[Moderator]

I'm still stunned having watched this film last night. If any American is genuinely interested in learning about why we are in Iraq and what the future of war will look like...you really ought to rent this film. There's no dem vs repub bs...this is beyond that. And this goes into depth we'll never ever see from cable news or the nytimes. No matter what side of the aisle your watching from...this film will open your eyes.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

[voodoo]

Oooooo

I must see this one! I enjoy social documentaries a lot. From the Politics of Fear to the Fog of War. Thanks for the link!



V

[mojo2]

Where have you been that you've escaped watching this trailer before now?

Take a different point of view and gain a greater objectivity.

1. Assume the national government's duty is to protect the people, territory and business interests of the USA. (Some folks see this as being unreasonable.)

2. Assume that the nations which want to weaken or bring down our government or economy might attempt to do so militarily.

3, Assume that maintaining peace can be done by making the price of war to the would be enemy so high in men, machines and money that they won't even try to attack us.

4. Assume that in the event an enemy does choose to wage war with the U.S. that it will be OUR sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, friends and lovers whose lives will be on the line. How much money are they worth? Are you going to refuse to fund a weapons system because it cost 6 billion instead of 5 billion?

5. If there is no cooperation between the government and defense contractors there is greater opportunity for mistakes being made in production and R&D and cost overruns due to miscommunication, costs which will invariably be charged to the government.

Those are my initial thoughts.

If necessary I will research the matter.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Where have you been that you've escaped watching this trailer before now?

OK, I am just for the heck of it going to assume that this question is directed at me - it seems to be - since the OP saw the actual movie and I was the one who just saw the trailer

To answer your question regarding how I could have escaped watching this trailer before: Perhaps I was enjoying the summer? Not being in front of a computer? I can tell you already that films like that are *not* screened in my country, nor talked about in the media here. *I* OTOH show your culture some interest, very much unlike most of my fellow countrymen. That's why I hang around at this forum perhaps.

I am among the top 0.1% of the population here, when it comes to speaking English. Apart from the native English speaking tourists or immigrants, of course..

Originally Posted by mojo2

1. Assume the national government's duty is to protect the people, territory and business interests of the USA. (Some folks see this as being unreasonable.)

Oh *I* agree with this 100%. That's why I don't care much for the US foreign policy - especially when it concerns *my* country. My country is *not* part of the US, thus *not* a genuine concern for the US.

Sometimes it is beneficial to assist the US - when our goals coincide - but usually, no. Usually, the US is only looking after its own interest. As you say. I'm fine with that, but then again, that's why I don't trust you farther than I can throw you guys.

If there is anything, then the US tends to protect its business interets, territory and people - in that order. A pity for its citizens. A pity for the citizens of any country behaving thusly.

Originally Posted by mojo2

2. Assume that the nations which want to weaken or bring down our government or economy might attempt to do so militarily.

No, sorry. That I don't assume. It would be wrong. Nobody is going to attack the US outright. The USA is good - no, fantastically better than any country - in defending itself by conventional military means. The US military is the most powerful and best funded in the world. And that's just if the US didn't have any allies -- which it has aplenty. Even France would help the US with troops and technology would the US be attacked. Military action is *out of the question*.

Originally Posted by mojo2

3, Assume that maintaining peace can be done by making the price of war to the would be enemy so high in men, machines and money that they won't even try to attack us.

That is how the Cold War was waged and it has left the US with such a military power that it is unbeatable in conventional warefare. So no military on Earth can beat the US as it is now. The US military is too well prepared for defense and the American continent is geographically very isolated from any would be 'enemy' military. The cost is already too high and has been for many decades for a conventional war to be waged against the US.

That's what maintained the peace among other things in the Cold War, but not any more. Now the US could have one tenth of its current military if it were only concerned for defense. There is no danger to you from a military power. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by mojo2

4. Assume that in the event an enemy does choose to wage war with the U.S. that it will be OUR sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, friends and lovers whose lives will be on the line. How much money are they worth? Are you going to refuse to fund a weapons system because it cost 6 billion instead of 5 billion?

