is what al-Qaeda's been telling us the Americans want to do, so maybe they're right.", or "What else can you expect from people who live inundated with the degenerate sexual imagery and mindless violence churned out by Hollywood?"? I'm not saying they're necessarily right, or even that I agree, but do you see how they might take that view? And if so, can you also see how superficial perceptions from the outside might result in a distorted view of a given culture?

I know the argument is going to be that "Americans never crashed airliners into buildings", and this is certainly true. But on the other hand, aren't there plenty of examples of American military actions that could, rightly or wrongly, be viewed as equally absent of the slightest regard for human life, as Tony Blair so eloquently put it? Again, I'm not saying they're right and we're wrong, I'm just saying that it would be as easy for Arabs to view American culture as presenting an equivalent danger to that which you believe to be presented to American society by Islamic extremism.

It seems to me much more likely that, as on most issues, the truth is somewhere between the conservative "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" view and the far-left "it's all our fault" view. I admit I'm much closer to the second view than the first, but I find it difficult to believe that *all* of the problems in Arab society can be blamed on the direct imperialism of the 19th and early 20th centuries, or the neo-colonialism of the latter half of the 20th century (not even Israel can explain all of it). More likely, I think some of the problems would be present regardless of outside influence, such as the treatment of women (which was also a much bigger problem here until very recently, and still is in a lot of ways, though certainly not to the extent seen in many Muslim societies), the extensive intermingling of religious and political institutions (which we had to explicitly outlaw a few years back; some would say religion still has too much influence on politics: witness the gay marriage debate), and a host of other issues related directly or indirectly to the over-reliance on religion for day-to-day social functioning. My view is that colonialism (I know it's a buzzword, but what else can I call it? A spade is a spade...) exacerbated many existing problems, and the various conflicts that have taken place over the last 60 years or so have simply brought the situation to a head.

Maybe, maybe not, but this seems to me like a more realistic view than the one which supposes the U.S. to be all but the pinnacle of civilization, a shining beacon to all, the tireless and blameless defender of human rights, etc, etc, etc.

Mike -

I'm not sure that i understand your argument.

1. regardless of whether the US represents perfection, or whether the US makes mistakes and does things that legitimately piss off foreign powers and citizens (it does), I would surely hold our society up as a beacon of the best of humanity. Our pluralism, opportunity, success and relative lack of corruption is a truly unique achievement in human history.

2. I am arguing that bringing pluralistic attitudes and success to other countries is the methodology that marginalizes extremists, as it has (for the most part) in this country.

3. and regarding this: "It occurs to me on reading both Bill's original post and the subsequent comments that this point of view probably mirrors *precisely* that of Islamic fundamentalists railing against the United States and the West in general."

a. one major difference is that we hold the balance of power and should exploit it

b. I'm not sure what post you were reading, but my view was that the US needs to export democratic ideals aggressively, and utilize concerted resources to accomplish this, thus giving backwards societies a legitimate shot at tolerant pluralism and success - BEFORE technological innovation gives radical elements equal power.

In contrast, muslim extremists simply want us to convert to wahhabi Islam and live under Sharia - or die.

Forcing democracy is not the same as converting people to a monotheistic society, rather providing all individuals the opportunity to pursue their individual dreams on a level playing field - it is human nature to desire this freedom. Blithely permitting dictatorship and oppression is NOT the same thing as respecting culture.

If you think that those are "mirror" views you are smoking CRACK. Crack. Crack.

Mike-

"Doesn't it seem likely that, upon viewing the pictures from Abu Ghraib, many Muslims probably said "Well, this is what al-Qaeda's been telling us the Americans want to do, so maybe they're right.", or "What else can you expect from people who live inundated with the degenerate sexual imagery and mindless violence churned out by Hollywood?"?"

Maybe. And who cares.

I wonder what many Muslims said upon viewing the pictures of Mr. Berg getting his head cut off today? I wonder what that says about Arab society?

I'll take a glowstick in my ass over my head being cut off 10 times out of 10.

Shit, you can even take my picture!

Bill:

I'll address your last point first, because I think it's the most important. I wasn't saying (and I tried very hard to make this clear, but obviously didn't do a very good job) that the aim of forcing everyone into a single religion is morally equivalent to force-evolving everyone into democracy; rather, I was saying that the arguments along the lines of "this is why we're fighting those animals in the first place" are precisely the same kinds used by the hawk-equivalents on the Muslim side. Consider this: to a religious extremist, bringing his own particular brand of mythology and worship-rituals to everyone else is considered doing them a favor, as much so as bringing democracy to the world. So, it's not so much whether a strong case can be made that everyone should convert, but rather whether the ideal world of that religion can be contrasted effectively with the real world, and especially with the worldview as presented by the enemy. That's kind of hard to follow (even for me - and I wrote it), so I'll put it this way: on the abortion debate, many people are probably swayed by the simple contrast between the imagery of an abortion clinic and the imagery of a loving God who does not wish His creations to be destroyed. This may be true even for people who would otherwise object to restrictions being placed on a procedure that might save the life of the mother, etc. The same is true of Islam: a hard-hitting contrast can easily be made between the debauchery of Hollywood and the ideal of a pious, Allah-serving Muslim. Again, I'm not arguing that it's better to center one's life around attempting to please some unseen all-powerful deity (in fact, I find the idea ludicrous) but I can see how the Muslim perspective might be to deal with the devil you know rather than the one you don't.

The point of all this is simply to say that it seems like it might be very easy to condemn Muslim culture to "backwardness" and assume that they must be "civilized", but that kind of thinking tends to provide justification for rather uncivilized behavior. Believe me, I understand your point and if you are indeed correct about the depth of Islamic extremism, then we have every right to attempt to address the problem using all the means at our disposal. I simply believe there are means out there other than those employed by George W. Bush & Co.

