When we pursue those policies we're deemed isolationist and driven by a rampant, materialistic free market. I suppose 1 million Rwandans would call it 'minding our own business', if they were alive to call it anything.

In the speech I reference on my blog, Harry Belafonte described the same thing, and called it apathy. Thus it becomes a no-win situation.

As for Iraq: What political or strategic objectives were achieved by the 3 years of war, killing, and destruction. If the WMD had exixted atleast the strategic objectives would have been accomplished. Was anything gained by that needless brutal war.

This question was answered so often, I only answer it again for the benefit of readers.

Yes, something was gained.

a) Fewer people die in Iraq now than before the invasion.

The US and Britain have an ally located between Syria and Iran.

c) Iran and Syria are now both surrounded by states unfriendly to them.

d) The debt to Iraqi Shi'ites is paid.

e) The Kurds can finally live without fear.

f) Kuwait can finally live without fear.

Your "needless brutal war" allows millions of Iraqi children to grow up with health care and without fear. The mass graves are finally history. And the Kurds now know that the Iraqi government won't gas them any more.

As for the WMDs, we don't know where they are. But we do know that they have existed (I can and did show you pictures of Kurdish victims of Saddam's poisin gas) and we know that Saddam has not told the UN what happened to them.

If you have reason to believe that Saddam's WMDs have indeed been destroyed, please present evidence (of such destruction, not of the failure to find them). I am sure many Jews, Kurds, and other minorities in the region would be eager to learn that they are finally safe.

When we pursue those policies we're deemed isolationist and driven by a rampant, materialistic free market.

And rightfully so!

I suppose 1 million Rwandans would call it 'minding our own business', if they were alive to call it anything.

It's only sad that Bahu's ideals always seem to represent philosophies that fail to prevent or even end such tragedies.

It seems he is only happy when hundreds of thousands die. In foreign countries.

"It seems he is only happy when hundreds of thousands die. In foreign countries."

I don't believe that. I just think he's looking at the Bush administration in a vacuum. He doesn't like how the power is being used, so he takes issue with the power. Perhaps Bush was imprudent to do things the way he did. I don't think so, but that is a matter of interpretation. I think hamstringing the presidency will only lead to more tragedies like Rwanda, though.

I don't believe that. I just think he's looking at the Bush administration in a vacuum.

He is obsessed with George Bush. He went as far as denying Saddam's crimes just to make the invasion look more evil.

And he completely believes that it is all right to lie in order to serve the greater truth or whatever the left call it these days.

And he did lie. He lied about Saddam's Iraq. He was corrected many times. There is no benefit of the doubt any more. How could there be.

I bet he only supports isolationism because his beloved fanatical Muslims are currently the target of the opposite policy.

I tell you what I think:

Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion.

He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures.

By admitting that the current most vocal representatives of that culture are evil he would admit that Islam is not such a great valuable culture.

He thus looks for ways to blame Muslim terrorism and Arab nationalism on others.

The only reason Islam is not among the most valuable cultures is, obviously, American neo-conservative policy (and the Jews, but I figure that goes without saying). Fighting such policy, even at the expense of Iraqis and mosques is thus a good thing, because it can save Islam.

That's what I think he believes.

The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard.

Israel produces microchips. What do Arab countries produce?

"Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion. He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures. By admitting that the current most vocal representatives of that culture are evil he would admit that Islam is not such a great valuable culture. He thus looks for ways to blame Muslim terrorism and Arab nationalism on others. The only reason Islam is not among the most valuable cultures is, obviously, American neo-conservative policy (and the Jews, but I figure that goes without saying). Fighting such policy, even at the expense of Iraqis and mosques is thus a good thing, because it can save Islam. That's what I think he believes."

I don't think that is fair at all, and with all due respect I don't think you have to try and undercut someone by digging into what you think their personal motivations are, especially in terms of religion. Bahu has never been one to pan Islam, I grant you that, but I've never seen him make excuses for the worse parts of it, either. Nor, if you note, does he really tear into Christianity.

