Bonneville America Forums Forums Off Topic Discussion Forums Lounge Iran and WMD and Islam

Really, Mike?! It WAS Goering, huh?!

Well, what cha know 'bout THAT!

Looks like that gluttoness fat-a$$ MoFo NAZI scumbag was right 'bout a ONE thing, huh?

Cheers,
Dwight
(ahem...sorry Brad....I assume it's okay to use epithetical and inflamatory rhetoric whenever referencing officials of the old German National Socialist Party, right?!)

Dwight:
You know, the more I think about it, I like your argument. He probably got it from Goebbels

FriarJohn,

Now YOU know that this WHOLE freakin' discussion boils down to a debate between those who believe in lookin' at things in a more circumspect manner(i.e. "WE" ain't always right), and those who believe that if "THEY" aren't "WE", "THEY" is a "THEM", and "WE" is A-L-W-A-Y-S more right than "THEM", pure and SIMPLE!

How's THAT for a nutshell?
(and maybe a Yogi-ism to BOOT!!!)

Submitted by THIS nutcase,
Dwight
(BTW...LOSE the little freakin' "dead-horse dude"....PLEASE!!!)

Dwight is, of course, right - as he always is - NOT!

For those who are interested in the rhetoric of the "War on Terror," Richard Jackson of the University of Manchester, UK, has a book out called Writing the war on terrorism : language, politics and counter-terrorism. Written in 2005, it is a fairly dispassionate look at how language is used to frame discussions about terrorism and terrorists. The notion of "us" versus "them," and how "they" become "them" is included. Using transcripts from political speeches, television interviews, and printed media, Jackson dissects the language used in an attempt to show how words can be chosen and framed in such a way as to create a "reality" that may, or may not, have any tangible existence.

It isn't on Oprah's best-seller list so you may have to order it from your public library (or if you have a University library, try that - that's where I got mine from). It's pretty easy to read; I read it over a weekend so that gives you some idea.

So if it's raining this weekend and you want to curl up with a good book that's not about motorcycles...

Siggy

Dwight,

you're certainly welcome. I love propaganda. We do roll around in it like gophers in soft dirt don't we?

In the AP Euro course I teach we read extensively from the great writers and thinkers of the Western world. I wish my students and I had kept track of how many times in that broad but certainly incomplete survey of western thought, the notion that man is a sheep formed the basis of the writings. My favourites were from Hitler: "What luck for rulers that men do not think" and "The great masses of the people will fall more easily victim to the great lie rather than the small one" and Lenin's "A lie told often enough will become the truth". Of course there's always his "religion is the opiate of the masses".

And those are just from the obvious dictators. It was eye-opening to hear it from people like Locke and other great thinkers upon which we founded our system.

I'm also constantly amazed that in the nation that was constitutionally constructed, specifically (and anyone who is caught by surpise by the following, I recommend the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) on the notion that government is not to be trusted; not ours. Not anyone's. Not anywhere or anywhen. Not any type. After all, Britain was the most democratic nation the world had ever seen with a lonnnng history of limiting the abuse of power and STILL look where it got them. Colonies in revolt. The entire Constitution is built the way it is precisely because those who built our nation understood human nature and the addictive aphrodisiac of power. Add to it the right of freedom of speech and press and there is a conclusive reality that our job is to maintain a healthy skepticism and disregard for the "virtue" of those we elect.

I'm constantly stunned by the number of people who apparently have NO idea where we actually came from, what the issues were and how they were resolved by the brilliance of our founders. But then, we're back to the sheep thing and this post gets circular and redundant. So...fare thee well. Ride safe

Tad

I believe this particular nut case has said it well in this article....His name is Victor David Hanson ..a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute...

April 28, 2006, 6:25 a.m.
Our Orphaned Middle East Policy
Things are looking up as everyone starts jumping ship.

