I've been waiting a long time for this. Finally, a column that doesn't denigrate the opposition and wallow in finger pointing, but instead explores ideas. I hope OSC continues in this vein.
The fundamental flaw that I see in this essay is that I think OSC does not really understand what he is saying. I don't think he has a clear vision of how to propagate the American 'story'. That there needs to be a story, I think everyone agrees on. The problem, though, is that there needs to not only be a 'story' about Osama, there needs to be a good story about America, too. They are, after all, the same story. If you are going to cast Osama as the villain in the story, and America as the good guy, then we have to play that role.
The problem, as I see it, comes from the fact that 'hard power', being ruthless and killing the enemy, and 'soft power', being diplomatic and winning people's minds, often work at cross purposes to each other. Using the hard power of the military often aids the view that we are bad guys. There are lots of reasons for this, I think, but mainly, I think it's very hard to challenge the perception that America is a conqueror when all that people see of you is a soldier and that those soldiers are sometimes responsible for innocent death. Certainly not on purpose (I hope). However, there is that fact and that fact is linked with the image of the soldier. OSC brushes aside these deaths as just part of war, but I think they are a very important part of how people see us in the Iraq and Afghanistan.
OSC is absolutely right. Al Qaeda isn't a closed terrorist organization any longer. It is a movement. This is why I asked in an earlier thread (which no one responded to, btw , how do you conquer a map? That is, if the supporters of an organization you are trying to kill are mixed in with those who don't, how do you differentiate them? How do you win over those who don't support Al Qaeda? It is also worth acknowledging, I think, that it is possible to change minds of those people who support Al Qaeda up to a certain point.
I don't think the military is the right tool to use for the winning of hearts and minds. I don't know what that tool is, quite honestly. Maybe some kind of super-duper peace corp. Maybe communities of Americans adopting sister cities in Muslim countries. (This used to happen all the time when the Soviets were our enemies.) Maybe all that's needed is an objective media in the Arab/Muslim world, one hat Muslims trust and isn't in our pocket, so that Muslims can see what we do and choose accordingly. Of course, this means that we must act like 'heroes' if we are to occupy that role in the story....
So, back to the question of hard power. I think, then, that going after Al Qaeda should be percieved more as a law enforcement problem rather than a military problem. If most of the 'enemy' spend 99.9% of their time as civilians, it makes sense to go after them in their civilian aspect, to me. Further, the less we use overt hard power, the more I think it aids us in our use of soft power.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
oooohhh - definitely thought provoking - I'll comment later when I've had a chance to digest the words and thoughts - just didn't want you to feel ignored Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual I agree with most that Mr. Card says and his observations. Also as usual, I diverge at one spot that is important to me. So - Let's assume that I am in agreement except for the following point:
Motivation of the masses - While the leaders of major Muslim terrorist groups are recruited from the middle class it does not necessarily reason that impoverishment is not a factor in support for their actions. Making the middle class something greater than 70% of a society goes a long way in modifying how folks set and move toward ideology.
Granting that the leaders are ambitious, reasonably wealthy and educated is key. Mothers and fathers wanting a better life for their children is key. Idealistic, dogmatic, religious motivation can have a dramatic effect on those that are looking for the equivalent of a quick fix (miracle?). Both groups believe they will be rewarded by their tactics - One gets power and the other gains blessings for them and their family.
The true support for these groups comes from the impoverished. Without them there is no world crisis, just roving bands of very dangerous criminals. Economic well being goes quite far in determining how ideology is developed and embraced. When one can provide for their own, miracles are not as important on a daily basis as is hard work and the appropriate rewards. When you can provide for you own, freedom and liberty are strong messages that carry responsibilities - not standalone solutions.
Delivering a message of truth is necessary, but may not be the turning point. The truth doesn't satisfy either of the two main groups’ ambitions. It places those in power in the light of criminals and leaves the impoverished with the same dilemma and no miracles within their grasp.
As a final thought - President Bush is very interested in 'spreading liberty' which means that we have to consider strongly that economic well being must be part of the plan. I do not agree with the tactic, but that is for another thread.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if OSC is simply summarizing Harris in the following or stating his own opinion as well:
quote: This does not imply that to win, America must be as wasteful of human life as Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. What it does mean is that we cannot defeat them by means short of absolute destruction of them and their armies of "martyrs," because any appeasement, any forbearance, will be interpreted by them as victory and proof that God wants them to continue.
But I think OSC hints at another solution later, that does implements a different kind of destruction. Not annihilation of people, but annihilation of the ability to recruit more people. One way to accomplish that is, indeed, to utterly destroy the enemy.
Not really a likely possibility, but certainly the one that is the basis of a military solution.
The other way to destroy the movement is to so discredit it that no-one in their right mind would want to join it. Crazy people still join the Nazi party today, but for all intents and purposes it is dead and has no hope of rising again. Same type of discrediting is called for with the radical Islam movement.
Like OSC talks about with the suicide bombers -- that we somehow need to spread the message that this is really just self-murder, not martyrdom -- the annihilation comes from making the enemy ludicrous.
I submit that an army is indeed the wrong tool. As is appeasment.
Diplomacy, however,...tough diplomacy... is exactly the right tool. And the one that our current administration is singularly not equipped to pursue. Partly because it has so damaged its own credibility, but partly because it is not offering a sane alternative. Only the crazed berzerker actions of a military power bent on revenge because it feels better.
Anyway, that's my little addendum to Card's piece. That the unmistakable conclusion is that we are being led down the wrong path by the wrong people.
I'm not thinking for an instant that he would agree with my conclusion, but I think his (OSC's) solution requires smarter people with longer-range vision to ever implement the kind of thing he's hoping for.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
THe whole "telling a story" bit though. I think that the problem is, to those his story about Osama is true, it is already obvious (it was to me) To those, who the story isn't true, they won't believe it. And I don't think the people who believe the obvious about Osama being power hungry have every thought about "telling it as a story" for PR because to them it should be obvious to everyone already.
quote:Some type of discrediting is called for with the radical Islam movement.
Do you think that moderate Islamists have a reasonable desire that some type of discrediting is called for with the radical "US Democratization / capitalization" movement?