I come off as a traitor to a lot of conservatives, and that is mainly because I can't bring myself to be dishonest about tactics. You will see people do just as much as Bahu, and worse, in arguments against him. You'll find that we overlook A LOT of stuff that could be turned back on us. I'm as bad as anyone.

Until you can see yourself in the same light that you see your opponent, warts and all, you'll be able to blind yourself to the same things your opponents blind themselves to. Your statement on 'humanity's acheivements' is facetious and ignorant. The world without Christianity wouldn't look much different either.

The fact is neither Islam NOR Christianity is producing a damn thing these days. More often innovation is done in spite of them, and I say this as I consider myself an adherant to Christian teachings to some small degree. If you take the time you will find much to appreciate in "Arab" culture, and until you do you won't be able to grant the discussion the respect it deserves.

You might, at the same time, learn what the word "Arab" means. You may be shocked to find that "Arab" isn't very descriptive in terms of your argument.

Your statement on 'humanity's acheivements' is facetious and ignorant. The world without Christianity wouldn't look much different either.

Perhaps. But a world without western culture would. And there is nothing facetious or ignorant about pointing that out.

I don't think I made any claims about Christianity at all.

You might, at the same time, learn what the word "Arab" means. You may be shocked to find that "Arab" isn't very descriptive in terms of your argument.

I thought it was pretty clear what "Arab" means in the context of comparing cultures. There is an Arab nation as defined by Arab nationalists. What the word "Arab" really means, according to you, has hardly much to do with the culture of nationalism I was referring to.

I and German nationalists also disagree about what "German" means. But that doesn't mean I cannot make statements about the German nation as they defined it.


Bahu doesn't make excuses for the worst parts of Islamic and Arab nationalist culture, he merely claims these things, like Saddam's crimes, didn't happen. I don't see why that is better.

No, the problem is many/most of the people you are talking about when you say "arab culture" aren't even arabs. Iranians aren't arabs. Pakistanis aren't Arabs. Afghanis aren't arabs. Even if you make it mean people who speak Arabic, you'll find that much of the time you aren't talking about Arabs.

I don't see Bahu talking about Arab nationalism, anyway. I don't want to get personal as you have, but if I am not mistaken 'Virupaksha' is Indian in origin. I have payed a lot more attention to what Bahu has to say than most of the knee-jerk critics around here, and honestly I couldn't really tell you if Bahu is Muslim or not.

Given that, I think it is pretty sad for you to bring what may or may not be his religion into it. He's going out of his way to read and base his opinions on something more than just 'nationalism'. Even if you don't agree with the source of his information, it's still a damn site better than someone with the gall to say "He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures." off the top of his head out of spite...

You know I agree with you a lot of the time Leauki, but you're way beyond the pale with that attack. The Col says things far more nutty than Bahu, and you don't accuse him of being a crazed muslim nationalist. You see this guy's name and detect that perhaps English is his second language, so you take a short cut in the debate.

You know I agree with you a lot of the time Leauki, but you're way beyond the pale with that attack. The Col says things far more nutty than Bahu, and you don't accuse him of being a crazed muslim nationalist. You see this guy's name and detect that perhaps English is his second language, so you take a short cut in the debate.

You're correct in the fact that the col does says some "crazy" stuff! But.....he has NEVER stuck up for the muslims and cut America down like Bahu seems to like doing!

If you would, please point out which Muslims Bahu has "stuck up for". If I recall the reason we are over there now is because WE are supposedly sticking up for the Muslims. I don't agree with 90% of what Bahu says, but I've seen him go after Clinton, and I've seen him express himself on many different issues in ways that weren't party line or religious dogma.

