IIRC, most of the world crusaded (yes, I'm using that deliberately) at various times against those who practiced apartheid, crusaded against the KKK, stood up against those who were committing genocide, etc. I'm not going to defend the Inquisition. I'm with you (and the President, it seems) that Islam is not al-Qaeda and involuntary pre-teen girls' circumcision. But I think every one of us, Christian or not, is required to take a stand when a political leader (and his followers) say things like "Death to America" and . Do we speak out against genocide in Darfur? We get into a tizzy when a talk radio shock jock calls basketball players a derogatory name, or a man resisting arrest is beaten too much.. Why is it ok for the President to downplay that in the name of repairing relations or whatever we're now calling it? It seems (though I'm giving him the benefit of the early doubt) that he's using Neville Chamberlain's appeasement playbook from 1938/39, and no one around his Trust Circle seems to be helping him with it or critiquing him on it. I'm personally rooting for him to show a bit more backbone, or arrogance, or "Big Stick" or whatever you want to call it...my life gets much more dangerous when playing soldier on the defensive.
Hey Brian, since you unlike others at least sound serious, I would seriously suggest you do a bit of research on who Chamberlain was and what he did.
I don't know much, and it was only wikipedia confirmed before posting. I'll make sure to do that. Here's the general gist of where I was going... I'm not saying he wasn't honorable, or intelligent. My perceptions (formed in mostly ignorance, I'll admit...I've studied much more about the War in the Pacific than in late-30's Europe) are that he was a bit naive in thinking he could just be nice to Hitler and Hitler would be good. That's the direct parallel I was drawing to the President today. Were you talking about his whole life, or certain parts in particular?
Brian, you've hit the nail on the head. Appeasement would work if there were actual grievances that could be worked out and solved to mutual satisfaction. Chamberlain was acting in what he thought was Britian's best interests, just like President Obama is right now. They were/are both intelligent, honorable men. The problem was Hitler had a plan and nothing was going to stop him from achieving it. He played Chamberlain, just like Obama is being played by other world leaders who know they can't defeat the US, so the best way to achieve their aims is to let the US defeat itself.
I've made my arguments on this, and you have soundly ignored them. Agree to disagree. I agree that most Arabs see western culture has infiltrating Arab culture, but more and more that is a generational divide. But really, I like how you chose to ignore the issues of our troop presence on Saudi soil and the Palestinian question (the most important ones in this case) and basically choose to rehash "they hate us for our freedom." Right, I'm sure you are going to go do that. Not to nitpick, but the Taliban hardly allowed al-Qa'ida to "create their own government." They gave them save haven, and integrated them into part of their loosely defined defense force. Unless by "government" you mean "terrorist training camp," then yes. The Taliban aren't gone. Well if you'd been paying attention to my arguments (it's clear that you haven't), you'd know what I think at this point. Let me reiterate. The designers: yes. Kill them before they have time to act. They are the ones who have declared war on us and they are the ones who will not stop fighting until they are dead. The ones who strap bombs to themselves: my argument is to find a way to prevent them from strapping bombs to themselves without killing them. This, of course, relies on the notion that these people aren't all dyed in the wool evil terrorists, one that you are clearly rejecting. So, I guess we will have agree to disagree. Re-read what I said. I was arguing that the families of terrorists don't share their beliefs, but at the same time they don't ostracize them when they join a terrorist organization. Do you have a biography of every person who has ever blown themselves up? Or are they not terrorists all of a sudden? Seriously, what are you talking about? I suggest that maybe not all mosques and madrassas "cultivate" terrorists, and you come at me with that? Are we having a real grown-up discussion or are you done? Christ.
Our disagreements are too profound to ever have agreement. You believe me to be a bloodthirsty warmonger and I believe you to be hopelessly naive.
Hitler was into the occult, not religion. The greatest atrocities in history sure are against religious people, not by them. There's the holocaust, and the godless communists of the USSR murdered 10's of millions of their own civilians, the godless communist of China (Mao) killed 40M of his own people, and you might consider the godless communist Pol Pot's deeds, too.
This is typical. I make reasoned arguments about the nature of what you believe (scary!) and you claim that I am making an over the top, inflammatory judgment about you in order to deflect any responsibility to think about what the fuck we're talking about.