Do you agree / disagree that there is an element of evangelism in the current "Western" push to bring "rogue" and "failed" nations in to the international fold through democracy and market economies?
quote:His case is unassailable: Almost all the troubles in the world right now are generated from within the disconnected, unincluded nations. Where we are successfully exporting the global economy, the Pax Americana generally prevails; where that economy does not reach, for whatever reason, there is no peace. And now those disconnected nations are exporting their conflicts abroad.
This part is awesome...nail on the head...
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Another thought I had about this today: OSC does a very good job of avoiding a call for the typical uses of war-time propaganda -- demonizing the enemy.
Anyone ever seen the exhibits of US propaganda about Japan in the 1940's? It really is sick stuff. Baby eating...etc.
I'm serious.
At least in this instance OSC is arguing that we talk the truth to counter the lies.
As for rubble's question, I certainly do think that Western distrust of Islam stems from a fundamental minsunderstanding of it and the people who are of that faith. Basically, the truth lies somewhere far closer to "normality" than what I think the Western-centric response is towards these cultures and nations.
The other thing that should be pointed out is that not so long ago, the height of Western civilization was somewhat less free and desireable (by today's standards) than it is today. And it was worse than most modern Muslim countries. And worse than the Muslim-led countries of the times.
We in America are often guilty of pointing fingers and acting as if we've ALWAYS been as enlightened as we are today. When in fact, we got rid of slavery not that long ago. And we left the underclasses to live in brutal conditions for a lot longer. Even unto today.
So, we shouldn't necessarily be so ready to "teach others" about our perfection. Seems to me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Hypothesis: leaving aside the measure of wealth, I think 'first world', for lack of a better word, sensibilities, mores, and customs are superior by any measure to almost any Muslim country. It doesn't matter how we used to live and be, let's discuss the facts as they stand now.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, are you saying that because we like our culture better, we should be willing to force it down the throats of others?
How many "measures" would Muslim countries have to be "superior" to Western countries on before you'd agree that they have the right to self-determination?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I am wrong, but your assertion seems to be that we shouldn't be tampering with Muslim culture because not so long a go, we weren't any better than they were, and in fact were a lot worse. This leads you to say that we shouldn't try to influence any Muslim cultures.
My reply was that it doesn't matter what we were, we are now 'superior', so to speak, than their culture by almost any measure. I didn't say anything about forcing or liking or anything like that. I also said nothing about impinging on their right of self determination. I am replying to your implication that Muslim cultures wouldn't benefit from emulating us to some degree. Now, you don't say this directly, but this seems to me to be the gist of what you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if America can institute a program to bring this to pass. I think we need to start by persuading our own allies, maybe. It feels as though our own young people are confused into admiring the nobility and purpose of the suicide bombers. That is because they themselves live in a country where no one would do such a thing unless it were really important. Am I wrong about that?
My belief about the French and their influence is that they opposed our war to appease the large Islamic population within their own borders. Or maybe they are still mad about the time we bombed their Libyan embassy. Who knows.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
My question to you -- is there room in the world for Muslims to run their own affairs as they see fit in their own countries?
Who does it really matter to if they emulate us or not?
If it matters to us, then we are asserting a claim for superiority. And to assert that, we have to also assert one of greater enlightenment, at least we should if we are going to impress a deeply religious people.
Seems to me that we might want think that through a bit first.
I can think of some basic measures on which America (and the Western industrialized nations in particular) fall pathetically short on the things that might impress a country run by and for Muslims.
The fact that America is better for Americans and anyone who thinks like a Westerner is beside the point.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Persepolis has to be one of the saddest comic books ever written. It effected me much more deeply than Maus ever did. I sincerely encourage everyone to buy it.
quote: My question to you -- is there room in the world for Muslims to run their own affairs as they see fit in their own countries?
Of course. The problem, though, is that when we talk about Muslims running their own affairs, what do we mean? Do we mean that we should never interfere in what happens in another country, even if that country's populace is suffering? Even if the government of that country invites us in? What happens if some of hte people in the country want our influence, but not others? Can we interfere when what they do will have direct consequences for us?
quote: Who does it really matter to if they emulate us or not?
It matters to the quantity and quality of life of people. Isn't that enough?
quote: If it matters to us, then we are asserting a claim for superiority. And to assert that, we have to also assert one of greater enlightenment, at least we should if we are going to impress a deeply religious people.
Seems to me that we might want think that through a bit first.
Inasmuch as self interest isn't enough to care what happens in other countries, this goes back to my hypothetical. I believe in many respects we are currently more 'enlightened'.
quote: I can think of some basic measures on which America (and the Western industrialized nations in particular) fall pathetically short on the things that might impress a country run by and for Muslims.
That's fine. I'm not proposing mind control or forcing our culture down their throats. Ideally, I'd love to see a free society in which people can choose their 'culture', as opposed to the practice in many Muslim cultures of edit:fanatical elements seizing the power of state to force everyone to adhere to their religious and cultural beliefs.
'But everyone does it.'
That's true edit: to some degree, however, to again to go back to my hypothesis, I submit that the ways we do it are superior, in general, to the ways they do it edit: and that Muslim cultures could learn a lot from our culture, while we might could learn a thing or two from theirs.
posted
There are a truckload of Muslim countries run by and for Muslims. Part of the article was that secretly, Osama would like to dominate these as well. Most of these countries already participate in the world economy. That doesn't mean that the social climbers within these countries don't fantasize about the success of the radical militants.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I find it darn difficult to preach superiority of a specific culture. I can talk to a general attraction to a certain value system and the things that keep that system afloat.
There are several examples of Muslim dominated countries with a constitution built on the foundation of equality - search them out and see what you find - some of the generalizations used here may change.
So, with all the ugliness of our past and current America, what makes us special? I think that we are talking the structures put into play that work to insure our freedoms and liberty. A constitution that attempted to remain true to the declaration(s) of independence and was written by an extraordinarily bright bunch of folks is key to me.