The price you are willing to pay for defensive systems is yours to decide. I don't care. Whatever you think will be enough, I suppose. So yeah.. ironically some of those systems don't really work. As in at all. But you know. Just keep paying. Maybe one day, right? Your call.

Originally Posted by mojo2

5. If there is no cooperation between the government and defense contractors there is greater opportunity for mistakes being made in production and R&D and cost overruns due to miscommunication, costs which will invariably be charged to the government.

Is there any history of this? Is this a concern? Has it happened that there was no cooperation between the government and defense contractors?

V

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Where have you been that you've escaped watching this trailer before now?

Take a different point of view and gain a greater objectivity.

1. Assume the national government's duty is to protect the people, territory and business interests of the USA. (Some folks see this as being unreasonable.)

2. Assume that the nations which want to weaken or bring down our government or economy might attempt to do so militarily.

3, Assume that maintaining peace can be done by making the price of war to the would be enemy so high in men, machines and money that they won't even try to attack us.

4. Assume that in the event an enemy does choose to wage war with the U.S. that it will be OUR sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, friends and lovers whose lives will be on the line. How much money are they worth? Are you going to refuse to fund a weapons system because it cost 6 billion instead of 5 billion?

5. If there is no cooperation between the government and defense contractors there is greater opportunity for mistakes being made in production and R&D and cost overruns due to miscommunication, costs which will invariably be charged to the government.

Those are my initial thoughts.

If necessary I will research the matter.

That #5 is the worst excuse for the corruption and collusion within the "military industrial complex" that I've ever seen.

Of course, I suppose you deserve credit for even trying to account for the disturbing synchronisity between business interests and our military policies--most people bent on defending America's absurd military expenditures won't even bother to try.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

That #5 is the worst excuse for the corruption and collusion within the "military industrial complex" that I've ever seen.

Of course, I suppose you deserve credit for even trying to account for the disturbing synchronisity between business interests and our military policies--most people bent on defending America's absurd military expenditures won't even bother to try.

Thanks. I believe in knowing the whole story and believe you all deserve nothing less.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Of course, I suppose you deserve credit for even trying to account for the disturbing synchronisity between business interests and our military policies--most people bent on defending America's absurd military expenditures won't even bother to try.

Ironically, I'd say that it was the move (by Rumsfeld) away from absurd expenditures that makes our current military policy disturbing.

Since the 80s, our military expenditures were directly coupled with a policy of passive deterrence aimed at the Soviet Union. This was part and parcel with our "overwhelming force" military doctrine. Both encouraged more spending, yet the overall goal was one of "let's have it specifically so we don't have to use it".

While I may have not believed that was the real goal at the time, I think the proof in in the proverbial pudding. We averaged only one major conflict per decade, decisively won both engagements, and the Soviet Union is no more. I'd call the corruption and synchronicity a "neccesary evil".

Rumsfeld turned this on it's ear. His policy is active deterrence coupled with minimal force. I'm paraphrasing here, but Rumsfeld has essentially said "what's the point of the military if you don't use it".

This scares the **** out of me.

[Peder Rice]

For some reason, the imperialists within the United States are more active than ever (and quite popular to boot!). Our intervention in Iraq, the attempted coup against Chavez, and the strong-arming in Libya all point to proactive military moves.

But why? I see presently no justification for the increased global influence (note, please, that I'm speaking of gradual increases since World War II). I thought that mercantilism was a thing of the past, no?

[smacintush]

Huh. People making tons of money off of death and destruction. Whodathunkit.

Welcome to history.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice

For some reason, the imperialists within the United States are more active than ever (and quite popular to boot!). Our intervention in Iraq, the attempted coup against Chavez, and the strong-arming in Libya all point to proactive military moves.

But why? I see presently no justification for the increased global influence (note, please, that I'm speaking of gradual increases since World War II). I thought that mercantilism was a thing of the past, no?