It is common now to hear of an American Middle East policy in shambles. And why not, given the daily mayhem that is televised from the West Bank, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the overt threats of Iranian President Ahmadinej(ih)ad?
Somewhere in the Sunni Triangle, with costs mounting in our blood and treasure, the United States lost the last vestiges of that wonderful sense of national unity that had swept the country following September 11. About every week now some administration official seems under pressure to resign or in fact does.
Tell-all books by disgruntled former CIA agents and ex-diplomats lament how the supposedly clueless people in power did not listen to their own Protean expertise. Those who leak from the CIA, an agency with analysts seemingly at war with their own government at a time of war, are hardly considered culpable - so long as their tips were to the "right" newspaper and for the "right" cause.
Former proponents of Saddam's removal and democratization are now unabashedly triangulating - scrambling to be recast as "I warned them" foreign-policy consultants, as they showcase their intellectual wares for the next generation of politicians in 2008. Their support comes and goes, as they wonder whether the good news from Iraq should rekindle guarded approval, or the bad news should reaffirm their belated opposition. Not since the up-and-down summer of 1864 has this country at war seen such equivocating and self-serving editorialists and politicians.
No one pauses to suggest what the region would now look like with Saddam reaping windfall oil profits, 15 years of no-fly zones, ongoing corruption in Oil-for-Food, the bad effects of the U.N. embargo, Libya's weapons program, and an unfettered Dr. Khan. If a newly provocative Russia is willing to sell missiles to Iran's crazy Ahmadinej(ih)ad, imagine what its current attitude would be to its old client Saddam.
Or perhaps, as in the 1980s when over a million perished, our realists, who seem fond of such good old days of order and stability, could once again encourage an unleashed Saddam, with Uday and Qusay at his side, to be played against Iran for a (nuclear) round two. How sad that those who once fallaciously argued that the fascist Saddam was the proper counterweight to the fascist Iran now ignore that the genuine corrective is a democratic and humane Iraq.
A few retired generals smell blood, want to even old scores, and have demanded Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. They earn not the usual condemnation from liberals for intruding into the gray area around our hallowed civilian control of the military, but praise for their insight and courage - as if speaking out on in retirement is especially brave or calling for radical change at a time of war is always wise. That they are usually Army officers long furious over military transformation is left unsaid - as is the irony that Iraq will largely be saved by the skill of their brethren U.S. ground officers currently deployed.
Scholars under the rubric of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, not the American Conservative magazine, publish a pseudo-scholarly treatise about undue Jewish influence that resulted inexplicably in a disastrous tilt in American policy toward the only liberal society in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, we are faulted for "outsourcing" the problem of Iranian nuclear ambitions when we let the multilateral Europeans take the lead in talks with Tehran. And we are then condemned as itching for more "preemption" and "unilateralism" when we sigh that at some point someone may have to act to prevent Mr. Ahmadinej(ih)ad from arming his missiles. This is a psychopath, after all, who assures those on the West Bank of his love and support by promising to send a nuke soon in their general direction. I suppose Hamas thinks that 50 kilotons can distinguish east from west Jerusalem.
But if we look beneath all these self-serving contradictions, real progress amid the carnage since September 11 is undeniable. It is not just that the United States has not been attacked again. Al Qaeda's leadership has been insidiously dismantled. Even bin Laden's communiqués are increasingly pathetic, whining about lost truce opportunities for the Crusaders while warning of more welcomed genocide in Darfur. We can be sure of his war-induced attenuated stature when some on the Left are already suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were mostly the operations of just a few criminals rather than precursors to international jihad.
Some European governments that were patently anti-American - Chirac's in France or Schroeder's in Germany - are either gone or going. The European public no longer thinks that the threat of Islamic fascism was mostly something concocted by George Bush after 9/11. American supporters in Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom were returned to power. Finally a parliament is meeting in Iraq. There have been open elections in two regions of the Arab Middle East. In one place, terrorists were voted in; in the other place - the much more criticized one - terrorists are being hunted down.
Hamas wanted power; the Americans didn't interfere, and they got elected. Now they can galvanize their people for their promised war against Israel (that they will lose), or they can find a way to evolve from thuggery to governance - it's their call. It is not the decision of the United States, which, after fifteen years, is finally freed from subsidizing West Bank terrorists masquerading as statesmen.
It is a fine thing for all to see the once swaggering gunmen now on television appealing for daily cash from suddenly stingy Middle East benefactors, as Hamas whines that Fatah is in Israel's hip pocket and decries militants who shoot without government authorization. Democracy, not more autocracy, exposed that absurdity.
Middle Easterners wish that we would be humbler, that we would let more Arabs into the United States, that we would not lecture them so, that we had not used force to remove Saddam, that we did not seem so self-righteous when promoting Western democracy, that we could express our intentions in a more sympathetic and articulate fashion. It is true that at critical junctures we did not explain ourselves well, and did not apprise the public candidly here and abroad about the range of poor options that confronted this nation after September 11.
But aside from these complaints, the people of the Middle East for the first time are watching on television a voting parliament in Iraq - and what sort of killers are trying to stop it. They know that oil skyrocketed and that the petroleum of Mesopotamia was not appropriated by the United States - and that huge windfall profits in the Middle East are still not likely to trickle down their way. They also accept that China in the Middle East cares only for petroleum, Russia only to cause others trouble, and Europe mostly to talk.
Those in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, as elsewhere in the Arab world, want closer, not more distant, relations with the United States. Ever so slowly the Arab Street is grasping that the more its own governments are angry at us for prodding them, the more it is a sign that we are on the right side of history.
As for the Iranian crisis, the only peaceful solution, given Russian meddling and Western fear over oil prices, may be through the emergence of democracy in Iraq, which would then galvanize dissidents in Iran. Anyone who rules out force in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions should support unequivocally the democratic experiment in Iraq.
For all the scrambling to disown the present policies, the irony is that they are bearing fruit and always had the best chance to end the region's genesis of terror. How sad that those who supported the costly spread of freedom are written off as illiberal, and those who resigned themselves to the easy status quo were seen as wise and sober.
So there we have it: an orphaned policy with a bright future that is being claimed by fewer and fewer - we'll see if that changes when Iraq emerges as a stable democracy.