The constitution is a wonderful piece of work that, when kept to the original intent, is able to be changed/interpreted to respond to the societal changes in original context (bear with me a bit here - the difference of intent and concept is best summarized by the 'original intent' is equality and the 'original context' was for white male property owners. The beautifully described concept of equality doesn't change, the target audience does.).
How does this apply to culture? It helps us to be participants in defining the rules for acceptable behavior. The constitution is not a proponent of capitalism, socialism, communism. etc. Those are the 'cultural' decisions we make. As a whole we are a capitalist culture that is motivated by greed (sounds terrible? - I for one am a staunch supporter of capitalism).
The big question is - does that mean we are superior to a much more socialistic culture? I am not prepared to answer that and I will not sit in judgement of those variations in culture. I can comfortably sit in judgement of freedom and liberty.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It matters to the quantity and quality of life of people. Isn't that enough?
You see, this is based on a world view that others do not share.
And while this is all interesting in the abstract, the nasty reality is that we in America have to choose between our own ideals. So which do we export? Is freedom the most important thing? Or do we export a life with a high percentage of leisure time? Maybe what we mean to give "them" is security through a strong defense?
The problem with this whole discussion is that we are exporting the whole package -- Hershey bars and titty bars; laws and morals; freedom and crime, etc.
We in America have struck our range of balance points for all the various factors and needs/wants/desires. We're in a comfort zone so we think everyone else should join us in the jacuzzi.
But really, what we look like from the outside is very different from what we think of ourselves.
Think about it from an outside perspective: 1) We sexually abuse prisoners, or allow it to happen and say nothing can be done about it 2) We let people die for lack of affordable health care. 3) We appear to have one set of rules for the white majority and another set of rules for everyone who is brown or darker. 4) We let a small percentage of people own a huge percentage of our country, and not pay anything back if they don't want to. 5) We waste more natural resources than any other culture on the planet. 6) Rape is a frequent crime. 7) People rape children! 8) There's lots of theft and murder too. 9) Our corporations dump banned products harming or killing innocent people in other countries; they pollute; they engage in unethical business practices and no-one stops them. 10) We have mass murderers. Not just one, but many. Lots of them!!! 11) We elect leaders who drink to excess and abuse their power.
Oh, that's just a short list. I mean, really, if one wanted to project a negative image of America, the way that it is being done in Iraq is just about perfect.
Why would ANY group of people want to emulate us? Because we're free???
What does that even mean in the context of a country that rushes to pass the Patriot Act? I mean, even if the average Muslim in the Middle East WANTED freedom as the one most pressing desire, would they think that America had a good handle on how to manage a free and open society?
Just because you and I would rather live here than anywhere else on Earth does not make America "the solution" for all peoples everywhere and for all time.
But at all times, Americans come along who think we're the best and should be in charge.
Our ideals may be the best for mankind. But who lives up to them? Certainly not us!
As for alleviating the suffering of people all over the world, my answer to that is that we have people suffering here in America who we could also take care of if the relief of suffering was really our motivating factor. I submit that this is NOT what motivates us.
It's pretty clear that the motivation in Iraq was revenge and fear, not liberation. Liberation was a spin added on later after we found out that the country was basically a fly speck without the resources or ability to inflict damage on anyone more than 50' outside its own borders. Oops. Oh, yeah, we went there to free the people too!
And, the other part of this American-style social engineering that really bugs me is that we fail to learn from our own history. We are incredibly BAD at it. If somoene wants to emulate us, then fine, we can do a good job of showing them a good time. But actually installing pro-Western leaders who will run the country in a friendly manner? Nope! And every time, the disaster we create doesn't show up for years but it always results in a situation far far worse than the one we supposedly went in to fix.
And usually far far worse than if we'd done nothing at all.
We go for the quick fix. The short term solution. And we set up people in power who later use our own weapons and training against us.
It has happened too many times already for us to just keep ignoring the lesson.
posted
Jeez, I got to the end of this and Bob hit almost all of the points that I was thinking of. America has some amazing things about it, but it's crazy to say that we're practically perfect in every way in comparison to other countries, even Islamic ones.
Besides the crime, corruption, and greed (and heck, there are American Christian fundamentalists whose only main problem with the Islamic ones is that they chop off people's hands and abuse women in the name of the wrong God) that Bob noted, I'd like to throw out mental health (and while I'm at it, physcial health also). America is undergoing a crisis of mental health, with many types of disorders increasing at alarming rates. In the 20th century, a time of nearly uninterrupted increases in material benefits, the US rate of depression climbed at a rate of 10. It's getting worse even as we speak. The same story is true (although not as dramatically) for a host of other non-biomedical psychological disorders. In regards to this, America frankly sucks when comparad to many other nations. We're living in a sick society, but our blind belief in our unimpeded superiority has made it so, other than throwing pills at the problem, we don't even acknowledge it.
And that's leaving aside the new "American disease", otherwise known as being a big fat-ass. At a time when no one actually has to die from not having enough food, we're now dying because we won't eat less, eat healthier, and exercise. That's just crazy, but that's also America. I don't think that this is something that we're either in better shape about in regards to other countries or something to be particularly proud of.
To me, these things, the mental illness, the avoidance of it, and the rising levels of chronic obesity, are all more or less direct consequences of the American character. In large part, this is why I'm so uninterested in playing the "my father can beat up your father" game in regards to various countries. Besides mistaking better for good, it leads us to wrap everything up into a package so that we ignore the often quite damaging problems that our country has.
quote:and heck, there are American Christian fundamentalists whose only main problem with the Islamic ones is that they chop off people's hands and abuse women in the name of the wrong God
No, there aren't. Even as hyperbole this statement is ludicrous. I'd be interested to see any links you can provide that demonstrate a desire for hand-chopping. And "only main problem?" I think the fact that some of these Islamic fundamentalists killed 3,000 of our citizens might register a little higher on the list of problems.
