Have you even read one of Bin Laden’s statements to the press? Even one of his statements regarding how he thinks the world should work?
Bin Laden is not angry because- as most liberals feel- the United States is not working hard enough to bring democratic justice and economic equality to the peoples of the Middle East.
Bin Laden is angry because the United States is not working to help bring about regimes- and become a regime itself- where women are forced to cover themselves and submit entirely to men’s desires, where televisions and radios and music are banned, etc.
This is not a rage we can, in any way, deal with instead of destroying; unless, of course, you’re suggesting that we simply wash our hands of the whole Middle East and let them do what they want.
What do you suggest, Stoid? If there are millions of Muslims enraged because the United States is not helping them establish Islamic Law over their communities, then what do you suggest we do? Because you seem to feel it’s very important that we acknowledge that rage and accept that America’s incompetence under Republican Presidents has led us to this fateful state.
Yeah, but to pretend that one can defeat one’s enemy without at least a basic understanding his strategy, tactics and (yes) motivation strikes me as a little naive. At least within a context of asymmetric warfare, never mind the broader components of this conflict.
"Bin Laden is not angry because- as most liberals feel- the United States is not working hard enough to bring democratic justice and economic equality to the peoples of the Middle East. "
No, no, no, no… remember, I am not advocating that we do therapy with Osama who IS a murderer. We don’t cuddle up to the murderers. But if you insist on this weak analogy, then what we DO do is learn from those who murder what may have led them to it, try to prevent it, recognize it, head it off at the pass, whatever. And actually, the more accurate way to wedge your analogy into what I’m saying is to say that we absolutely DO sympathize with men who are cuckolded (assuming that’s your contention about Nicole, which, by the way, doesn’t apply, which makes this an * even weaker * analogy. OJ was a controlling, abusive, murderous fuck who intended to kill Nicole before he went over there.), without reservation. Because they are wounded parties that may be wounded in the same way OJ supposedly was, but did NOT murder. We do not go on to dismiss the very real pain of all men who have been cuckolded because * some * such men have expressed their pain by killing someone.
You know, John, since I didn’t say shit about Republican presidents, and I also didn’t say shit about accepting anything, much less America’s incompetence, and I also didn’t assert that we did in fact do anything to lead us to this fateful state, AND I know you to be a pretty smart guy, I can only conclude that one of the following applies:
Due to the pressure and time constraints of moderating, you are being extremely sloppy in your reading, in which case it is on you to go back and read more carefully, not me to spell it out for the 23rd time.
or
You have actually lost the ability to see and think clearly because of your own passion for your position. Again, not my problem.
Or
You are baiting me for sport, in which case you can get your jollies elsewhere.
stoid
I left this thread as it went all (US) hand-wringingly (sic) domestic on me but I do have to respond to this.
Sorry John, but I think you’re getting a Taliban type regime confused with a democratic Palestinian State – there’s obviously no ‘State’ (yet) - the primary OBL goal - but any such State would be necessarily democratic in form.
Why would it be necessarily democratic ? because the world requires that to part of any final deal. The current Palestinian Authority goes part way down that road and the new elections (Arafat looks to be standing) are planned for January.
There is no suggestion OBL could, or would, want to, or be able to, interfere with that democratisation process.
One only has to look at, for example, Lebanon to see just how (socially) liberal Arab/Muslim countries can be, if they so choose.
You didn’t read my response to Xeno where I agreed that we need to foster democracy in the Arab world and significantly alter our Middle East foreign policy–but that has zilch to do with bin Laden. Bin Laden is not an unfortunate excess caused by American foreign policy–he’s fucking crazy, and would be even if the US had never offended the Arabs.
Actually, I’ve got to agree with that characterization. IME most liberals do feel the US does not place a high enough priority on democratic justice and economic equality in the Middle East. I can’t produce a cite for that, although I’m sure I could find quotes from liberal or moderate columnists to that effect (Thomas Friedman, perhaps, or Nicholas Kristof, both of the NY Times…).
However, I’ve got to disagree with Mr. Corrado’s assessment of bin Laden’s motives. ObL doesn’t really care if we institute aspects of fundamentalist Muslim law in the US; we’re infidels as far as he’s concerned. He’s fighting US/Western influence (vainly, I hope).