If not Goebbels, what about Goering?????

Ding, ding, ding.. we have a winner!

It was in fact Hermann Goering who said it while in inverviews with Gustave Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials, and documented in Gilberts book The Nuremberg Diary.

Mike, I owe you a virtual beverage of your choice for being the winner


Apart from some sort of massive retaliatory response, no one seems to have the slightest idea of how to resolve the problem nor do they seem to care about formulating one.

Hey Tad, I'd be more than happy to discuss possible resolutions! However, as you pointed out in your patient/doctor analogy, the root cause(s) should first be identified before any course of action is considered.. And as I'm sure you have noticed, there are some who have already determined causes, regardless of the obvious contradictions and falacies that suggest otherwise, and are either unable or unwilling to explore more plausible ones.

It is indeed difficult to rationally discuss solutions when you not only disagree on the cause(s), but are distracted further by constantly having to point out the errors, omissions and falacies in some that are proposed. If you are willing to filter out the 'noise' however, I'm sure that some of the more rational voices can in fact engage in a more productive discourse.

Along those lines, I'd like to suggest some other possible causes for the unrest, not just in the middle east, but elsewhere in the world. How about oppression (ie: lack of various freedoms and an associated fear for ones life and well being if those freedoms were excercised or even a desire for them voiced)? What about level and quality of education (ie: access to information without censorship for ones betterment)? How about social mobility (ie: the ability to move up or down within the social infrastructure, the ability to improve your social condition and standing)?

Those are just three areas that I see as needing to be examined (and have previously hinted at), and there are several more that I can think of. And if you accept that maybe, just maybe some of these could have some degree of causality, how do you address correcting them besides agressive use of force, which should always be considered the very last possible action, if at all.