It makes me not want to even discuss the more interesting points in your post, even though it might be interesting. Your post does make me realize that our fundamental philosophical differences aren't about religion at all, but rather about individualism v. institutionalism.
posted
Dag, You're response is reactionary and innaccurate. There are extremre Christian fundamentalists in this country who have proposed a plan for this country that varies very little from the ones currently in place in Islamic fundamentalist countries. We've even had people in this site say that their wish for America is that it should be turned into a state where every had to be forced to believe as they did. They complain about many of the same things about our culture that the Islamics do. In fact, instead of the hand chopping off, some have suggested the death penalty for thieving.
As to the 9/11 attacks, at least one major evangelical Christian almost celebrated them as a punihsment from God because America tolerates gay people. There people exist. Just because they carry the same label as you is no reason to protect them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reactionary? How so? Because you used extreme exagerattion to make a fairly ridiculous point and I called you on it?
quote:We've even had people in this site say that their wish for America is that it should be turned into a state where every had to be forced to believe as they did.
The only post like that I've ever seen is from someone who wanted to legally ban religion and churches. True, I haven't been here a year yet, but I've not encountered anyone except the one mentioned that I would consider likely to say such a thing. Although I don't doubt such people exist, it seems disingenuous to merely mention the ones who happen to be Christian fundamentalists.
quote:As to the 9/11 attacks, at least one major evangelical Christian almost celebrated them as a punihsment from God because America tolerates gay people. There people exist. Just because they carry the same label as you is no reason to protect them.
Calling his comments celebratory is grossly misleading. And exactly what label are you talking about us sharing?
You know, I refrained from speculating on your motives, even though I have several theories as to why you believe several of the things you've posted. I have had to defend myself from your claims that I'm assigning motives to you, but you're the one who has actually done so on more than one occasion. I'd appreciate the same.
posted
Dag, So we're clear, is it your contention that there aren't Christian fundamentalists in this country who want to turn it into a Christian theocracy where women are returned to extremely subservient roles and with extremely harsh punishments for even minor infractions? I feel like this is the main area of our disagreement, that I'm saying that these people exist and you're denying that they are (well, that and you think that I'm attacking Christians as opposed to extreme fundamentalists).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:well, that and you think that I'm attacking Christians as opposed to extreme fundamentalists
THIS is the main area of my overall disagreements with you. You have no basis for saying this at all.
quote:is it your contention that there aren't Christian fundamentalists in this country who want to turn it into a Christian theocracy where women are returned to extremely subservient roles and with extremely harsh punishments for even minor infractions?
As I said in my post above, which it is evident you either didn't read or decided to substitute your own version for, "I don't doubt such people exist."
However, they are neither a major force in politics nor do they enjoy the support of the vast, vast majority of people who would self-identify as either Christian fundamentalist or evangelical. Further, except for a few isolated incidents, Americans who do feel that way have not engaged in violence against this or other countries. (McVeigh was NOT a fundamentalist.)
Every society has extreme elements. To single out one of those extreme elements, conflate them with a much larger population, and use it to show an underlying flaw in America is disingenuous at best. As is your continued misreading of my posts and my motives.
You seem to intelligent to be doing that by accident.
quote:You seem to intelligent to be doing that by accident.
The funny thing is, I've had the same thoughts about you. I honestly think that, for some reason, we just don't communicate well. For example, your reading of what I was talking about with the throwaway fundamentalist line is completely different from my intent.
They are the fringe extreme and I never claimed nor tried to imply any different. The thing is, they represent the objections of a large section of the conservative christian popluation, magnified and without the more liberal American ideals thrown in. People had claimed that in all ways, America was demonstrably better than any Islamic country. And yet, OSC's complaints about the immorality and anti-religiousness of Americas entertainment industry and intelectual elites, allowing for differences in the systems, sound a lot like the Islamic (and not just the extremist) criticisms of America. The concerns of the religious in one country reflect the concerns of the religious in another (and, in this case, reflect, to a certain extent, my own concerns).
If we were to export American culture wholesale to Islamic countries, by nearly all American's metrics, they would have become better places, but they also would have let in the immoralities and such that conservatives (both religious and otherwise) castigate our culture for allowing or encouraging.
That was pretty much what I was trying to get across and I honestly thought that, instead of seeing or even trying to see that message, you interpreted it as "Squicky's saying bad things about Christians, so I must defend them." and reacted accordingly. And then I did a bad job of saying that that was how I interpreted your reply by pretty much making it into an accusation as opposed to a reflection of how I saw what you wrote.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But my target wasn't even extremists, or really conservatives. It wsa trying to get people (admittedly especially religious people) to acknowledge that there are reasons even from their own perspective why the wholesale adoption of the American way of doing things wouldn't be considered an absolutely good thing. There's a feeling that we've got all the answers that we're trying to bring to the benighted Arabs and that they are just too stupid or brainwashed or whatever to realize it. I think that it's important to realize that there are things about America that other countries really don't like and wouldn't like in their own countries and that at least some of these things are likewise criticized by people inside America itself.
It's sort of like from before I tried to show that democratic ideals came from people who rebelled against existing orders, especially religious ones, so that the individidualistic world-view that we take for granted might not neccessarily be such a truism for other cultures that haven't had the history of rebellion that we have.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And yet, OSC's complaints about the immorality and anti-religiousness of Americas entertainment industry and intelectual elites, allowing for differences in the systems, sound a lot like the Islamic (and not just the extremist) criticisms of America.
Just from reading OSC's fiction, I have gotten the strong feeling from him that he does *not* think American culture is superior to other cultures, that he admires many things about the different cultures of the world, including Muslim cultures. I tend to feel the same way myself. I hate the American sense of "entitlement", the jealous guarding of our riches against would-be immigrants. I have plenty of beefs about America. But I also have beefs with some of the ways that Muslims do things. I am all for influencing away those negative things, but I believe in more sublte tactics than war and taking over someone's government.
Perhpas this is horribly sexist of me to say, but maybe it is partly because I am female. War seems to me to be an invention of males. I don't see females resorting to killing wars to solve the problems of the world. But I do see them doing a lot more espianage and dolling out rewards to those who comply and withdrawing priviledges to those who don't. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then your fundamentalist line was out of place with your thesis, since it represents the kind of ideals these countries might find acceptable.