Iraqi Intelligence:

The "Arab Street" cares, which is the whole point. And what I'm saying is that if we continue to behave in ways that provide al-Qaeda with up-to-the-minute (if sophistic) justifications for their murderous ways, we only harm ourselves. My experience is that motiveless malice is a concept best consigned to fairy tales and Hollywood trash. Take away the motive, and the malice will go the route of the Dodo.

There are no easy solutions. If Hollywood were to be swallowed by the earth tomorrow (it could happen), I think the radical Muslims would just latch on to the next thing (like our support of the Joooos).

If the events at A-G Prison had never taken place, do you think Berg would be alive today? Would the WTC Towers still be standing if we had not upset someone somewhere?

A part of me wants to agree with you. The rest of me wants to drop bombs on the Arab Street, repave it and erect Walmart Super Centers.

I'm not saying the solutions are easy, nor are they A>B simple as with the 9/11 attacks. My argument is not that one change in policy, such as withdrawing support for Israel (by the way, what is it with people writing "Joooos" or "Jooooz" or whatever... I see that all the time, but I don't quite get it) would immediately result in a total change of heart by the entire Arab world; rather that slowly, incrementally, by changing our own behavior to come more into line with the high morality we preach, we might be able to prod the Arabs into doing some serious soul-searching and social housecleaning of their own. Bombing and re-paving the Arab street, as you put it, will only result in natural human defensiveness by the society as a whole, regardless of whether any given individual would have supported al-Qaeda or opposed it with every fiber of his being. Until we come up with bombs that are smart enough to only kill the "bad guys" every time, I just don't see how it will work. And even then, you always have to remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so even the smartest smart bombs won't solve the problem until we stop providing the real terrorists with a means to recruit the ones who are motivated by little more than the fact that they saw a friend or family member killed by an American bomb.

Amen, Bill. And I wish enlightenment upon those who refuse to see clearly into the minds of the enemy of freedom, and life, and liberty.

Mike, if they see what the US has done as purely 'evil,' that doesn't make them right. It makes them willing to manipulate the truth in order to support their dream of world domination. We aren't dominating them, but they DO wish to dominate us.

At first blush, I know some of what I've said sounds awful. But you need to listen more closely, and understand Islamic extremist culture better, before you can understand what their real position is. We don't hide our real position; we really don't. We walk the walk, however imperfectly, and we keep trying to do it better. Can that really be said of these people?

Extremists will always hate America - the idea of America. There is nothing this country can do to mitigate it. Nothing aside from not existing...except to fight it tooth and nail, at every turn, until it stops.

"Bombing and re-paving the Arab street, as you put it, will only result in natural human defensiveness by the society as a whole..."

Really? It's worked before.

Mike -

Cogent argument, but I have several points on several levels ...

re: "The point of all this is simply to say that it seems like it might be very easy to condemn Muslim culture to "backwardness" and assume that they must be "civilized", but that kind of thinking tends to provide justification for rather uncivilized behavior.

... my point is that we are close to eclipsing the breaking point of when most "modern" rules and standards of behavior become irrelevant, in favor of more tarditional standards embraced by societies that wanted to SURVIVE. Not realizing this immediate possibility and perhaps necessity is a failure of imagination. If we don't apply more rigorous standards to heading off a much deadlier clash, more horrible events WILL HAPPEN. Not if, when.

In fact, i am somewhat arguing what you exactly fear - our society needs to somewhat stoop to those abhorrent levels WHILE WE HAVE THE BALANCE OF POWER. Because if we do not effect change now, it will be irrelevant within two generations, as standard paradigms of industrial and military might will be rendered irrelevant by easy access to technology.

In 50 years, we may be on equal destructive footing with Muslim extremists, and they are not rational players like the Soviets. It may be better to embrace aggression NOW. You can rage into the night about fairness, civility, etc., but unless something radical takes place, you'll only maintain your pride in the afterlife (which I don't believe in). unfortunately, power is still the real political currency standard. We need to employ it consistently to survive. I'm not as interested in civility and fairness when it boils down to survival.

As far as the depth of Muslim extremism - it's deep - deeper than I think you may realize based on the nature of your argument.

Mike -

re: "we might be able to prod the Arabs into doing some serious soul-searching and social housecleaning of their own."

That's a nice modern judeo-christian western sentiment - but as I mention in my post, it is counter-intuitive to historical precedents. By our nature we have trouble embracing and coping with the morally distasteful and confusing tactics of the past, but their necessity holds true today, and we have to play on the same playing field as the rest of humanity or we are mere lemmings. When placing bets, put mine on strength over the evolution of the neo-cortex any damn day of the week.

Recommended reading: "why we hate" by Dozier, and "Blood of revolution" by Durschmied. Combine the two and you may get insight into my rationale.

I first heard 'Joo' on Southpark... the episode where the kids were building a ladder to heaven... when they got to the top they couldn't see heaven... Cartman says that maybe the reason we can't see heaven is one of us is a "J-O-O"

Been spelling it Joo ever since.

"rather that slowly, incrementally, by changing our own behavior to come more into line with the high morality we preach"

Why are WE the ones who have to change?

Our way is CLEARLY superior.

Free peoples and free markets are not perfect, but its the best we've got.

Hollywood, after all, only gives the people what they want... last I checked no one was herding teenagers into theatres at gunpoint.

"And even then, you always have to remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

No, not really, especially when your FREEDOM FIGHTER is a friggin' ISLAMO-FACIST... these guys want Freedom?