Cheers,
Brad

Quote:

---

Along those lines, I'd like to suggest some other possible causes for the unrest, not just in the middle east, but elsewhere in the world. How about oppression (ie: lack of various freedoms and an associated fear for ones life and well being if those freedoms were excercised or even a desire for them voiced)? What about level and quality of education (ie: access to information without censorship for ones betterment)? How about social mobility (ie: the ability to move up or down within the social infrastructure, the ability to improve your social condition and standing)?

Those are just three areas that I see as needing to be examined (and have previously hinted at), and there are several more that I can think of. And if you accept that maybe, just maybe some of these could have some degree of causality, how do you address correcting them besides agressive use of force, which should always be considered the very last possible action, if at a

---

You're quite right there Brad. The question really comes down to: How do you change a culture? Staying with the Middle East (the rest of world will just have to wait ), there is a culture of violence and deceit among the leaders of many of the remnants of the Ottoman empire, it would be foolish to say that Islam doesn't play a role in this culture since it's the dominant social force in the region.
Back to the question of changing a culture through non-violent means, I can only think of a few examples. The American civil rights movement for one. I'm not sure how the change in feudal Japan came about, I know that the last Shogunate kept the country in relative peace for a time, but how did they become a modern country? I'll bow to the historians on the question (Tad?). Are there any examples of a violent, oppressive, caste culture being changed for the better through non-violent means?

You're quite right there Brad. The question really comes down to: How do you change a culture?
Staying with the Middle East (the rest of world will just have to wait ), there is a culture of violence and deceit among the leaders of many of the remnants of the Ottoman empire, it would be foolish to say that Islam doesn't play a role in this culture since it's the dominant social force in the region.

Ok, so if culture is one of the underlying causes, then how would you explain Turkey? After all, it is the heart of what was once the Ottoman empire and Islamic culture. How is it that they could overcome the violence and turmoil that has plagued others? I think you hit on a key point though, when you observed that there is "violence and deceit among the leaders of many of the remnants of the Ottoman empire". So what we observe is that, while the culture between countires, or more importantly, between the populations of those countries are basically the same, the leadership of those countries present a stark contrast.

Given this, might we conclude that leadership may be a more important factor than that of culture? And if so, how might that leadership relate to those areas that I have already mentioned?

Cheers,
Brad

Bill,

As far as Japan becoming a peaceful country I'm afraid my respnonse is going to play into the hands of some of the more aggressive elements in this discussion.

After Admiral Perry visited Japan in the 1854 the Japanese came to the realization quickly that they had to catch up or get run over. Under the Meiji governement, they literally sent emmissaries to every country in the world with one order: "Find the best the country has to offer, find out everything you can about it, come back here, and set it up".

And they did, copying school sytems, military, economic etc. To the point where if you want the best German beer in the world, you should go to Japan to get it because they are still brewing it exactly the way the Germans were THEN.

Anyhow, modernizing Japan meant becoming an industrial nation and Japan has essentially NO natural resources upon which to build such a nation. So from very early on, she became and imperialist power. And it didn't take long, kicking Russia's butt in 1905. By WWII she was building her empire throughout South and Southeast Asia and the rest I would guess is more or less well-known.

We dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Douglass McArthur personally oversaw the forced creation of a democratic / capitalist system and the U.S. wrote Japan's constitution for them, Article 9 stating that Japan is not allowed to build or maintain an army or navy of offensive size or nature.

This constitution remains in effect today with Japan having an army of defense only. Japan has had to survive trade; for us old enough to remember the flood of "Made In Japan" stickers on every thing in the late 60's through the 70's.

So, long and short of it I'm afraid, is we "smacked them into it". Having said that however, there is a very weak comparison between Islam and Japan in that regard.

The post war solutions to Japan allowed Japan a peaceful option to get what she wanted in the first place and was likely only possible after the war. All the great powers were trading with their own colonial empires for the raw materials they needed to make things for themselves. Prior to the dissolution of those empires, Japan would have been nothing more than a street-corner pencil hawker with few interested buyers.