Dag, that is my thesis. The whole thing was that there were aspects of Islamic culture that at least some people in our culture would consider better than aspects in our culture. I think it was the latest Tom Clancy novel (I really didn't like it) where one of the characters describes Tehran as a city where you could leave a brand new convertible out one the street with the keys in it and no one would touch it. I'd like to have America's crime situation be like that, but, in the Islamic fundamentalist model, it comes with giving up many many individual freedoms and submitting to stringent punishments which I would not be willing to agree to. The thing is, we're offering the Arab Islamics the individual freedoms and not realizing some of the things, like crime or immorality, that comes with them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:t wsa trying to get people (admittedly especially religious people) to acknowledge that there are reasons even from their own perspective why the wholesale adoption of the American way of doing things wouldn't be considered an absolutely good thing.
So you picked the worst elements (from a mainstream American view, and excepting some of them trying to blow us up)) of Islamic culture to illustrate which parts Islamic culture would be better off with?
posted
Try restating your point, Mr. Squicky. Your Christian Fundamentalist point may not have served your argument well. You and Dagonee may agree more than is first apparent.
posted
Dag, No, I matched extreme fundamentalist to extreme fundamentalist, in much the same way as you could match moderate conservative to moderate conservative.
Some of our extreme fundamentalists have literally put forward a view of America that is pretty much like the current state of Iran, but with Jesus in place of Allah. I don't agree with those people, nor do I agree with the less fanatical people who would just be happy if we posted the 10 commandments everywhere and banned the teaching of evolution, but it's foolish to pretend that they don't exist. They live in a democratic country and have specifically rejected some of the major elements of democracy in what they'd want the country to be. It's likely that their reasoning is similar to the Islamic extremists. As I said, I don't agree with these people, but I'm not willing to dismiss their opinion as irrelevant, and thus the statement that it's clear to pretty much everyone that in all ways, America is better than Islamic Fundamentalism cannot be supported even inside the US.
For the moderates, it's not so much that they reject the democractic principles so much that they would prefer that things were different. Some of the things that they wish were different, I agree with, and some I do not, but, again, my agreement is essentially meaningless. These are people who have counterparts in the Muslism world who have cause to view certain aspects of American life as a bad thing and possibly see those same aspects as faring better in a more tightly controlled society such as Iran.
Let's be clear, it was a throw-away line intended to point out exactly what I said, that some of our religious fundamentalists would prefer that the US were much more like Iran, but with God as its focus. This speaks directly to the idea I was disagreeing with, that it's obvious to everyone that America is better than Iran, or whatever. The further thing I was trying to get it is that these people might have legitimate or at least understandable reasons for be wary of adopting American ways of doing things, an idea that would not follow from saying that everyone knows that our way is better in every way.
I do believe that our way is better, but I'm not willing to say that there aren't trade-offs involved. If we want people to see it our way, regarding them as just plain stupid for not taking the obviously better way isn't going to help much, but I thin kthat seeing that they have concerns over these very real trade-offd might.
---
In any case, when I presented this statement, it was very much in line with the rest of the content of my post and, I don't think, some anti-Christian or anti-American or whatever you interpreted it as being against hyperbole from left field. I tought that, while not my most elegant work, it's relation to the rest of the context I put it in was discernable. Perhaps I was wrong and I just did a bad job altogether.
Anyway, that's why, when you responded with, "This is just such gratuitous hyperbole that I won't even talk about the rest of your post." I thought that you had a motivated reason not to see it in context. I think that this is easier to spot with you because, when your defenses are not tripped you really try to see what people were trying to say instead of fitting your preconceived notions on it. I respect that, but I find it generally lacking when we discuss religious issues, becasue you often seem to be trying to be fitting me into an easily dismissable little box, and it can get very tiresome. Of course, no doubt you see my contributions to our religious discussions in much the same way.
What it comes down to is I think we just have some strange problem communicating. I wouldn't be suprised if we did much better in face to face conversation. AS it is, the best I can offer is long, boring explanations of what I was trying to say and how I took your responses.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, I'm pretty sure we almost always agree more than is anywhere near evident at first. That's one of the reasons why it's so frustrating. It's like, I want to fast forward 5 posts down the line to when we both understand what the other is saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's strange, but what struck me the most about this essay was OSC's repeated uplifting of "raising kids" as the best possible thing in life. I guess I figured the article would produce the same "Card is crazy!" response that I usually see.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: bev, I'm pretty sure we almost always agree more than is anywhere near evident at first. That's one of the reasons why it's so frustrating. It's like, I want to fast forward 5 posts down the line to when we both understand what the other is saying.
quote:Is there room in the world to let Muslims run their affairs as they see fit in their own country?
I think that the "civilized world" is continuously attempting to coerce nations to attain a certain standard of behavior. An easy example would be sanctions being levied through UN resolution or the actions of individual nations or blocs against regimes that are deemed to be violating "fundamental" rights. These regimes might be communist (China), fascist (Nazi Germany), Islamic theocracy (Iran) .... I believe that as long as you are very careful about when you apply these pressures that it is not only correct, but required of civilized nations to come to the aid of humans being tortured or slaughterd by oppressive regimes.
So is there room in the world. Well, for many fundamental Islamist behaviors, probably. For all behaviors? Based on my (limited) knowledge of where some fundamentalist Muslim leaders in primarily Islamic nations are attempting to go probably not all behaviors.
Do you agree that there is a limit to where the "World" can let a nation go as far as freedom to act within its sovereign borders?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:It matters to the quantity and quality of life of people. Isn't that enough?
You see, this is based on a world view that others do not share.
Completely, 100% false. As rubble has already intimated, we are but one player on the stage of the world. Everyone, from the U.N. to the very tiniest nation, interacts with everyone else, every other nation in the world, either via commerce or in the market place of ideas, at least. Leaving aside nations, we find within countries factions, sects, and groups that jockey for power. Each entity works in ways that it believes will help it achieve its ends.
quote: And while this is all interesting in the abstract, the nasty reality is that we in America have to choose between our own ideals. So which do we export? Is freedom the most important thing? Or do we export a life with a high percentage of leisure time? Maybe what we mean to give "them" is security through a strong defense?