- gimmeafuckinbreakalready -

Bill:

Have you ever read a non-extremist Arab news site? There are plenty in English, and most of them are no more biased in their coverage than CNN (the domestic US version, anyway), and much less so than, say, Fox "News". I think you may be assuming a far greater degree of control than the extremists really have. In fact, outside of our friend Saudi Arabia (and Iran, of course) the extremists in many Arab countries are treated much more harshly than even at Gitmo. Egypt, for example, and Jordan. Even in Syria, believe it or not... as much as you probably despise it for fighting with Israel, the Islamists really don't have much power there. So really, that leaves Libya (which is "coming around"), Tunisia (nothing of consequence), Algeria (which has more of a quarrel with France and for good reason; other than that, quite a bit of progress has been made), and Morocco (mostly domestic, but again more of a quarrel with its former colonial master, Spain). I think the Islamic extremism on which most of popular opinion centers is probably the Palestinian version, which is of an entirely different nature than most of the rest of the Arab world.

Whether you support Israel or not, the simple fact is that Palestinian extremism is a direct response to the occupation that is going on right now, much as in Iraq. Even supposing that all Israeli historical claims to the West Bank are of the highest pedigree and those of the Palestinians are utterly without merit, the occupation is a fact of life, and one that means misery for many, many Palestinians. So, again, if an alternative solution that involves neither the destruction of Israel nor the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians can be found, I believe a major source of extremist sentiment will be removed. Do I know what that solution may be? Of course not... if I did, I wouldn't be where I am right now. But either way, do you see what I'm saying about the different perceptions of extremism? If you put it into perspective -and more importantly, context- I think the apparent threat decreases and a solution seems more reachable, if no less difficult to achieve.

Also, I still say that the nature of religious extremism is such that it can't be bombed out of existence, and that's even more true if you believe it to be as pervasive as you have described.

All I can say about this is Enough.

Well, Mike did get me thinking a bit...

Is it possible that this is a war between those who internalize their problems and those who externalize them?

Human nature being what it is, we all have problems. All societies have nutcases, for instance: in the US, they go to political rallies; in Saudi Arabia, they were sent to Afghanistan. Bad things happen: here, we look to our elected incompetents; in Saudi Arabia, it's the Joooos. Many of us can't get off the couch to accomplish anything: here, it's the fault of American institutions like McDonald's and the final episode of Friends; in Saudi Arabia, it's because the Arabs are an oppressed people. We have differences of opinion regarding religious dogma: here, Catholics complain about the Pope's lack of diplomacy; in Saudi Arabia, they seed Wahhabism throughout the Moslem world.

Maybe the real war is between those who take responsibility for their own problems and those who would shove their problems onto someone else.

Which explains a lot of strange bedfellows along the way.

Mike -

"Have you ever read a non-extremist Arab news site? There are plenty in English, and most of them are no more biased in their coverage than CNN (the domestic US version, anyway),"

Yes. The english versions are slightly more biased than CNN, yet comparable, the Arab language versions border on poisonous propaganda circa Spanish-American War. I think you underestimate the degree to which extremism is tolerated and encourgaed in these societes - go here:

http://www.memri.org/video/

RE: "Also, I still say that the nature of religious extremism is such that it can't be bombed out of existence, and that's even more true if you believe it to be as pervasive as you have described."

I am not suggesting that it can be bombed out of existence. I am suggesting that the application of military force is one arm of an aggressive strategy to attempt what we are attempting - to topple tyranny and spread democracy. If you don't understand that this is the aim, I'm sorry. If you think it's naive, I'd say that you are the one that's naive.

I got into an argument with a liberal friend last night that couldn't grasp my take on the situaion: We are not bombing anyonbe into submission yet, Mike. That comes later. If this project fails, and this grand plan to invest in the success of the Middle East fails, and several US cities are lost in a flurry of WMD terrorism, the call for revenge will be like nothing that you have ever seen. And you will witness what bombing people into submission really is ...

Seriously. I am advocating taking a shot at avoiding this via strategically remaking the world into a better place, by gunpoint if necessary, because otherwise, the trend lines are clear as day.

What makes me shake my head about liberal idealists, aka people with their head in the sand, is that they:

a. don't seem to grasp that America's current intent is not total war, rather to legitimately bring freedom and democracy to tortured socieies

b. that they don't seem to realize what worse horrors are headed our way if we don't even bother to try. And leaving Israel to its own devices is not going to solve our problems - this religious war, like most in history, would boil to the surface without the albatross of Israel hanging around our neck. Israel and the US are scapegoats for failed societies.

Bill:

Again, I'll start with the last two points, because they are the most important.

As to a: It's really not a question of whether anyone "grasps" the intent, it's whether they "believe" the intent to be what is professed. Based on a combination of historical precedent, the arrogant and self-serving manner in which the Bush presidency has been conducted, and the obvious alternative motivating factors, it's very difficult for me and many others to believe the the Shrub Gang's motivations are pure. In fact, as you said, it seems to me that an act of almost virgin naivete is required to believe even a word that comes out of the White House with regard to the Middle East. Really, I think this is the basic argument, and the key difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue; that is, if one believes in both the purity of the Bushies' motives and the threat of Islamic extremism, then it follows logically that one would support any and all military action taken in this vein. If, on the other hand, one believes in neither the overwhelming nature of the extremist threat, nor in the idea that our government, unique in the world, is pursuing some saintly, Quixotic crusade to rid the world of evil, then it logically follows that one would oppose such actions.

If you want to understand the liberal perspective on this, what you really have to look at is how the actions of the Bush Administration fit into an abstract historical or theoretical model of government manipulation. Any government that wishes to have the support of its populace can gain it by simply presenting a generic "other" as a looming, apocalyptic threat. People who are frightened are much more willing to give up control and accept government pronouncements when they believe themselves to be in imminent danger. Now, this model certainly does not imply that no danger exists whatsoever, but rather that the danger is simply exaggerated wherever possible, while presenting a distorted picture of the "enemy" that often involves reminding the people of the "superiority" of their own culture.