You guys have just brainwashed yourself into believing that people who oppose you hate America, and frankly it is making me sicker all the time. You don't even know that Bahu doesn't live in America. For all you know he's living a mile from you. Leauki's attack amounted to "I think yer one of them thar Muslims" and couldn't have been more sad and self-defeating.

Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion.He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures.

The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard

Israel produces microchips. What do Arab countries produce?

I thank Baker Street for putting the record straight. I am not a Muslim and I am not a blinkered apologist for evry brutal Arab or Non Arab dictator. I am by convi tion a civil libertarian with a strong civil society inclination. At a personal note I had my entire education in the USA and do have tremendous admiration for many American values and institutions. There are many who believe that USA under George Bush is imposing military solutions in the place of diplomatic and political solutions. This is what Fukuyama is saying. I am just writing my critique of Fukuyama. I am familiar with his work though I sisagree with some of his views. I always say that you should subject evetrthing to a critical test and only then accept. Do not believe political leadres blindly.

The second statement is just ignorant absurdity. In fact Western Civilization as you know it today would not have existed without Islam. It was Arab scholrs, yes, in Bagdad and Alexandria who tranlated Greek texts and these were transmitted to Europe in the 14th century through their retranlation into Latin. Did you know that both Paris and Oxford Universities had chairs for Arabic Language studiers in the 14th century.

That Israel maufacures mirochips is not surprising.

Fewer people die in Iraq now than before the invasion. The US and Britain have an ally located between Syria and Iran.c) Iran and Syria are now both surrounded by states unfriendly to them.

You have just to see the newpapers and the reports of embedded journalists to know how wrong you are.

the UK you can hear all the usual far left suspects decrying the war using the usual rhetoric of stopping 'American Imperialism'. Now, while I agree that it is deeply unfair to say that all those who oppose(d) the war, were supporters of Saddam Hussein - a cheap rhetorical blow probably flowing from a bad conscience and a weak argument - there are those on the far left who were Hussein-supporters

In fact the Conservative Party should have opposed the war right from the very beginning. You seem to forget that the House of Commons passed the resolution authorising the British troops to invade Iraq with the support of the Conservatives. A large number of Labor MPs abstained or voted against the Blair sponsored resolution along with the Liberals.

You have just to see the newpapers and the reports of embedded journalists to know how wrong you are.

Ok, I'll bite.

Which newspaper says that the number of violent deaths or deaths otherwise caused by Saddam or the occupation has increased?

And what numbers do they base their claim on?

No, the problem is many/most of the people you are talking about when you say "arab culture" aren't even arabs. Iranians aren't arabs. Pakistanis aren't Arabs. Afghanis aren't arabs. Even if you make it mean people who speak Arabic, you'll find that much of the time you aren't talking about Arabs.

I am sorry, Bakerstreet, but that is ridiculous. I don't see why I cannot make statements about the Arab nation just because the Iranians are not a part of them.

You seem to be under the assumption that I cannot possibly criticise Arab nationalism without including Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghanis. Well, I never did include them. They have NOTHING to do with Arab nationalism or the Ba'ath ideology.

I was making no statements about Iranian culture specifically, except under the greater umbrella of Muslim culture. My statements about the Arab nation was, as I said before, about the Arab nation as defined by Arab nationalists.

Your point is not even a fallacy. A fallacy would be to say that I cannot make statements about the Arab nation because there are different definitions of what the Arab nation is (I have told you which one I employed here). But to say I am wrong based on your belief that by "Arab nation" I meant to include Iranians/Afghanis/Pakistanis which would be wrong, is worse.

If you made a point about Germans (as defined by Hitler) and I would tell you that your point is of no value as Poles are not German, what value would my criticism have? Would your statement about the Germans be wrong because I believed you were falsely counting Poles among their numer?

Muslim culture in general and Arab culture in particular are not contributing much (or anything) to humanity's achievements at the moment. That just happens to be true.

And if not true, you can certainly make a better point than "Iranians are not Arabs", because I never made the claim that they were.