Actually, if you read my post, I'm proposing that while we put our ideas out there, *they* choose what they want to incorporate in their society.
quote: The problem with this whole discussion is that we are exporting the whole package -- Hershey bars and titty bars; laws and morals; freedom and crime, etc.
Wrong. It's not all or nothing. That's silly. What leads you to this conclusion?
quote: We in America have struck our range of balance points for all the various factors and needs/wants/desires. We're in a comfort zone so we think everyone else should join us in the jacuzzi.
And yet we talk about giving aid to countries in need because we 'have so much'. Isn't this the same effort?
quote: But really, what we look like from the outside is very different from what we think of ourselves.
Think about it from an outside perspective: 1) We sexually abuse prisoners, or allow it to happen and say nothing can be done about it 2) We let people die for lack of affordable health care. 3) We appear to have one set of rules for the white majority and another set of rules for everyone who is brown or darker. 4) We let a small percentage of people own a huge percentage of our country, and not pay anything back if they don't want to. 5) We waste more natural resources than any other culture on the planet. 6) Rape is a frequent crime. 7) People rape children! 8) There's lots of theft and murder too. 9) Our corporations dump banned products harming or killing innocent people in other countries; they pollute; they engage in unethical business practices and no-one stops them. 10) We have mass murderers. Not just one, but many. Lots of them!!! 11) We elect leaders who drink to excess and abuse their power.
I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here. If you think I'm saying we don't have problems, then I am sorry that I wasn't more clear. Even so, all the problems you listed are often just as present, if not moreso, in many other countries. I daresay they are not uniquely American problems.
It is an indisputable fact that we do have a lot to give. We have a lot of ideas that might be useful for other countries to improve themselves.
quote: Oh, that's just a short list. I mean, really, if one wanted to project a negative image of America, the way that it is being done in Iraq is just about perfect.
Um, what way are we doing it in Iraq? You mean dumping billions of dollars into the country to rebuild it? Surely you're not suggesting that those people who abused prisoners represent the sum total presence of what America is doing, or *could* do, in Iraq?
quote: Why would ANY group of people want to emulate us? Because we're free???
Because we're succesful in a lot of areas and other countries might want to learn how to be as succesful.
quote: What does that even mean in the context of a country that rushes to pass the Patriot Act? I mean, even if the average Muslim in the Middle East WANTED freedom as the one most pressing desire, would they think that America had a good handle on how to manage a free and open society?
There is no country on earth that wouldn't have done something to secure its borders after something like 9/11. While we can debate the Patriot act, it's pretty clear that *something* needed to be done after 9/11. I can't imagine any person in a position of power not doing anything. So, I'm not sure that the Patriot Act is necessarily a good example of how we aren't free, or that *we don't hold onto the ideal of freedom*.
Even given the patriot act, tell me, Bob, what other Muslim countries out there have a better handle on privacy than we do? Maybe there is something we can learn from them. What Muslim countries are more strict with their police and state forces with regards to how easilly they can search their citizens' homes? What Muslim country allowes encryption to a greater degree than we do? Or dissent? Or freedom of expression?
quote: Just because you and I would rather live here than anywhere else on Earth does not make America "the solution" for all peoples everywhere and for all time.
Again, I gather you think I am saying that we need to erase the societies in Muslim countries. (As if we could.) I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that being more like America will solve their problems. I do think that if they took a look at certain ideals that we believe in, took a look at some of the ideas that we have, both concrete and abstract, on how we do things, that they would probably be better off.
Let me ask you something, do you think it is an accident that we are where we are today? Are Americans just really lucky?
quote: But at all times, Americans come along who think we're the best and should be in charge.
Could be. I never said we should be in charge or that we are the best in all things.
quote: Our ideals may be the best for mankind. But who lives up to them? Certainly not us!
If the ideals are the best, then they are the best whether we live up to them or not. The fact that we attempt to follow those ideals sets us apart from edit:some other countries.
quote: As for alleviating the suffering of people all over the world, my answer to that is that we have people suffering here in America who we could also take care of if the relief of suffering was really our motivating factor. I submit that this is NOT what motivates us.
Hmmm. What does motivate us?
quote:
It's pretty clear that the motivation in Iraq was revenge and fear, not liberation.
Are you serious? Are you seriously serious? What leads you to believe this?
quote: Liberation was a spin added on later after we found out that the country was basically a fly speck without the resources or ability to inflict damage on anyone more than 50' outside its own borders. Oops. Oh, yeah, we went there to free the people too!
Whether or not it was our primary goal, it is indisputable that the majority of Iraqiis are happy to see Saddam gone, that they feel liberated. One of the threads I posted on Ornery made the argument that liberals should be behind the invasion of despotic countries like Iraq because it was the only way to get rid of some dictators. It had links to the head of Amnesty International and a prominent liberal journalist who basically said the same thing. I asked other liberals in that thread, and I ask you now, what is your solution for getting rid of these people? Or should we even care?
quote: And, the other part of this American-style social engineering that really bugs me is that we fail to learn from our own history. We are incredibly BAD at it. If somoene wants to emulate us, then fine, we can do a good job of showing them a good time. But actually installing pro-Western leaders who will run the country in a friendly manner? Nope! And every time, the disaster we create doesn't show up for years but it always results in a situation far far worse than the one we supposedly went in to fix.
I grant you that we have unnecissarily mucked about in other countries, often to their detriment. However, it's untrue that we *always* suck at nation rebuilding or that our impulses aren't sometimes right, though the outcome is wrong, or that we don't sometimes succeed in helping a country on its feet. I know this has been mentioned a couple million times, but what about Germany and Japan? What about the Marshall plan? What about south Korea? What about Grenada? What about Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations? What about the fact that we have given many billions of dollars to bail out other countries? I think England and France *still* haven't payed off their war debts from I and II. Anyways, surely all these things count for something, too?
quote: And usually far far worse than if we'd done nothing at all.
Well, just looking at Iraq, this goes back to the question of whether it was better off before we came than than it will be after. I submit that if they fail in the 'after', it will have nothing to do with us, and everything to do with Islamic fundamentalists in their country.
quote: We go for the quick fix. The short term solution. And we set up people in power who later use our own weapons and training against us.