I will grant that this has gotten far more difficult with the advent of the Internet, but remember, not everyone has access, and of course there are plenty of government supporters and others with separate anti-Islamic agendas who do have access to the Internet. In any case, it should be fairly obvious that the government has far greater access to means of controlling information than is often admitted. This is always true of those in power relative to those who are not.

"Based on a combination of historical precedent, the arrogant and self-serving manner in which the Bush presidency has been conducted, and the obvious alternative motivating factors, it's very difficult for me and many others to believe the the Shrub Gang's motivations are pure."

Mike - there are a lot of flaws with the Bush administration. My admiration for Bush is always brought back to earth when he does something incredibly stupid - but your mistrust of authority is a reflection of your personality and personal life experience. Unfortunately it blinds you from ever having faith in your government, which is clumsily attempting to do exactly what you can't quite bring yourself to believe in.

There IS self-interest involved, Mike.But it's not oil, and it's not domination or colonialism - it's the survival and sucess of the US via the success of that part of the world.

You can argue against the methodology, but until you can accept that basic motivation, your opinions will sound like nothing more than paranoid, conspiratorial ranting, and we really don't have much more to banter about. Bush may have flaws, but his motivations are relatively simple. Get past your programmed hatred and "shrub gang" references and you might see this.

Does anyone think it's likely we'll act decisively to occupy and Westernize the Middle East BEFORE they nuke us so hard that we throw up our hands and kill them all?

Unfortunately, that seems the most likely outcome to me. It happened before, in 1941.

"Any government that wishes to have the support of its populace can gain it by simply presenting a generic "other" as a looming, apocalyptic threat. People who are frightened are much more willing to give up control and accept government pronouncements when they believe themselves to be in imminent danger. Now, this model certainly does not imply that no danger exists whatsoever, but rather that the danger is simply exaggerated wherever possible, while presenting a distorted picture of the "enemy" that often involves reminding the people of the "superiority" of their own culture."

I've seen this tired Goering-inspired crap trotted out too much lately. A few points: One, how exactly did we exaggerate the danger of Islamofacism? It's quite clear that there are nutballs willing to die as long as they take a lot of us with them. Don't go down the "where are the WMD" road- if these viral infestations have a machete, a box cutter, whatever, they will use them.

Two, are we presenting a distorted picture of the enemy to the U.S. public? I would have to agree that our picture of the enemy may be distorted, because you and other fantasists obviously still regard these monkeyturds as people with regard for human life. Big Media is providing a distorted picture alright- by drawing moral equivalency between some fraternity-style hazing at Abu Graib and civilians getting beheaded, burnt, dismembered, etc.

Three, the Nazis weren't trying to create a "Master Culture"; they were trying to create a master race. And do you honestly think that western culture isn't superior? Should we think about keeping women as chattel? Should we outlaw other religions besides Judeo-Christianity? Should we send our young men overseas to blow themselves up, as long as they take some innocent Muslims with them? Maybe their way is better.

Bill:

I'm not sure why you're attacking me personally and attempting psychoanalyze my views on the matter. As much as you seem like little more than a hawk mouthpiece conditioned to hate Arabs, I have until this point made every effort to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you not do the same for me? I do not have any "programmed hatred"... my current opinions are based on a long internal struggle after which I have come to the conclusion, *against my original inclinations*, that the Bush Administration, at the very best, is not acting in good faith. This is not "paranoid ranting"; it's simply responding to the evidence in front of my face. I used to be a slightly right-of-center Republican on most issues, and during a one-year exchange program overseas (in Spain), I was the one valiant defender of all things American, because I believed then that despite my dislike of Clinton, he was in general pursuing a somewhat idealistic and progressive path. Bush, on the other hand, seems to simply borrow the rhetoric while behaving in every way counter to progressivism, and not just as it pertains to the Middle East.

Look, the point is, I don't need to justify my views to you, but I think you should decide whether you want a reasoned, logical debate, free to the extent possible of pointless ad hominem, or if you simply want anyone who posts on your blog to mindlessly and obsequiously agree with everything you say. If you would rather I didn't post here because you don't like my points of view or you really believe I'm just "paranoid" and "programmed", I will respect your wishes.

"If you would rather I didn't post here..."

That would be fine, thanks. If you really think Clinton was pursuing an "idealistic and progressive path" with his out-to-lunch foreign policy, and that Bush is counter-progressive (regressive to what- the world before 9/11?), you are quite simply ignoring the world around you.

RE: "I'm not sure why you're attacking me personally and attempting psychoanalyze my views on the matter. "

I am not "attacking" you personally, rather pointing out that personal predilections cause an impasse in the debate. If you have fundamental trust issues with the Bush Administration and believe that war motives are intent on controlling the population through fear, or war-profiteering, then we don't have much common ground to talk about. It's ridiculous. Spend any time studying the men behind this war and you will find a group of very serious policy experts, many of them with startlingly good intentions. Paul Wolfowitz, for example, is a brilliant idealist, not a bloodthirsty monster that deserves to be casually lumped in some "shrub gang."

For a split second, I'm almost curious to hear what you think their motivations are, but not really; I've heard it all before.

One day I will write a piece on the levels of political awareness that one obtains during life'e evolution; then perhaps my judgement of your opinion will seem less like a personal attack ... though probably more like a condescending analysis. I understand where you are coming from, but I believe that your prioritization is skewed - and it's getting near the time where you will be carried along like baggage in the fight for Western Civ.