Once those empires were gone, Japan became an expert at taking what we invented, making it better and cheaper and selling it back to us and negotiating for the raw materials from us and our former colonies. (when I use "us" in this context, I mean the "western nations generally") Suffice it to say, these conditions do not apply to any Islamic nation.

Tad

As a public service I will condense Tad's post above.


Peace comes after victory.

Not orginal but no less true

Settle down Brad, I'm just seeking knowledge here .

Quote:

---

then how would you explain Turkey? After all, it is the heart of what was once the Ottoman empire and Islamic culture.

---

A good example of what I was looking for. What happened in Turkey to set it apart, and could that apply today?

Quote:

---

while the culture between countires, or more importantly, between the populations of those countries are basically the same,

---

I don't know that it is. Perhaps that's part of the answer to my above question. That will require more research.

Quote:

---

As far as Japan becoming a peaceful country I'm afraid my respnonse is going to play into the hands of some of the more aggressive elements in this discussion.

---

Actually Tad, my question was "how did they become a modern country?" But that's OK, you answered that quite well. Feudal Japan became Imperial Japan. Their culture of obedience helped with the transition after the surrender in WWII.
What we have in the Middle East is a culture of violence and terrorism. It's a foreign idea to most Americans and we aren't able to understand the "fanaticism". So we find ourselves in a mess similar to the one we were in forty years ago, fighting an enemy that we don't understand, in a culture that we can't relate to, and trying to do it on our terms. So we have "beaten Saddam Hussein" but the fighting continues. The enemy is a guerilla group that exists even though we have "installed" a Democratic government. Now the Iranian leadership is spouting the same old anti-western rhetoric, but now with nuclear weapon ambitions. If we are to learn from history, what's the lesson here?

So the Iraqi's are stupid? (compared to the Japanese)

Looks like a racist remark to me.

GEEZ GUYS!!!

I thought you KNEW I was a G.D. racist, D*mn IT!!!

(well.....more a "culturalist really)

Ya SEE....This WHOLE endeavor I USED to call call..."WHOOPS! Ya mean that jerk-face Saddam has NO W.M.Ds????", and I NOW call, "No Iraqi Left Behind"(which BTW, seems to be workin' "REAL good" with OUR children, HUH?), is kind'a, ya see, an exercise in futility!!!

Look! Growing up here in SoCal, I went to school with MANY MANY Neiseis and Sonseis(2nd and third generation Japanese-Americans, for those who don't know the term), and let me TELL YA....at the beginning of the school year whereever I walked into that first day of class and saw a lot o' Shinodas and Nakayamas....I knew THIS class was gonna be a freakin' BEAR!!!

THOSE people(see...whenever somebody uses THIS phrase, you can just BET he's a "Racist"...er, I mean..."Culturalist")LISTEN and STUDY and LEARN!!!!(that's why they make some nice "things")

Sorry Dudes! I have YET to see these kind of of TRAITS in abundance from our Iraqi "friends".

SO, in closing, I "believe" that if ol' Dubya would'a maybe read a few books by a certain General George Marshall, and learned what the freakin' term "CONTAINMENT" means...this WHOLE thing would'a turned out MUCH BETTER for EVERYBODY!!!

Cheers,
Dwight

OH COME ON DWIGHT, FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD!!! EVERYBODY knows that Saddam and Osama were practically drinking buddies and spent every weekend together plotting!!! I'm sure there's intel somewhere that shows that. And well, even though we had Iraq under continuous reconnaisance and had MASSIVE air superiority so that pretty much anything big enough to haul more than a bucket of manure was a target, we all KNOW that they snuck their entire WMD program into Syria (still not sure why none of them have been brought to bear on our troops if it's so easy to move back and forth under our noses, instead of wasting time with piddly little car bombs, but I'm sure someone more learned and in the know could fill me in!) or buried them in the sand (after all, we all know how SIMPLE it is to bury an semi-trailer, or SCUD missile and launcher or 50,000 artillery shells, why my 6 year old could do it before I knew what had happened!)