Were you happy or let's say content with all the constant fighting and terrorism and poverty and famine in the M.E. and Africa and other parts of the world where the US was constantly being called on to apply a financial bandaid when the root causes still remained?

And do you think the global terrorism was going to stop sometime soon?

I'd like to know when and where your calculations figured this cessation of aggression was going to happen?

How many Muslims would have been saved if the EU or the UN or NATO or the US had PREVENTED the Balkans war?

Have you moved from this state of understanding?
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...29#post2753529

[Peder Rice]

What? I have no idea where you're going mojo2. Please clarify.

My previous post was to point out that the idiocy of clamoring for war on the justification that the enemy is a group of ruthless savages, for war entails savagery. Worse yet, the same arguments that we can apply to "evil" are the same arguments that the enemy can apply to us. There is no justification for war on these grounds.

My stab in my previous post was one at imperialism. I do not believe that it offers the United States anything of worth. Good ol' isolationism is, I protest, the best way to ensure America's greatness.

http://www.cwporter.com/japanwas.htm

Originally Posted by Frank B. Kellogg

as I have stated before, nobody on earth, probably, could write an article defining “self defense” or “aggressor” that some country could not get around

The context of the quote is to say that the United States drew Japan into World War II, as the oil embargo necessarily forced the Japanese to invade. After all, the Japanese did not want war with the U.S. Instead, they wanted the United States to, after it's navy was crushed at Pearl Harbor, to lift the oil embargo, and then it was assumed that everything could continue on as it had. But the Japanese had to invade, because they needed that oil. But we wouldn't trade.

Similarly, 9/11 was not unprovoked. The fanatics that wish to wage war didn't just get together one day and decide to blow up part of the New York skyline (unless, of course, you subscribe to conspiracy theories, but then, shame on you). They had been trampled on for two centuries. The British, the Germans, the Americans (in the Philippines to an extent), the French, the Indians, the Israelis, and the Russians (and maybe more, these just came to me without much thought) have all used excessive force when dealing with the Muslim population, driving the nations that they invaded further into poverty and stripping them of their natural resources.

Naturally, under such circumstances, revolutionaries are going to pop up with some radical ideas.

And, I again protest, it was America's deviation from isolationism that has proven to have brought us 70 years of unending war. World War II, the Cold War and its proxy wars, the two Gulf Wars, our intervention in the Slavic states, and our problems in Somalia. We must do what we can to step back, if at all possible, lest it is shown that we are already far too intertwined.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice

What? I have no idea where you're going mojo2. Please clarify.

My previous post was to point out that the idiocy of clamoring for war on the justification that the enemy is a group of ruthless savages, for war entails savagery. Worse yet, the same arguments that we can apply to "evil" are the same arguments that the enemy can apply to us. There is no justification for war on these grounds.

My stab in my previous post was one at imperialism. I do not believe that it offers the United States anything of worth. Good ol' isolationism is, I protest, the best way to ensure America's greatness.

Japan was Provoked into a War of Self Defense Synopsis of Arguments by Lawyers for the Defense, International Military Tribunal for the Far East



The context of the quote is to say that the United States drew Japan into World War II, as the oil embargo necessarily forced the Japanese to invade. After all, the Japanese did not want war with the U.S. Instead, they wanted the United States to, after it's navy was crushed at Pearl Harbor, to lift the oil embargo, and then it was assumed that everything could continue on as it had. But the Japanese had to invade, because they needed that oil. But we wouldn't trade.

Similarly, 9/11 was not unprovoked. The fanatics that wish to wage war didn't just get together one day and decide to blow up part of the New York skyline (unless, of course, you subscribe to conspiracy theories, but then, shame on you). They had been trampled on for two centuries. The British, the Germans, the Americans (in the Philippines to an extent), the French, the Indians, the Israelis, and the Russians (and maybe more, these just came to me without much thought) have all used excessive force when dealing with the Muslim population, driving the nations that they invaded further into poverty and stripping them of their natural resources.

Naturally, under such circumstances, revolutionaries are going to pop up with some radical ideas.