In any event, personal experience and belief structure are essential to any reasoned debate, or whether a reasoned debate is even possible in the first place - psychoanalysis is the basis for common ground. In this case, I'm not sure that we have much more to discuss - if you fundamentally distrust the motivations of your government, then you do not have the basic faith required to buy ANY of my theories or recommended courses of action.

PS - I highly welcome your posts, do not want only posters that agree with me and you have very good (and civil) presentation skills, but as I mentioned, debate on this issue requires certain common ground ... perhaps we can tackle your issues of faith in the Bush admin as it comes closer to the election.

In reading these comments, some persons (Mike, I'm think of you here) are busy making excuses for the islamic terrorist insanity. They are suggesting that we are giving them (terrorists) actionable cause to commit the atrocities that they engage in, by the actions of freeing Iraq and 'humiliating' some low-life prisoners.

Bullsh*t. These terrorists have never needed excuses or permission or historical grievances; they would be just as happy to say 'the rain made me do it' as to say 'the pink panties and Naked Pyramid made me do it'.

Terrorists want power, and attempt to gain power through committing acts of terror. How is this difficult for you apologists to take in? Nothing we do, short of killing them, will ever stop or even slow the terrorists down.

Rob:

Kindly pound salt. I didn't ask you, and it's not your site, so your opinion on the matter means less than nothing to me.

Bill:

My question regarding psychoanalysis was more in the vein of how you think you could possibly know what my personal experiences have been in order to give me some programmed aversion to authority. It seems to me that you've had far too small a sampling of my views on a relatively narrow range of issues to come up with such a confident appraisal of my internal reasoning processes.

First of all, I can tell you flat-out that you are wrong. I do not have a natural aversion to authority; in fact, my childhood and family relationships produced precisely the opposite. In fact, as I have tried to explain to other people who direct that type of generalization at me, I used to view the government as a sort of caring but not-too-bright parent. In other words, it was for the most part dedicated to serving the best interests of the citizenry and maybe even humanity as a whole, but there were a few bad apples and a lot of greed getting in the way sometimes. A number of things changed this view:

1) Living overseas and understanding the perspective of those who are not indoctrinated with this rosy, idealized view of the U.S. Government, and in fact see the government's behavior in a far different light. I certainly don't believe non-Americans to be perfectly unbiased, nor do I disregard the possibility that some degree of "envy" and hypocrisy is involved. However, this simply does not explain the depth of sentiment against U.S. actions.

2) Coming to the reluctant realization that most people simply do not act out of charity, altruism, or conviction, but rather out of personal or familial self-interest. In other words, I used to be very damn naive, and now I no longer am.

3) Spending enough time viewing of the results of U.S. military actions around the world to conclude that a dead person is a dead person, whether he gets that way by suicide bombing and planes crashed into buildings, or "smart bombs" and tank shells. It's wrong when they do it, and it's wrong when we do it.

4) Putting current U.S. actions into their appropriate historical context. It's the same pattern that every powerful state, up to and including the previous imperial power and our current lapdog England, has always followed.

You may argue that some of the individuals in the Bush Administration (I'll cut out the "Shrub Gang" stuff if it bothers you that much) have the best of intentions, but the reality is you just can't know. Maybe every government official has good intentions, no matter how self-serving they appear, but this seems unlikely to me. Before placing him on a pedestal, I would like you to consider that Paul Wolfowitz is essentially a follower of Leo Strauss, who explicitly believed in the idea that the only "right" is the "right of the superior to rule over the inferior", meaning elite control of the masses. Is this paranoid ranting? Not if it's stated outright. I really don't see how you can accept that as a reasonable principle for a democratic country, or as a basis for an individual's moralistic pursuit of humanitarian personal convictions. In fact, it sounds to me like altruism runs exactly counter to the Straussian philosophy.

As for your "common ground" argument, you may be right, but at least for me it's far more interesting to spend time debating people who disagree with me than engaging in feel-good bashing sessions with those whose views parallel my own. I think we have plenty to discuss, especially considering our amazingly similar thought processes on the abortion issue (I swear, you literally described almost the exact logical and philosophical path that goes through my head whenever I reflect on the morality of abortion). I have to say, having seen the video of poor Nick Berg being murdered in cold blood, I understand why many people feel the way they do in terms of letting God sort 'em out and all that. The only counterweight is that I also understand why Arabs feel the "rage and focus" that they do after seeing friends and family killed by a bomb and then referred to as "acceptable losses" or "collateral damage". It goes both ways, but I do have to say the cold-blooded nature of Berg's murder is way beyond anything I've ever experienced. My gut reaction really is to just keep shooting until there are no more bullets or bombs (or people) left, but if we all went around doing that, it would be called anarchy. We are the ones with power, so we have to show restraint. As for the worthless motherfuckers who did that to Berg, may they suffer unending agony for the rest of eternity, however that might manifest itself.

Mike -

1. you read way too much into my psychoanalysis.

2. your analysis of Wolfowitz is simplistic - a smidge more can be found here:

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/poywolf.html

Believing that the application of power can be beneficial to the world is not the same as "might makes right."

3. "It's wrong when they do it, and it's wrong when we do it."

I believe that this is the first step on the road to destruction. Your survival instinct is on the fritz.

Wow, Mike, sure didn't take you long to lose the mask."Shrub gang" really. And you chide Bill for 'ad hominems'.

Anyway, my point was to clue you in on why there's only one thing we could do to change all this, one thing that would put us on the same side and end all this bloodshed.

Y'see, our TV and movies, sexsoaked as they may be, are not why 'they hate us'. Nor is it our democracy or even our vaunted notions of freedom. Nope.

They hate us because we kicked them out of Europe. Because we forced Islam to contract. Because we thwarted the Caliphate. That's it. That's why they hate us.

Wanna get them to stop hating us? Submit to Allah. Become a muslim. Implement Sharia. That's all it'd take.