Settle down Brad

I think you mistook my statement.. I was just batting around your idea of culture being a key factor, when I think that it might not be as important as you suggest

What we have in the Middle East is a culture of violence and terrorism.

And along those lines, I agree there has been a history of violence, but how much of that is a result of culture? How different is it really from the history of violence in europe? One thing I do see in common is that when a single individual or handfull of individuals rule the people unconditionally without any input from those governed, we generally see the most violence.

So we have "beaten Saddam Hussein" but the fighting continues. The enemy is a guerilla group that exists even though we have "installed" a Democratic government.

True, Saddam is outta there.. but I think it's a bit premature to say that we have 'installed' a democratic government, or at least a functioning one. And doesn't that take us to the solution portion of this discussion? How did we install that government? How could have we done it differently and in a non-agressive fashion?

What happened in Turkey to set it apart, and could that apply today?

Exactly.. what happened. First off, the change was not forced upon them. If anything, history has taught us that the use of force generally just produces more resentment and violence. Think from the perspective of those in Iraq.. we invaded their country, bombed their cities, destroyed their infrastructure and have thrown the country into turmoil. We had no real plans for any kind of temporary government, other than a military one, and no real plans on how to provide the infrastructure necessary until one could be created (even though we knew that infrastructure was going to be destroyed by our actions!). It's hard for the people to see long term goals when they are busy just trying to live day to day, no matter how grand those long term goals are.

If we look at Turkey, and I'm sure Tad could provide a much greater insight, I see that the major change occured after the invading British and French forces were repelled and the country liberated. This prompted the formation of a National Assembly and the first steps towards democracy and a goal of modernization. Then in 1947, the US declared the Truman Doctrine (in a large part to thwart Soviet intentions), which guaranteed the security of Turkey and Greece, and later began providing large scale military and economic support. Several iterations of government followed, eventually resulting in a true democracy while maintaining the cultural herritage of the region. What I see as a lesson from this is that it was the people of the country who initiated the change when given the chance, along with assurances of non-agression and aid.

Quote:

---

Settle down Brad

I think you mistook my statement.. I was just batting around your idea of culture being a key factor, when I think that it might not be as important as you suggest

---

That's what the wink was for.

Quote:

---

True, Saddam is outta there.. but I think it's a bit premature to say that we have 'installed' a democratic government,

---

That's why I put "installed" in quotes.
Geez Brad, do you ever laugh? Have a shot of your favorite, and lighten up, dude .

Quote:

---

If we look at Turkey, and I'm sure Tad could provide a much greater insight,

---

I wonder how much the proximity to Europe and its role as a crossroads influenced the culture in Turkey.
And I do think any lasting change in the Middle East will require a cultural change. Out of the past, and into the present. The problem is, as you point out, how is this done without embittering the people. Killing them is certainly not going to work.
And by changing the culture, I'm not referring to the history and traditions of the people, but to the heritage left from the Ottomans, and before them, the Byzantines. Any change should absolutely come from within, but when populations are kept uneducated, propagandized, and subjugated, how is that accomplished?

Larry
Thank You for posting the above.

Those who profess Islam as a religion of peace cite verses from Mohammed's early days in Mecca. After he was run out of there (for fear of his life) he set up shop in Medina. As he grew stronger his teachings became more militant. The scholars of Islam have determined that whenever Mohammed contradicted himself, the later (in time) passage takes presidence. Problem is the Koran is not printed in the order of his 'revelations". Maybe to keep us infidels off guard?

Ah, the noise continues

The Surah At-Taubah or Al-Tawba (repentance), which the passages you quote come from, were a result of the Quraish tribe breaking it's treaty (treaty of Hudaibiyah) and engaging in combat with Mohammed and his followers. Ironically, Mohammed himself was originally a member of the Quraish tribe, and they became his major opponent after he broke away from them.

PS: Apologies to the rest of you for not properly implementing my 'filter'

Cheers,
Brad

Thanks for the context Brad

Yup.. but hopefully the parallels are more than obvious

Cheers,
Brad