This is a real good illustration of the limits of Wikipedia and why it is not and cannot be a substitute for knowledge. Don't get me wrong; Wikipedia is convenient for looking up a simple fact or definition. But there is a reason why professors generally refuse to accept it as a reference in college papers. Chamberlain is one of those things that keeps getting repeated in the echo chamber, along with "Boston tea party" and "Atlas Shrugged" by people who can't be troubled to learn history or (understandably) wade through 1000 pages of lurid prose and learn the real philosophy of Ayn Rand. It gets endlessly repeated, quoted from Fox News and right wing web sites, with zero understanding. (Sort of like endlessly hearing "Sam Bowie" from idiots who know nothing about the 1984 draft but just repeat, endlessly, what they heard somewhere.) The echo chamber is why Obama can simultaneously be called a fascist, socialist, communist, Muslim, radical Christian, Black nationalist, elitist, empty suit and rock star - all pretty much mutually exclusive. The "idea" is that anything other than bombing or invading or imprisoning for life your opponents is "Chamberlain" liberal appeasers or at best very naive. Chamberlain was not a liberal, not a pacifist and certainly not naive. He was a hard rightist, leader of the most conservative wing of the Conservative Party, who wanted alliance with Hitler because of fundamental agreements. Remember, in the early years, Hitler was not (yet) about genocide but concentrated on breaking unions, arresting socialists and communists, ending women's rights, censoring "decadent" art & literature, etc., measures supported by Chamberlain (and many would be supported by people on this board who post in this forum 20 times a day.) Chamberlain supported a grand alliance of Conservative Britain and Nazi Germany based on convergence of political views and (supposed) Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. He ceded Czechoslovakia, not out of naivite, not as a really crappy instance of practical politics, but as a gesture to an ally. It was not that he was naive in "trusting Hitler"; he agreed with Hitler. If you can see a parallel with that and the current president saying the US is not at war with an entire religion, please show me that parallel.
Funny. I look at our positions and believe I'm the one making reasoned arguments. Perspective means quite a bit. It's the fact you believe to own the truth in this discussion I find so silly. As for thinking about the problem, I've spent my fair share thinking about it. You are simply having trouble with the fact that we've analyzed the same set of data and have arrived at different conclusions. Good luck to you and your naivete. It simply demonstrates you have no regard for history or for how the middle-eastern mind works.
Wow, you're as certain of your position as Chamberlain was of his, and you're equally wrong. Firstly, it's not up to any world leader to decide how to split up a country. "Giving" Hitler the Sudentenland without input from Czechoslovakia bordered on a criminal act, especially when you represent a parliamentary democracy. Secondly, Chamberlain appeased Hitler not because he agreed with him, but because he thought he could control him. As well as he understood domestic issues, he was completely out of his depth in terms of international issues. Yet, he was so sure of himself, he wouldn't listen to anyone. Thirdly, the rebellion came not only from the Liberal party (who refused to form a government with him) but the anti-appeasement wing of his own party who was smart enough to recognize that appeasement doesn't work. That people who ask for an inch will eventually want a mile. The Conservatives were no friend of Hitler; they were friends of freedom. If you're silly enough to accuse the Conservative Party in the UK before WWII to be pro-Hitler, I'd offer as evidence Sir Winston Churchill. Just another remarkable post, crandc.
It's obvious we're both taking into account of how the Middle-Eastern mind works, we just have different ideas of how that is. I'm not going to say that I have more insight into this than you do, but I have my sneaking suspicions.
Don't you remember the last time you asked me about my qualifications to discuss the Middle East? I remember you not replying.
I actually went looking for it, apparently it was over 500 posts ago. I even went to that other forum, but no such luck. It's not like I have a ton of homework to do (hah), so here: I'm not an expert, so I'm not going to say that the Middle East is my area of expertise. However, it is what I focus on. To start, I was a Middle Eastern studies major for 3 years (before I realized it wouldn't get me a job) and took more classes than I can count on Middle Eastern history, politics, culture and language. Over the past 6 years I have talked to many, many Arabs (Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians) in English and Arabic and count a few of them as my good friends. I've traveled to Syria and have talked to common people on the street about politics, culture and history (their three favorite topics after the local soccer team.) Nowadays, I generally try to keep up with the region through the news and documentaries and through my friends that live there. If my sneaking suspicion comment was indeed out of line, then I apologize.
Um, if you want I can get you hooked up with a pretty sweet intel gig. It would involve you being in a uniform, though, and liable to get dangerous. But that's a heckuva skill set.
Yeah, I've gotten plenty of junk mail from the Army for language gigs in Iraq. I'm just not what you would call Army material.