You first....

I read your quote that there are means other than what Bush and Co are doing to win this situation. You sound just like Clinton there. He argued for a regime change in Iraq. He didn't think he needed to go to war to do it. Just how do you think this change will occur? Specifically? Do you think having a big tea party and telling they really should behave better will cause them to forget their goal of killing all the infidels and enacting Sharia law for all? Obviously sanctions don't work because of idiotic organizations like the UN and its Oil for "Food" program (cash cow for Saddam, Chirac, Putin, Sevan, Annan, et al). I hear the left all th time telling us that we don't need to do it this way or we should turn it over to the UN (take a look at the latest incidents in Kosovo and the genocides at Rwanda and currently in the Sudan for what happens when the UN runs the thing).

If you don't have a cogent, workable idea of how to bring this about other than notBush, then step out of the way and let the big boys get the job done. That way we at least have a chance of not having to kneel on prayer rugs 5 times a day facing Mecca and our women will be able to drive cars and they will able to walk around with wearing a huge tent.

Jack:

A) What "mask" are you talking about?

B) Your astonishingly simplistic and uninformed worldview adds absolutely no value to the debate.

C) Any religion can be viewed as threatening by those who are not a part of it. I am an agnostic leaning towards atheism, and from my perspective fundamentalist Christians have as much of a propensity as fundamentalist Muslims for viewing the world in terms of how many people they can get to convert, or at least submit, to their religion.

re: "and from my perspective fundamentalist Christians have as much of a propensity as fundamentalist Muslims for viewing the world in terms of how many people they can get to convert, or at least submit, to their religion."

by and large, fundamentalist Christians don't regularly kill to convert in this day and age ... and I say this as an atheist. You cannot compare the two.

Bill:

Well, for the most part you're right, but don't organizations like the KKK claim to be Christian? I'd say radical "Muslim" groups may be considered as roughly analogous in terms of how they exploit religion for their own twisted purposes. Now suppose that all of a sudden some powerful third party started bombing Alabama because of the actions of groups like that. How do you think Americans would react? I imagine that even those who actively hate the KKK and everything they stand for would probably not be too happy about it.

If the KKK was fomenting worldwide violence, and the citizens of alabama continued to tolerate and financially support the KKK, I would have little problem with it.

Thanks Bill - I think you address the entire western world with the comment to Mike: 'Your survival instinct is on the fritz.'
AIDS is truly the emblematic disease of our era - 'the organism that has lost the capacity to defend itself'. The suicidal direction of the west (with Europe farther along, but the US with alot of momentum) will not be reversed by graphic images or angry responses, or an election in November. The pathology is systemic, involving the conflicting and contradictory forces at work in every aspect of our lives. We cannot even propose the most obvious protective measures (electronic surveillance is one example; border security, another) without setting off a chain of socially and politically enervating resistance which inevitably either halts the effort altogether, or severly dilutes its effectiveness. It may be argued that this is the nature of a system run by compromise. Not so. Beneficial compromise is a product of a body (politic) which has unity of purpose - a mutual resolution of tactics in pursuit of a mutual vision. Today that is not the case. The events of the past 2 1/2 years have exposed a system which is beyond polarized. Even in polarization, a people can pursue a common purpose for they are exist psychologically and intellectually on a common plane, still viewing the same set of conditions, albeit from opposing sides. What exists today is more on the order of an inversion; a mutually exclusive set of world views in which even the basic vocabularies differ. This is certainly clear in the case of the west vis-a-vis islamofascism, but (with important differences) within the western world as well. It is the critical difference between a system which engages in 'compromise', and one that is 'compromised'. In medical terms, a compromised system is one that is failing. What will it take for this system be brought back to its senses? i.e. to be able to even RECOGNIZE, let alone respond effectively to the mortal threat that it faces? Another 9/11? Another beheading? Several more? I think not. Only an event of such a magnitude as to align and solidify the entire collective consciousness of those under threat will be sufficient. The implications of this are staggering. Such a blow, or series of them, is inevitable given the present world's seemingly inexorable course. No, this comment is not solution oriented, but then there are no authentic solutions in a state of blindness.

Mike,

I found your comment, "eliminate the motive and malice will go the way of the Dodo" very revealing of your approach to this discussion. I also find it remarkably childlike and naive.

For thousands of years, malice of all kinds, expressed in hate and violence have bedeviled civilized (and uncivilized) society. Motives are ever changing, and in the vast majority of cases, merely a "justification of convenience" for the violence.

They will always FIND a motive for the hate, the hate comes first, the motive by way of excuse.

Dadmanly:

I found your comment "They will always FIND a motive for the hate, the hate comes first, the motive by way of excuse" very revealing of your approach to other cultures. I also find it remarkably ignorant and simplistic.

For thousands of years, humans have existed in some form of civilization, and I challenge you to find a single example of anyone doing anything at all without some kind of motivation. Calling another group of people "evil" has, in the vast majority of cases, been merely a "justification of convenience" for killing members of that group or stealing something they possess which is desired by the dominant group.

Powerful people will always FIND a motive for their avarice, the avarice comes first, the purported shortcomings of the subject group by way of excuse.

Think about Hitler's claims vis-a-vis Jews... nothing more than a justification for putting them in concentration camps, and yet lots of Germans believed him. Or maybe Europeans and Americans murdering and enslaving Africans and almost wiping out Native Americans because they were "savages".

I don't know about you, but I seem to see a pattern emerging here. Calling a group "evil" or "inferior" or "uncivilized" means nothing because the more powerful party cannot be viewed as in any way unbiased. Sure, lots of European settlers were killed in savage ways by Native Americans, but does that mean an entire continent full of them (over 20 million) deserved to die? Not to mention the fact that the Europeans were invaders to begin with, and the Native Americans were for the most part simply resisting that invasion. The combination of demonizing the enemy and turning citizens into passive, obedient sheep (with regard to the government; violent, hateful butchers with regard to the "enemy") has been an effective tactic for years. Why should now be any different?