Sometimes.
quote:
It has happened too many times already for us to just keep ignoring the lesson.
What would you say the long term solutions should be to Iraq and Afghanistan? How about Cuba?
quote:. I believe that as long as you are very careful about when you apply these pressures that it is not only correct, but required of civilized nations to come to the aid of humans being tortured or slaughterd by oppressive regimes.
Given that Persia was the source of much that we today call "civilized" I think you'd choose a different implied pejorative (i.e., calling the fundamentalist Muslim "uncivilized" is probably not going to win many hearts and minds, even among the oppressed.
Iraq before Saddam went completely power-mad was a country filled with a literate, well educated population. As was Afghanistan.
Did they BECOME uncivilized because of the oppression they lived under?
I really think you have a somewhat mixed up view of what the people are like in these places.
Just because their nations are poor, or struggling under the yoke of oppression currently does not at all make them less cultured or civilized.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wrong. It's not all or nothing. That's silly. What leads you to this conclusion?
I have to look no further than the behavior of our people as prison guards to believe that I'm more right than wrong.
Your idea about "putting our ideas out there" is another abstraction. I'm sure you can see that by going out with a program to "preach freedom and democracy" to the world we would be judged by others based on our own track record, not just on how great our ideas sound in the abstract.
The only people who judge us based on our ideals alone are US. We are the ones who tend to forget the failures of our ideals and blindly think that we are great because we have great ideals -- whether or not we actually live up to them. The rest of the world looks at us and sees immaturity, hubris, arrogance and hypocrisy. Mixed with a lot of money and fun, of course....
quote:Um, what way are we doing it in Iraq? You mean dumping billions of dollars into the country to rebuild it? Surely you're not suggesting that those people who abused prisoners represent the sum total presence of what America is doing, or *could* do, in Iraq?
Surely you don't believe that the average Iraqi is looking at the money we've dumped there and saying to themselves "oh, see, they really do care!" All that money certainly makes up for all the collateral damage, deaths, prisoner abuse, etc. Those people who are complaining are just obvious terrorists, and not at all representative of the average Iraqi.
Besides, it's not really an occupation. It's a liberation and there are just a few people who are too stupid to see it from our perspective.
quote:Because we're succesful in a lot of areas and other countries might want to learn how to be as succesful.
If they share OUR values, maybe. But what if they value things other than capitalism can provide? Should they pick our model or someone elses? Maybe they'd like socialism better. Or even communism. Or maybe they think that democracy would be fine, but they aren't really all that keen on turning their country into a consumer society.
I just am not getting why you can't fathom this. You seem to think that they should look at America as a menu -- we'll take 3 orders of Peace and Freedom, but hold the crime and abuse of power please... I just don't think it works that way from any perspective but one that IS American already.
quote:There is no country on earth that wouldn't have done something to secure its borders after something like 9/11. While we can debate the Patriot act, it's pretty clear that *something* needed to be done after 9/11.
Exactly how do wire taps without warrants, holding citizens without due process, and setting up courts WITHIN the Justice Department (instead of independent FROM it) secure our borders? Furthermore, in the rush to do *something* where were the people looking to safeguard our society? All those ideals you wish to export are precisely the ones that are under attack under the Patriot Act.
There is certainly a tendency to make it look like we're doing something after an attack like that. But the Patriot Act has provisions in it that are every bit as bad as internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. We will look back on thist stuff years from now as an object lesson in how fear can be used to erode liberty, not as a high point in America's "get tough" reaction to terrorism.
quote:Even given the patriot act, tell me, Bob, what other Muslim countries out there have a better handle on privacy than we do? Maybe there is something we can learn from them. What Muslim countries are more strict with their police and state forces with regards to how easilly they can search their citizens' homes? What Muslim country allowes encryption to a greater degree than we do? Or dissent? Or freedom of expression?
I never said I wanted to emulate THEM. I'd like it if we emulated ourselves!!! In other words, if we held to OUR ideals. But we don't, and we aren't. And things are getting worse, not better, here in America. And in that context, I wouldn't blame some other country's people if they looked at us and said "um...no thanks." That's been my point all along.
quote: I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that being more like America will solve their problems.
Yes you are. You are most certainly saying it...as the following statement clearly indicates:
quote: I do think that if they took a look at certain ideals that we believe in, took a look at some of the ideas that we have, both concrete and abstract, on how we do things, that they would probably be better off.
And another thing, do you really believe those ideas are OURS? Like they would never have heard of "democracy" if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
quote:Let me ask you something, do you think it is an accident that we are where we are today? Are Americans just really lucky?
Luck? No. Part of the reason we are where we are today is that our leaders in the past have stayed away from stupid wars. That sort of ended with our involvement in Korea, and things have gotten progressively worse.
As America started to believe in its role as a "superpower" it became fixated on projecting it's influence in bizarre ways. We have set up puppet leaders who later become monsters. And we still prop them up. We violate our own ideals to support regimes that sell stuff to us and buy our stuff. We justify it all by saying that we are "engaging them" and that trade is a civilizing influence. Etc.
The truth is we set up Saddam and Osama. They were our buddies. We trained Osama and equipped him in order to stick it to the Russians. We trained Saddam and equipped him because we were ticked off at the Ayatollahs in Iran.
America has been acting like an empirial power and that has been bad for it and for the world. Not good. Bad.
It has helped our economy, apparently. But what's good for us isn't necessarily going to work for other countries. A fledgling democracy with an oil-based economy, or an agricultural one (like Afghanistan) isn't really going to be transformed by embracing American ideals. Capitalism might bring some new opportunities, but it might also bring some very bad things to their world as well.
Everyone is watching Russia for an example of whether this exporting of ideals works. So far, things aren't really going all that well there under democracy. I'm not sure what they expected, but the move to capitalism hasn't turned them into a thriving country yet...if it ever will.