And, I again protest, it was America's deviation from isolationism that has proven to have brought us 70 years of unending war. World War II, the Cold War and its proxy wars, the two Gulf Wars, our intervention in the Slavic states, and our problems in Somalia. We must do what we can to step back, if at all possible, lest it is shown that we are already far too intertwined.

I would like to know where do you think you got your information about the second world war.

First, there was no embargo against Japan, why would there be one. Japan was running out of oil and natural ressources, so instead of making treaties with other nation they decided to invade everything on their paths; China, Philippines, Guam, and the jewels of the crown Pearl Harbour. The United States thought they were safe after all they minded their own business, did not get involved into other country's problems; surprise when Japan proved to them that they should get involved. The attack on Pearl Harbour was unprovocked, cowardly, Japan waited until the day of the attack to let the United States know that they were declaring war on them. It was a rude shock to the U.S. that a small nation would attack them.

70 years of unending war, isn't that a slight exaggeration, why not say 2,000 years of unending war, since the world is world there has been conflicts and wars. Soon you are going to say that the United States is responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire, for the hundred years war, for the Napoleonastic wars, etc.

The cold war was not done unilaterally, the USSR was also very responsible for it, and they acted like savages in many cases.

As for the terrorists attacks on the World Trade Towers, should I remind of that little word World, they were previously attacked by the same group earlier, they missed and this time those cowards, and worthless human beings decided they would not missed and used planes. The Americans might not be angels but the children in those towers were not guilty of anything, the civilians in those buildings were not guilty of any crimes.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by subego

While I may have not believed that was the real goal at the time, I think the proof in in the proverbial pudding. We averaged only one major conflict per decade, decisively won both engagements, and the Soviet Union is no more. I'd call the corruption and synchronicity a "neccesary evil".

Rumsfeld turned this on it's ear. His policy is active deterrence coupled with minimal force. I'm paraphrasing here, but Rumsfeld has essentially said "what's the point of the military if you don't use it".

I would tend to agree with your point of view. Contractors aren't necessarily making more money when there's a war, in fact the war is sucking up gobs of money that would have gone to lucrative projects like the F-22. The reason we fight in Iraq is because we have incompetent leadership. As a result, most contractors are planning for a backlash and defense spending cuts after the war.

Originally Posted by Monique

First, there was no embargo against Japan, why would there be one.

There was an oil embargo on Japan, you're wrong on that one. That's precisely why Japan had to start invading various regions, seeking resources.

Originally Posted by Peder Rice

And, I again protest, it was America's deviation from isolationism that has proven to have brought us 70 years of unending war. World War II, the Cold War and its proxy wars, the two Gulf Wars, our intervention in the Slavic states, and our problems in Somalia. We must do what we can to step back, if at all possible, lest it is shown that we are already far too intertwined.

America's deviation from isolationism also brought us a standard of living far beyond anything previously imaginable. I think it's worth keeping that in mind.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by itai195

There was an oil embargo on Japan, you're wrong on that one. That's precisely why Japan had to start invading various regions, seeking resources.

Well, Japan started invading other countries in the beginning of the 20th century: Korea (1909/1910), Manchuria (1931), parts of China (end of 19th century, 1937-1945), etc.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was just a continuation of its expansionist strategy (the oil embargo was a contributing factor for the decision, the Japanese still see it as the main reason for being forced into the war by the US).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by itai195

America's deviation from isolationism also brought us a standard of living far beyond anything previously imaginable. I think it's worth keeping that in mind.

At the expense of others. Seems like one giant Feudal system.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

At the expense of others. Seems like one giant Feudal system.

That's a matter of perspective I think.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, Japan started invading other countries in the beginning of the 20th century: Korea (1909/1910), Manchuria (1931), parts of China (end of 19th century, 1937-1945), etc.

You're right, I wasn't being very precise in my previous post.

[Monique]

The embargo started in September 1941 following the aggression of Japan against its neighbours not a real reason why Japan invaded the United States it was clear that Japan intented to invade the U.S. before the embargo.