I also have to disagree that it’s necessarily the establishment of traditional Islamic law (although that seems likely in some areas) that is sought by millions in the Middle East; I think rather it’s the chance to determine their form of law democratically. Perhaps these millions are angry at the US merely for helping to maintain oppressive regimes through our economic support, rather than because we haven’t worked to change them? (NOTE that I’m not advocating abandonment of US alliances with Saudi Arabia and Egypt; I’m just suggesting a more likely reason for anger at the US.)
I agree that position is pathetic–good thing it’s not mine. OBL’s rage is not the rage of all Arabs.
A. Arabs are not a monolithc oneness. There are different nationalities, different Islamic denominations, and even different ethnicites involved.
B. It’s racist and insulting of you to say that OBL’s rage somehow expresses a generalized pan-Arab rage. OBL is insane (he wants to restore the caliphate with himself as caliph), he is wrong (our troops are not in the Saudi province where Mecca and Medina are located, which, along with Israel are the only Muslim holy lands; no Islamic source has ever claimed the the entire territory of Saudi Arabia is holy land)
I can understand resentment of our backing of Israel, and the indifference of the US government to atrocities committed by dictators against their own people. But those have nothing to do with OBL’s madness.
Well, your Mr. Hyde is right about one thing – the US has a bad rap abroad, especially in the press. Even in the European press. I can’t remember the last time I read a positive word about US foreign or domestic policy over here. In fact, as an ex-pat, I sometimes find it emotionally exhausting to read the constant outpouring of anti-American rhetoric in Swedish newspapers, or listen to it on TV.
Unfortunately your Mr. Hyde, and his attitude, is a major source of the problem. Europeans are growing tired of the self-righteous patriotism exhibited by many Americans and their political representatives; and Mr. Hyde’s version of US history, to judge from your quote, is extremely selective. Mr. Hyde sees the good that the US does only at the cost of turning a blind eye to all the bad – but outside the US, the opposite tends to occur. The simple fact is, the US is no longer seen as a “bastion of freedom and democracy” in the world abroad (if it ever was). We are seen as uneducated, flag-waving, conceited, and self-serving power-mongers.
And to be honest, it is not always in the best interest of the US to support democratic reforms abroad. More often than not, our foreign policy serves our needs at the cost of a negative impact, sometimes even an extreme negative impact, on the populations of other nations. At the same time, the average US citizen is almost completely unaware of our policies abroad or their consequences. To take but one example, it’s not really in the best interest of the US to support democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia. We have a deal with the ruling family – we help them stay in power as long as they supply us with cheap oil. So the US blithely continues supporting a regime that is clearly dictatorial and non-democratic, while simultaneously claiming in its foreign policy rhetoric that it supports freedom and democracy. Clearly, from the perspective of oppressed Saudi Arabian citizens, the US is hypocritical. This is a widespread view within the international community, and there is in fact some merit to it.
I think Mr. Hyde is wrong about the nature of the problem facing the US in this regard, however. It is not a problem of image, it is a problem of historical fact. The historical record speaks for itself, no matter how we try to candy-coat it with techniques derived from Hollywood or Madison Avenue. And if the US really wants to clean up its “image,” it should start by actually implementing real policy change rather than simply running a bright and shiny ad-campaign (although I think you would agree with that). John Corrado:
Au contraire, monsieur. The US happily supports such regimes as long as they willingly kow-tow to US interests. Consider Saudi Arabia or Kuwait as examples. In fact, during the Russian-Afghan conflict, the US quite happily supported Osama and his flunkies, and even distributed copies of the Koran by the planeload as a means of helping to foment Islamic fundamentalism – figuring correctly that it would have a destabilizing effect on the region. But it was of course all okay back then, because we were fighting that nasty old Evil Empire….
I doubt Mr. bin Ladin could find the support needed to run his organization if we didn’t have our fingers in so many pies out there…. elucidator:
Let me just state this simply:
You rock.
I don’t care what all those other people say about you. You’re on my list of all-time SDMB heroes.
**
But how is the net effect any different? The U.S. will, naturally, have a huge level of influence abroad. It always will.
If the “problem” is the American infidels’ influence on Arab and Muslim culture, and we’re never going away, we’ve got a real problem.
(I agree with all of your second part to that response.)
