Posted on 06/01/2002 4:24:03 AM PDT by krodriguesdc
Geez, did this come from Madeline Albright's press office?
Look, the author stated it way back in the first paragraphs of the article. These people come from a nomadic culture that respects strength and victory, and sees anything else as evidence of decadence, vacillation, and weakness. So instead of sending the Secretary of State running around the globe like the world's nervous nanny every time something ugly happens, we should retaliate instantly and squash them like bugs. In time, they will learn not to risk hurting us.
Coupled with this, of course, we should also make like a good shepherd and keep the flock out of their wretched and pestilential little countries.
This is mostly BS. These states were mostly "front-line" states during the Cold War. The modernists tended to be aligned with the Soviet Union (or at least that was our perception -- e.g. Mossedegh, Nasser, Asad, Quaddafi), and the US backed the fundamentalists (e.g. Shah of Iran, King of Jordan, King of Saudi Arabia, Pakistani ISI, Emirs, King of Morrocco).
A consequence of winning the Cold War is that the fundamentalists win in the Middle East.
For most of the last millennium it is fair to say that Europe has tried to dominate the Arabic world, with some success.
No, for most of the past 1,500 years the Muslims have tried to dominate the world, including Europe. Europeans reacted, mostly defensively. Only in the last couple of hundred years were the tables turned, when Europe gained technological ascendancy.
It's also extremely naive to think that, at this point, Saudi Arabia is our friend. To the contrary, they are among our most dangerous enemies. They are the cesspool right at the bottom of the worst Islamic terrorism, and they are still working against us. They do so covertly, because they know they are vulnerable, despite all their oil wealth and religious leverage through control of the Islamic holy places.
No, a new Marshal Plan wouldn't work. The original Marshal Plan put civilized Europe back on its feet again. With the Arabs, there is no similar cultural or civilizational basis to work with. We have already pumped more than a hundred billion dollars into the region--despite all their oil wealth and supposed religious brotherhood, these people have proved incapable of helping themselves--and the money has only served to make matters worse, funding explosing population growth and sick education systems.
About the only thing he gets right is that this will be a long, difficult, and dangerous war. Where it is going, and whether America still has the nerve and courage to fight it to the end, remains to be seen. There are still plenty of courageous men and women left in this country, but there are also plenty of moral morons without honor. We are going to be tested, I think.
First we are to be the worlds policemen, but now we must also be the worlds therapist?
Nonsense. Islamic countries will never succeed because their religion embraces primitivism. Picture, if you will, nations filled with militant Amish. Could any amount of help we offered them make the slightest bit of difference?
Exactly the wrong approach. Such Western interference is exactly the type of thing which has bred more hatred, not less.
As proven by the billions of petro-dollars that have flowed into Saudi Arabia.
The richer they become, the more they are tempted by the Western pleasures. The more they partake of Western pleasures, the guiltier they feel. The guiltier they feel, the more they blame America for "currupting" them. The more they blame America, the more they hate America. The more they hate America, the harder they try to destroy us.
Radical Islam is the root cause. As long as Radical Islam lives, the horror will continue.
It should be pointed out that while no European nation currently rules any Muslim lands in the Middle East, a Muslim nation still rules the European section of the ancient city of Constantinople.
I think the same could have been said about Shintoism and militant German nationalism. We successfully therapized Japan and Germany through military conquest and then occupation.
Perhaps, but I am not sure we have the means to occupy and convert countries containing 1.4 billion people -- which is the current count on Islamics.
Well, the thing is, many Arabs have a similar view of the West...
If the WTO/One World/Globalist types just stayed in "the West" then, probably, normal interactions, normal dynamics of international trade could take place. But the whole philosophy of the WTO/One World/Globalist types is built around expansion and growth. Without the CONSTANT growth, stagnation -- market saturation, resource depletion, other MBA type things -- makes the whole consumerist hierarchy/Ponzi scheme start to get shaky, shaky, shaky...
The WTO/One World/Globalist types have been "attacking" and "infiltrating" the Arab world through Arab quislings for generations. It seems to have come to a head over Lebanon.