[Peder Rice]

The embargo started in September 1941 following the aggression of Japan against its neighbours not a real reason why Japan invaded the United States it was clear that Japan intented to invade the U.S. before the embargo.

I must respectfully disagree. Japan and Germany combined were no match for the industrial production of the United States. The United States had a higher GDP, iron, and oil production rates, clearly outpacing the Axis powers, and they knew it. The actively feared the sleeping giant.

Military production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America's deviation from isolationism also brought us a standard of living far beyond anything previously imaginable. I think it's worth keeping that in mind.

Hrmmm... how so? I would have to think that socialist endeavors such as Social Security, Medicare, nationalized production of wartime industries, and substantially higher income taxes did far more to raise the standard of living. But lest we forget, the United States already had perhaps the best median lifestyle in the world from the 1920s on.

[itai195]

Does the profligate use of energy and natural resources in the American lifestyle have anything to do with our abandoning isolationist foreign policy? Ditto the explosion of technological products and improvements in healthcare? Just a couple examples that come to mind. BTW not sure what you meant regarding nationalized defense industries, our defense industry isn't nationalized.

[Spliffdaddy]

Hrmmm... how so? I would have to think that socialist endeavors such as Social Security, Medicare, nationalized production of wartime industries, and substantially higher income taxes did far more to raise the standard of living. But lest we forget, the United States already had perhaps the best median lifestyle in the world from the 1920s on.



huh?

How in the hell does taking money from people and giving it to other people raise the standard of living?

When you factor-in the inefficiency of redistributing wealth via government entitlements then you have a net loss of 'living standards'.

If what you suggest is true, then we'd all be wealthier if we'd hand over *all* our wealth to the government.

[Peder Rice]

Spliffdaddy, I'm a libertarian. I really, really dislike taxes and social programs. That said, I do realize the ability of social programs to act as an equalizer and to, in the short run, raise the median income.

[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by itai195

Does the profligate use of energy and natural resources in the American lifestyle have anything to do with our abandoning isolationist foreign policy? Ditto the explosion of technological products and improvements in healthcare? Just a couple examples that come to mind. BTW not sure what you meant regarding nationalized defense industries, our defense industry isn't nationalized.

I meant during World War II, when, though our industries remained private entities, they were controlled by the feds, meaning more workers were employed at higher wages... all that good stuff.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice

What? I have no idea where you're going mojo2. Please clarify.

My previous post was to point out that the idiocy of clamoring for war on the justification that the enemy is a group of ruthless savages, for war entails savagery. Worse yet, the same arguments that we can apply to "evil" are the same arguments that the enemy can apply to us. There is no justification for war on these grounds.

My stab in my previous post was one at imperialism. I do not believe that it offers the United States anything of worth. Good ol' isolationism is, I protest, the best way to ensure America's greatness.

http://www.cwporter.com/japanwas.htm



The context of the quote is to say that the United States drew Japan into World War II, as the oil embargo necessarily forced the Japanese to invade. After all, the Japanese did not want war with the U.S. Instead, they wanted the United States to, after it's navy was crushed at Pearl Harbor, to lift the oil embargo, and then it was assumed that everything could continue on as it had. But the Japanese had to invade, because they needed that oil. But we wouldn't trade.

Similarly, 9/11 was not unprovoked. The fanatics that wish to wage war didn't just get together one day and decide to blow up part of the New York skyline (unless, of course, you subscribe to conspiracy theories, but then, shame on you). They had been trampled on for two centuries. The British, the Germans, the Americans (in the Philippines to an extent), the French, the Indians, the Israelis, and the Russians (and maybe more, these just came to me without much thought) have all used excessive force when dealing with the Muslim population, driving the nations that they invaded further into poverty and stripping them of their natural resources.

Naturally, under such circumstances, revolutionaries are going to pop up with some radical ideas.