I think it'd be prudent to at least entertain the possibility that our way isn't necessarily the best way for everyone everywhere. And that maybe they need to work it out for themselves and be allowed the luxury of making a few mistakes along the way. And not necessarily be under the threat of sanctions or invasion if the US doesn't quite like who gets into power after we pull out.
quote:Are you serious? Are you seriously serious? What leads you to believe this?
Oh, heck, I don't know. My memory does sometimes play tricks on me, but I'm pretty sure I recall the sequence as:
- Saddam may have had something to do with 9/11 - Well, maybe not, but we're sure he is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and is exporting terrorism. - Oh wait, well...I guess that really wasn't entirely true, or we can't prove it. However, he's a really bad man and everyone can agree on that, right.
quote:Whether or not it was our primary goal, it is indisputable that the majority of Iraqiis are happy to see Saddam gone, that they feel liberated. One of the threads I posted on Ornery made the argument that liberals should be behind the invasion of despotic countries like Iraq because it was the only way to get rid of some dictators. It had links to the head of Amnesty International and a prominent liberal journalist who basically said the same thing.
I submit that we would have done this completely differently if our goal was the ouster of a despot.
For one thing, we might have planned it better.
This is the real point here, though. That this invasion was sold on the basis of somethign other than liberation. There was thus no public debate on the wisdom of that course of action prior to us just going and doing it. And to me, that is criminal. I think it is treasonous. If it is ever proven that Bush et al actually did purposefully spin the intelligence to get their way, I believe they should all be tried for treason.
And the end does NOT justify the means.
Even if Iraq turns into an Eden, Bush et al. lied to Congress and the American people. And denied us the opportunity to debate the wisdom of HIS war prior to him starting it.
I think this distinction is not subtle or meaningless. I think it goes to the heart of what our society is supposed to be about, and those ideals we hold so precious, but fail to live up to.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is treasonous. If it is ever proven that Bush et al actually did purposefully spin the intelligence to get their way, I believe they should all be tried for treason.
Let's try to maintain our perspective. There may be criminal charges that can be levied against them, but treason's not one of them:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
That's Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution.
posted
What charges can be pressed, Dag? Assuming there were undeniable proofs that the Bush administration misled the country into a war.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Whoa, crap. I was just about to ask you if you could respond to an old argument of mine, when I decided it'd be a good idea to link you to it -- and damn if you haven't already.
I'm gonna stagger off to bed now and try to work up a response come afternoon. That's two in the queue as of now, this and the oh-so-long ago homosexuality thread -- good god, dude, I gotta say, you have my respect. Once upon a time, nobody could get me to shut up. Now I'm actually in argument deficit. Yeesh.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Dag. I guess I had the wrong definition of treason, at least as defined in the US laws.
So, what is it called when a President's lies get US men and women killed? When innocent people are killed in a foreign land because of his lies?
Is that just an "oops" moment or shall we expect something a bit more from our leaders. Say, oh, I don't know...the truth without spin?
On this score, I really put Bush II up there with Nixon as the most immoral to ever hold the office.
See, I care about sexual misconduct (a la Kennedy and Clinton), but for all their flaws and damage to the prestige of the office, the real fact is that those lies don't get American kids killed. Whereas Bush, Cheney et al's lies actually did get Americans and foreigners killed and continue to do so today.
Because I believe if the evidence about Iraq had been presented in full without their particular spin, the war would not have been approved by Congress. Or if it had, it would not have been at this level or without the obviously absent planning that was needed.
Let me add to Mr. Bush's tally the men who died while in custody under the control of US troops. While not directly responsible, he is an accessory to murder in my mind.
How people who call themselves "moral" can back this man is just beyond me. Only from the narrow perspective of "the US is right" can you call Bush anything but a mass murderer.
The fact that he was fighting another mass murderer (Saddam) is really not relevant. He wasn't acting in self-defense. He wasn't acting in defense of this nation against a credible threat. He just wanted it bad enough to lie in order to get it.
Unfortunately, he makes the rest of us culpable too. Just because we Americans don't get line-item approval on how our tax money is spent, that doesn't really wash the blood from our hands either. Our government, representing US, has committed horrible crimes that are only justifiable if the war in Iraq is justified.
That's why, I believe, so many "patriots" are being so shrill in their defense of Bush's policies there. Because if one chink is allowed in that armor, the entire thing comes crashing down on us. We are behaving criminally and pursuing a course of action that has resulted in innocent people dying. We are responsible for those deaths.
It weighs very heavily on my mind. I would think that the very definition of morality would include feeling at least some remorse and even guilt over the behavior of our government in this episode.
But then, I'm just a crazy liberal, right? I have this insane and unworkable world view that says every life is precious, not just American ones.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What charges can be pressed, Dag? Assuming there were undeniable proofs that the Bush administration misled the country into a war.
Anything presented under oath would have a perjury charge if it was an actual lie (either an outright fabrication or leaving something important out with a positive statement all relevant material is included). However, there's not much that can be done otherwise, the war was authorized by Congress, and courts are loath to interfere with executive power in these situations.
quote:I'm gonna stagger off to bed now and try to work up a response come afternoon. That's two in the queue as of now, this and the oh-so-long ago homosexuality thread -- good god, dude, I gotta say, you have my respect. Once upon a time, nobody could get me to shut up. Now I'm actually in argument deficit. Yeesh.
What's the second one other than the homosexuality thread? The protection of rights interefering with other rights?
quote:But then, I'm just a crazy liberal, right? I have this insane and unworkable world view that says every life is precious, not just American ones.
Well gee whiz, I guess you found out that us good ol' conservativ jus' wanna run around shootin' ay-rabs.
The WMD intelligence was bad, but you'd be hard-pressed to make a case it was based on lies. Putin, who opposed U.S. action, has confirmed that they shared information on Iraq interest in uranium with the U.S. The British investigation has shown that the uranium tidbit was not a lie. And the American investigation basically states that the famouos 16 words were entirely accurate.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, how do you conquer a map? That is, if the supporters of an organization you are trying to kill are mixed in with those who don't, how do you differentiate them? How do you win over those who don't support Al Qaeda? It is also worth acknowledging, I think, that it is possible to change minds of those people who support Al Qaeda up to a certain point.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