Mr. Svinlesha:
**
I agree that Hyde is highlighting the good and not the bad.
Get past America’s often ridiculous obsession with Communism and the Soviet Union, and some of the foreign policies that sprang from it, and I think America has been more of a force for good in the world than any other nation. Some examples:
Continued leadership in the Israel-Palestinian peace process
A strong role in advocating peace in Northern Ireland
The Gulf War
Somalia (the intention; not how bad it turned out)
Our efforts against Milosevic and his repression of ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia (where U.S. foreign policy interests were tenuous at best).
Our military presence throughout the world has promoted peace and stability (South Korea, the former West Germany, etc.)
Someone would have to show me how our economic influence and trade have been detrimental to poorer nations.
Those are just a few. So I don’t think it’s a question of “faking” how good America is. It’s a matter of better getting the message out about the good things the USA does, to counter an entirely different message others are spreading.
When I talk to people from other countries to expound on “America had Sept. 11 coming to it” types of sentiments, when pressed, what they often come up with is dropping the atom bomb on Japan. A (certainly debatable) act during World War II about 60 years ago.
Let’s talk about the past 10-12 years, and what can you give me?The Kyoto treaty?
America can’t deny the things it has done wrong in the past. It can only try to do better. It is. And I’d like for somebody to point to me examples that it isn’t.
(Though you will find no one on these boards more disgusted than I with the U.S.'s relationship with the sleazy leaders of Saudi Arabia.)
As far as the bin Ladens of the world go, it’s a distinction without a difference. As far as the anger at US from the “average” Achmed in Middle East, I think it means that diplomatic moves like the Bush administration’s recent rebuke of Mubarak over the imprisonment of Saad Eddin Ibrahim are helpful (and would be more helpful if applied consistently), especially where they are publicized and well understood in the region.
Wow… I’m racist and insulting now? Because I said…. Hey! Wait a minute! I didn’t say that! Uh oh…somebody’s making stuff up again! Mommy! He’s been playing with John Corrado and now they’re all ganging up on me!
And whatever happened to you bailing and giving me the last word? Indian giver.
In any case, while I know that you have been taking up many aspects of this discussion with many different posters, I have deliberately not done so. I spoke up about, and have confined myself exclusively to speaking about one thing: * the mischaracterization of the left’s position * after 9/11 regarding whether or not there should be ** any ** examination of US policy and actions in light of what happened. Period. I’m not interested in debating the answer to the question itself, nor have I. ** Only what the nature of the question is. ** I got sick really fast of hearing people turn the question into “Damn liberals say it’s our own fault and we deserved it!!” because that was not what it was or is. (And we are leaving fringe extremism out of it, because the Right won The Loon Sweepstakes when Jerry Falwell weighed in.)
I have never, now or a year ago, made a single assertion about what the answer to that question is, should any examination be undertaken. So it’s pretty creative of you to start flinging around accusations of racism at me. (And I abused you how, again? I’m still in the dark on that…) And I for sure never made a peep about any ethnic group or nationality in this thread or ever ! (‘cept for that “indian giver” thing. Is that politically incorrect these days? Or can I say it, since I’m part Native American? It’s actually a great saying, if you consider it from the NA position: “Indian Giver” as in “gives TO the indians, then takes away”, but then I guess we’d have to call it a US giver, wouldn’t we? Doesn’t trip off the tongue as readily, does it?)
But this exercise with you has been instructive in how and why the lies and distortions continue, that’s for sure. * Pay attention, man. *
Sheesh.
And ** Mr. Svinlesha ** , thank you for your fascinating contributions to this thread!
Take OBL off the table–don’t conflate his madness with the perfectly legitimate feelings of resentment toward the US from the Arab world.
Let me repeat this, so you will get it
1.I agree that there is legitimate rage against the US from the Muslim world
2.OBL’s actions do not reflect that legitimate rage, but only his insanity. Even if the Arab world weren’t mad at us, 9/11 would still have happened.
If you would pay attention, you would find that nobody is disagreeing that our foreign policy needs to be reexamined. What I find racist is that you are insulting the Arab world by conflating their perfectly legitimate demands for democracy and equitable treatment with the demands of a madman. OBL is crazy–just read his rantings.