And, I again protest, it was America's deviation from isolationism that has proven to have brought us 70 years of unending war. World War II, the Cold War and its proxy wars, the two Gulf Wars, our intervention in the Slavic states, and our problems in Somalia. We must do what we can to step back, if at all possible, lest it is shown that we are already far too intertwined.

Yours seems to be a utopian isolationist fantasy. There is seemingly no way to criticize your view because all of it is like science fiction. Your own imaginary construct exists in a land where everything is subject only to opinion.

Well, a cursory look at WWII history will show that if left alone Japan and Germany, both, would have continued their wars of aggression and both were on their way to building A-Bombs. And both intended to find a way to attack the American mainland.

Where some people learn from history and others are ignorant of the lessons of history, you wish to replicate the mistakes of history.

Europe might have been saved death and destruction with preemptive action against Hitler.

You'd advocate letting Hitler become even stronger and more resolute in preparation for a siege on America.

Furthermore, although I levy no accusation against you, this is the kind of idea that the jihadists might propose as a trial balloon to find a gambit that might become popular in the West and be used by the jihadists as a way to erode support for the War on Terror.

If your idea received lots of support from other posters then the jihadists might direct some of their other posters to promote the same idea, that isolationism is the best policy for America today.

And in the days, weeks and months to come there might be a growing movement to force the US government to adopt a suicidal hands-off policy toward defending freedom in the rest of the world while Islam continues to expand across the globe.

Ladies and gents, this is an example of how jihad of the pen might help weaken America.

But that's not to say, necessarily, that you are doing this here.

[Peder Rice]

Furthermore, although I levy no accusation against you, this is the kind of idea that the jihadists might propose as a trial balloon to find a gambit that might become popular in the West and be used by the jihadists as a way to erode support for the War on Terror.

If your idea received lots of support from other posters then the jihadists might direct some of their other posters to promote the same idea, that isolationism is the best policy for America today.

And in the days, weeks and months to come there might be a growing movement to force the US government to adopt a suicidal hands-off policy toward defending freedom in the rest of the world while Islam continues to expand across the globe.

Ladies and gents, this is an example of how jihad of the pen might help weaken America.

But that's not to say, necessarily, that you are doing this here.

We can find common ground here, for I agree wholeheartedly that resolve, determination in the war on terror, is what will best serve America's interests. My desire, however, is to limit American intervention in future engagements and bring the United States back to business.

"The business of America is business," after all.

Europe might have been saved death and destruction with preemptive action against Hitler.

Europe might have been saved death and destruction were it not for the unsavory handling of Germany after the Great War. France wanted Germany to pay, dearly, for the war, and drove an already irate German populace to the brink when a global depression took hold. The United States should have stayed clear of European affairs even then.

Well, a cursory look at WWII history will show that if left alone Japan and Germany, both, would have continued their wars of aggression and both were on their way to building A-Bombs. And both intended to find a way to attack the American mainland.

I will disagree on this notion. Firstly, Japan and Germany were already seeing their wars beginning to fail. By 1942, the air raids against Britain were proving ineffective, progress had halted on the eastern front, and the resistance movement was gaining traction. Even without American forces on the ground in Europe, I believe that the Allies would have won, albeit later than 1945. The Japanese were also seeing their gears of war grinding to a halt, with China proving to be more of a mess than anticipated and strategic resources running low. It is entirely plausible that Allied forces would have been victorious without US forces entering the arena.

Now, please, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating entire isolationism. I want to open the border and I want to promote free trade - I'm not Pat Buchanan. What I'm saying is that few will wish to destroy a country that does not have imperialistic ambitions; they'll want to trade with them and see the benefit of such. The United States can, I believe, in the long run, return to its pre-20th century role of acting as the world's commercial center that will trade with you as long as you speak the universal language.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice

We can find common ground here, for I agree wholeheartedly that resolve, determination in the war on terror, is what will best serve America's interests. My desire, however, is to limit American intervention in future engagements and bring the United States back to business.

"The business of America is business," after all.