Mike - I believe that you are interpreting his statement incorrectly, jumpting at shadows - he wasn't saying "they" as a cultural or racial reference to Muslims, rather speaking about "they," them," humanity. Whoever is on the "other side."

Bill:

He was talking directly about Muslims. The "they" reference has nothing to do with it... I personally believe that whole thing about using "they" is pretty ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, it's the English third-person plural and nothing more. However, when the topic of discussion is a particular ethnoreligious group, and someone uses such a statement to condemn the entire group as hateful and violent, then it becomes objectionable.

Try not to assume that I'm just on automatic pilot here in terms of my responses. I work very hard at responding to you and other Bush supporters as if you had actually thought through your positions, even though it often seems to me like you're simply reading off a Rumsfeld press release or out of Ann Coulter's Guidebook to the Lesser Peoples of the World. I'm sure you're not, and neither am I simply jumping at the perceived shadows of any hint of racism as triggered by some Liberal List of Banned Words. The P.C. Police annoy me as much as the next guy, but as far as I'm concerned that's no excuse to make blanket statements about an entire ethnic group in such a pointed way.

Dennis Milligan:

I think you're right in the abstract, in that our current political situation has moved far beyond a functional series of compromises arrived at in the pursuit of a common goal. We are faced with two basic worldviews which cannot coexist indefinitely.

The first is that that of the base, instinctual, aggressive, violent pursuit of material gain without regard for human or environmental consequences; this is the world of the extreme right wing and much of the Republican party, particularly the neo-cons. The key to this philosophy is a total capitulation to all the worst aspects of human nature, which is apparently viewed as immutable.

The second is that of progressivism, pluralism, tolerance, and self-improvement envisioned by idealists; this is the essential framework of view held by the American far left (and the European left in general). The key to this philosophy is that human nature can evolve, and the more we engage in behaviors that run counter to evolutionary progress, the more difficult it becomes for people to progress as individuals.

The left-wing or liberal view also recognizes that the eye-for-an-eye mindset results in a never-ending spiral that is likely to lead to catastrophe on a global scale. You know, I just have to ask, where would we be without idealists? 200 years ago, a lot of people who believed in democracy were referred to with the same kind of scorn that the right wing now heaps on the left. How much progress has ever been made for those outside the circles of power by following the conservative template? Again, remember that "conservative" used to mean "monarchist". The whole reason we have blogs is because of a nice little concept called freedom of speech. How many conservatives do you think supported that idea when it was first proposed? Again, it's not really a matter of the specific issues under consideration, but rather the overarching philosophy.

re: "He was talking directly about Muslims."

I'm not sure that he was referencing them exclusively ...

Re: "I work very hard at responding to you and other Bush supporters as if you had actually thought through your positions, even though it often seems to me like you're simply reading off a Rumsfeld press release or out of Ann Coulter's Guidebook to the Lesser Peoples of the World. "

And I suppose if i revealed to you that you sound like a third rate local humanities teacher at a community college, you might not take that as a personal attack? You want me to cut loose on you? Piss OFF, you sanctimonious little prick. You have no idea of the fact that you are just as hidebound as many of the Christian fundamentalists that you so casually criticize.

Many of my positions precede Rumsfeld's tenure by almost a decade. Try reading a history book without the prism of your modern judeo-christian values and the benefit of the cliches with which whatever morally relativistic educator poisoned you by eradicating the distinctions in your value system - face up to what the nature of threats really are! you are like a mutated animal born without a survival instinct - you won't make it without us neanderthals hell-bent on looking out for you. (I despise Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, btw, but that may be inconvenient to your carefully ordered reality)

You aren't speaking from a position of intellectual authority, you are speaking from a position of the deluded application of relatively complex mental constructs to movements, trends and cultures (yes, cultures) that are largely immune to your logic.

Seriously, I'm done debating you right now, because my tolerance of your amusingly naive and self-centered take on the world is wearing thin and turning to scorn.

Do you have any idea what horseshit this sounds like:

"The first is that that of the base, instinctual, aggressive, violent pursuit of material gain without regard for human or environmental consequences; this is the world of the extreme right wing and much of the Republican party, particularly the neo-cons."

Do you even know WHAT neoconservatism is? There is nothing all that instinctively aggressive about it! Or have you just read two or three lines about it in a fucking Chomsky piece? And how do the more liberatarian instincts of many Republicans show disregard for the items you mention? because they don't believe that a government programs is the best way to approach management of these issues?

Seriously, you are blithely spouting bullshit, and are far more bound by false ideology than many of the people that you are combatting in this thread. Even the most simplistic ideologue on the oppoosite side of this issue has a better grasp of human nature than you do ...

If you are lucky, one day your thinking will evolve past these little constructs of justice and progressivism that don't jive with the reality of what humans can collectively accomplish and are likely to embrace. If not, you'll just be an old hippy with very high blood pressure.