And because the left opposed apprehending bin Laden, opposed toppling the Taliban, and blamed 9/11 on Bush’s policies and not bin Laden, the left has largely been discredited. Blame yourselves for bungling your message.
You should emulate Xenophon41. He get his point across clearly, intelligently and persuasively, something you could benefit from.
And the abuse…
You’ve been rude and condescending from the get-go, but I don’t want this to get personal. I’d like this to be about ideas.
[sub]And unlike folks who say they’re part Native American when they drag a Cherokee great grandmother, I’m really Indian–dad was a Choctaw–with real Choctaw relatives and everything, but since my connection is only genetic and not cultural, I won’t get into the “Indian giver” thing. [/sub]
Mr. Svin, modesty forbids a sincere response, but I am working to have that repealed.
I note with dread, however, that you are posting from Sweden. I have it on the very best authority that Sweden is trembling on the brink of riot and anarchy, the inevitable result of years of touchy-feely socialism, hollowed out by the moral rot of secular humanism. It has been poised to collapse for at least 25 years now!
Flee while you can! We can ill afford to lose such a paragon of probity and discernment.
<<the perfectly legitimate feelings of resentment toward the US from the Arab world.>>
Why is it legitimate for us to be resented by the Afghans and Eqyptians and Palestinians, to whom we have been giving millions or billions of dollars of aid year after year? Or, by the Kuwaitis and perhaps Saudis and others, who we saved from being conquered by Saddam? Or, our trading partners?
See, when I think of “the left” politically, in addition to myself, Stoid and elucidator (I don’t know Apos’ politics, but I’d sure like to claim her/him), I think of people like Kimstu, Gaudere, jshore, Mandelstam, et al, along with various liberal pundits like Kristof and various Green politico’s like Nader; and none of us, that I know of, opposed apprehending bin Laden or blamed September 11 on Bush’s policies. There were a few of us who advocated non-military means of ousting the Taliban (I personally favored limited military engagement focused on al Qaeda, and after November or so I favored engagement against the Taliban), but I don’t recall any prominent liberal advocating no response to the attacks.
I just don’t recognize the same “left” that you’re portraying.
A. The aid doesn’t go to Egyptians, Afghans, or Palestinians. It goes into the pockets of kleptocratic leaders. America allows dictatorships in the MENA region to suppress democracy and legitimate dissent in exchange for oil and political alliances.
B. Arabs see us as propping up an illegitimate, occupying force in Palestine. They believe that Americans are more concerned with the deaths of Israelis than they are with the deaths of Palestinians.
C. The common people live in squalid, polluted cities with no social services and few opportunities for employment or education. Their governments, including the Saudis and Mubarak, encourage anti-American sentiment to displace the rage their people should feel against their own government.
D. Many Muslims feel that America is conducting a war against Islam, and that American cultural influence is destroying traditional values.
Yes, I did. And where in there does it say ONE THING ABOUT ARABS?
No, what people have been doing is characterizing calls for examination of said policy with * blaming ourselves for what happened and declaring that we deserved it. * Including, most emphatically, YOU.
Still making stuff up, I see. You realize that this kind of thing calls into question everything you say, right? Just checking.
Cites, cites, cites, cites. And it ain’t MY frickin’ message, dude. I ain’t “The Left” (who is?)
Xeno is someone for everyone to emulate. But I’m not about to buy into the idea that because you refuse to get it, I’m not communicating it. It’s there, you just keep ignoring it.
And “Unreal” is abuse? I’m expressing my shock at the fact that you can ignore, and ignore, and distort and ignore things that are said to you 5 different ways, and I’m abusing you because I find this behavior unbelievable? But you can * make things up, accuse me of saying them, and then call me a racist for what you’ve made up? * Are you really not aware of the fact that we can all read, we can all go back and check, and we can all see what has and has not been said? WTF?
I am SO done with you. Now YOU really can have the last word.
But you seem to be a bit unclear on procedures here. How you go about not mentioning something is…well…you don’t mention it. You stop typing before the words are on the screen.
Need any more help on this, just let me know, I’m widely known for my reticence and propriety. Besides, it has always been the way of the Cherokee to be of aid to thier less gifted Choctaw brothers.
(Note: this post contains considerable elements of humor. If the reader cannot detect humor, please recalibrate your irony vectors)