Europe might have been saved death and destruction were it not for the unsavory handling of Germany after the Great War. France wanted Germany to pay, dearly, for the war, and drove an already irate German populace to the brink when a global depression took hold. The United States should have stayed clear of European affairs even then.


I will disagree on this notion. Firstly, Japan and Germany were already seeing their wars beginning to fail. By 1942, the air raids against Britain were proving ineffective, progress had halted on the eastern front, and the resistance movement was gaining traction. Even without American forces on the ground in Europe, I believe that the Allies would have won, albeit later than 1945. The Japanese were also seeing their gears of war grinding to a halt, with China proving to be more of a mess than anticipated and strategic resources running low. It is entirely plausible that Allied forces would have been victorious without US forces entering the arena.

Now, please, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating entire isolationism. I want to open the border and I want to promote free trade - I'm not Pat Buchanan. What I'm saying is that few will wish to destroy a country that does not have imperialistic ambitions; they'll want to trade with them and see the benefit of such. The United States can, I believe, in the long run, return to its pre-20th century role of acting as the world's commercial center that will trade with you as long as you speak the universal language.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Although I don't agree with it, it does not alarm me as the suggestion of it did at first.

So, on this we can agree to disagree.

Now, let's take a look at the issue of Islamic jihadism.

If I believed that jihad could be deterred by negotiation or the jihadists simply satisfied by conceding a finite amount of land (HOLY NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, BATMAN!!!! ) that MIGHT give me cause for placidity or even optimism such as I sense you possess. But after reading many different accounts of the motivation for violent jihad, I think the Koran has to be taken into account.

I believe this is a factor you'd rather ignore.

Please share with us your view of the role Islamic jihad plays in this matter of world peace and the War on Terror.

[Peder Rice]

Who wants to go back to the Chamberlain days? Even a lot of Brits at the time thought that Chamberlain was an idiot; now we know its true.

But I do believe that the key to limiting fanaticism in the case of Islamic Jihad is the same as limiting fanaticism in all respects. Simply put: education and economic well being will do more to curb the growth of fanaticism than any other effort that we can put forth.

If we look at the rise of the communists in America and Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, it is entirely because generation after generation of peoples were oppressed and artificially limited that communism gained such appeal. Hmm... this sounds awfully familiar to the rise of religious fanaticism that we see throughout the Middle East. Generations of colonialism and exploitation when along comes the idea that it is better to die fighting for a belief than to live miserably.

I firmly believe that we must work to improve the conditions of the hotbeds for terrorism (the Philippines, Iraq, Syria, et al) to successfully counter it. By taking out the roots, we can kill the weed. The same worked with communists and the United States; when things got good for almost everyone, the socialists and the communists got a lot quieter, and soon we had supply-side economics.

Of course, I'm thinking very long run here. I'm thinking of solutions that are maybe a generation or two away, for deep wounds are hard to heal, even a generation later.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice

Who wants to go back to the Chamberlain days? Even a lot of Brits at the time thought that Chamberlain was an idiot; now we know its true.

But I do believe that the key to limiting fanaticism in the case of Islamic Jihad is the same as limiting fanaticism in all respects. Simply put: education and economic well being will do more to curb the growth of fanaticism than any other effort that we can put forth.

If we look at the rise of the communists in America and Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, it is entirely because generation after generation of peoples were oppressed and artificially limited that communism gained such appeal. Hmm... this sounds awfully familiar to the rise of religious fanaticism that we see throughout the Middle East. Generations of colonialism and exploitation when along comes the idea that it is better to die fighting for a belief than to live miserably.

I firmly believe that we must work to improve the conditions of the hotbeds for terrorism (the Philippines, Iraq, Syria, et al) to successfully counter it. By taking out the roots, we can kill the weed. The same worked with communists and the United States; when things got good for almost everyone, the socialists and the communists got a lot quieter, and soon we had supply-side economics.

Of course, I'm thinking very long run here. I'm thinking of solutions that are maybe a generation or two away, for deep wounds are hard to heal, even a generation later.

Interesting.