I will just point out that it was not I who started in with the personal attacks. In fact, I repeatedly asked you, without responding in kind, to refrain from such ad hominem. That being said, I'm only human and my tolerance level for being patronized is almost nonexistent. As for false ideology, your utter conviction in this supposed threat of Islamic extremism blinds you to any possibility that a different view of the world might be more appropriate; you take a priori as fact that those who oppose the Iraq war "just don't recognize it". Well, I hope some day you realize that's just not that simple. The world is multi-, not one-dimensional, and yet you seem to fucking think that in your infinite goddam wisdom you can condemn an entire group of people as barbarians and advocate their subjection to American power JUST BECAUSE YOU FUCKING SAY SO. What the fuck gives you this unique, superhuman ability to get inside the heads of a group of people about which you probably know little more than whatever you saw on some Fox News special about Palestinian "homicide bombers"?? Here's a tip: talk to someone from another country, or better yet go there and see what it's like. The people really aren't that different from Americans, and they're sick and fucking tired of being dictated to by Washington. Has it ever even occurred to you to consider why the ENTIRE REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD opposes what the U.S. is doing? Or are they all "paranoid, deluded humanities teachers from third-rate community colleges blithely spouting bullshit"? I mean come on, man, get fucking real. What makes you so goddam smart?

"What makes you so goddam smart?"
It is called being erudite. A quality that you manifestly lack.

Mike:

I don’t think that at this point a discussion ‘in the abstract’ is useful; if I’ve started one, I regret it. I think the point is: the west is not, and I maintain cannot, protect itself under their current circumstances. It is at an impasse, one that can be overcome only by a catastrophic intervention from without. 9/11 was not a catastrophe; Nick Berg’s death is not a catastrophe. They are profound tragedies by which anyone claiming the label ‘civilized’ is appalled, but they are not catastrophic in the sense I am using the term. 3 or 4 simultaneous nuclear explosions in major population centers would be catastrophic; ditto large scale chemical or bio attacks. Where is the rational person, right or left, who would deny that such a scenario is now a distinct possibility? This is not hyperbole, nor is it abstract, but a realistic assessment of the threat. Even a moderately healthy society would recognize it and be able to deliver a rational and decisive response. Instead we thrash around, elevating to the highest levels of concern things that are sometimes more worthy of gossip columns than any serious reflection upon a potentially mortal condition. Such feckless and ineffectual condition leads me to ponder what martial law will look like when it comes.

As far as I’m aware, history has never seen anything (an historical system) end that hadn’t hollowed itself out first from the inside. And NEVER is it replaced by anything better, i.e. anything with equal or superior civilizational value. It is invariably cruder, crueler, and coarser; the single exception that comes to mind is the American Revolution. Barbarity lacks nearly everything possessed by the vanquished civilization - everything, that is, except energy and confidence. I see a similar pattern emerging.

Mark:

Blow it out your ass. Erudition has nothing to do with it. Erudite intellectuals in general do not make unequivocal pronouncements about entire ethnic groups. Sadly, however, as much as Bill's worldview bothers me, I'm sure it appears erudite to most neo-robots such as yourself, who never even get beyond awareness of their own narrow, meaningless existence.

Mike -

your projection is frightening:

"your infinite goddam wisdom you can condemn an entire group of people as barbarians"

when did I say any such thing?

I'm reading this book by a famously respected intellectual and vehement critic of the bush admin on many fronts ... I suggest that you do the same. Then maybe we can talk.

Already read it, and Zakaria is hardly a "vehement critic of the Bush Administration". Did you have a point in particular from the book that you think is relevant to this discussion?

If you read Zakaria and still don't "get it," then we have little to talk about.

Mike

I can see from your earlier posts that you know virtually nothing about neoconservatism. I suggest that you go to a good library and start reading back issues of "Commentary" and "Public Interest". Start around the late '60's...

--However, this simply does not explain the depth of sentiment against U.S. actions.--

Mike, we're not supposed to be here. This experiment was never supposed to work. The riffraff was never supposed to truly have a say.

Who are the people in Europe protesting? Do you think when the Wall fell, they just went away? For 10 years they haven't had a "cause" to rally around. Now they do and they've been exposed for what they are. Also, we're top dog whether we like it or not. Don't you think they felt the same way about the other countries when they were top dog? In one way, we took away Britain's birthright.

They have been indoctrinated to hate us from day one for a long, long, time. BBC radio has had a wide reach for decades. We were never about "stability," which much of "the world" cherishes.

You don't think there are that many muslim radicals? Conservatively 10% of 1 billion - 100 million. Start listening to what's coming out of Britain. The grand mufti (?) of Australia was busted about some comments he made about Australia in a ME forum. Someone translated his comments. MEMRI does a round up of Friday prayers. They've been indoctrinated for decades, if not centuries.

As to hating muslims - I would venture a lot of us didn't care one way or the other until 9/11. Then the power of the internet was used for those who care. I never would have seen how the Palis act after a bombing, or photos of them dressing their babies up at jihadis posing w/dad next to a gun. Digging their hands in the goo left and taking away pieces of body parts. How they hide behind their children. Cartoons in foreign papers.

Part of the screaming you hear is because America's innovation and capitalism works. Europe's going down the tubes because they refuse to adopt some of our practices. Even in the business sections of papers over the past 20 years there've been quotes by Euro businessmen as to why they can't put into practice how we do it, etc.

--Has it ever even occurred to you to consider why the ENTIRE REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD opposes what the U.S. is doing?--

We know why. And it's not the first or last time "the world" will be wrong.

Bill:

Jesus Christ. What the hell is your malfunction? Did it ever occur to you that I might just not agree with Zakaria? If you have a point from the book, make it, and we can discuss it. If not, please let me know and I'll stop wasting my time and yours.

I'm tired of this, and I'm not done with the book. The points that Zakaria makes about the threarts facing society and the requirements necessary for the spread of democracy seem inherently logical and self-evident to me. When Salon.com and the National review agree about the genius of a book, it's hard to understand why someone might have a major disagreement with it. Much of it is just common sense.

In any event, I'm debated out for now.

Fine. I'm tired and it's ridiculously hot, so maybe another time would be better anyway. As for the book, I still don't know whether or not I disagree with whatever you were referring to, because you still haven't told me. Maybe tomorrow. Have a good night.