Lebanon occupied a very special place in America's "New World Order System" in the Middle East. The utility of Lebanon lay in the fact that it was a "CHRISTIAN" enclave in the midst of a sea of Muslims (a place where "things" could be "accomplished" in the Middle East in ways that otherwise would be impossible were Muslims in charge); but the influx of all these refugees began to seriously erode the "Christian" character of the state, and in the process threaten the continued rule of America's lackey in that country, the Gemayel family and their Christian Phalange Party.
The Phalange Party had been set up by the Maronite Christian Gemayel family in the 1930s. The Maronite Christian community in Lebanon is an ancient community that - like the Coptic Christian community in Egypt and the Armenians in Jerusalem - has existed in the Middle East since the establishment of Christianity in the area in Roman and Byzantine times. After the collapse of Christian power in the Middle East in the latter half of the First Millennium, the Maronite community became important as a business "go-between" between the Muslim world and the Christian world.
Finally, after the disintegration of Turkish (Ottoman) power in the Near East and the Levant in 1919, the Maronite community (which by then constituted roughly one-half of the population in Lebanon) seized power in that country in conjunction with its French patrons and reduced the Muslim population to a kind of indentured servitude in the employ of their Christian masters. The consequence of all this served to heighten Lebanon's status as a "CIVILIZED" "Christian" enclave in the Middle East, a playground for rich Christians doing business there. By the late 1930s, Beirut was being touted as the "Paris of the Middle East."
After the Second World War, the Americans took over from the French as the Maronite community's patron, and hoards of Americans descended on Beirut and made it their playground, just as the French had done before them. Soon the American University in Beirut became a place where rich American students on leave from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and other elite colleges and universities in the United States could spend a year or so as dilettantes and dabblers in "Arabic Study Programs." And not only that, countless numbers of "academics" queued up to teach there. The American University in Beirut became a place where "pretend" academics - professors as well as students - could retreat to and fake the pursuit of their studies or professions while all the while enjoying the Paris-like atmosphere of Beirut - a "Paris" that offered the pleasures of the Mediterranean Ocean and a climate to "die for." In addition to all this, Beirut also became the "city of choice" where America's oil elites could "dump" their families while they ventured on into the more "inhospitable" areas of the Middle East in quest of oil - places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Bahrain, Iran, Quatar, etc. - regions where no Western women and spoiled American teenagers would dare to go.
[...]
It was in Lebanon that the contagion of Islamic fundamentalism first took hold on the Palestinians and TURNED THE WAR BETWEEN THEM AND THE ISRAELIS INTO A HOLY WAR; and because of that, it was in Lebanon that SUICIDE BOMBERS (which religious fanaticism ALONE produces) were first introduced into the scheme of things in the Middle East - blowing up the Marine Barracks and the U.S. Embassy there, and ultimately driving the U.S. out of Beirut like a dog with its tail between its legs. But the key thing to remember here is that the concept of "SUICIDE IN THE NAME OF GOD" originated in Iran, not in Palestine, where it was practiced on a MASSIVE scale by the Iranians against the Iraqis during the Iran/Iraq Border War in the early to mid 1980s.
[...]
But not so with the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This was absolute RELIGIOUS fanaticism of the purest kind, and it was not - in the first instance - directed against Israel at all. It was directed against what the Mullah's of Iran perceived to be the world's "GREAT SATAN," the United States!! IT WAS, AFTER ALL, THE UNITED STATES THAT HAD SUSTAINED THE SHAH IN POWER; it was U.S. oil companies that had been robbing the people of Iran blind of their oil wealth; it was the CIA-trained SAVAK that had run the Shah's torture chambers - and not only did the Mullah's know all this, the people knew it as well. All this to say, that IT ISN'T ISRAEL THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF THE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST "FRANKENSTEIN," IT IS THE UNITED STATES, and specifically, the greedy, self-serving economic policies the oil companies the U.S. sponsors in the Middle East pursue.
[very short excerpt from "THE COMING WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST," published September 4, 2001, by: S.R. Shearer ]
When cultures and civilizations are allowed to remain autonomous, then, within reason, peace seems to be possible.
But when a relatively small number of businessmen are allowed to place THEIR "good" in the position of the "good of the nation" then hell is set loose on Earth.
China did not send warships to Britain. And Britain didn't send warships to China because Britain wanted land. And Britain was not afraid China was about to send warships. Britain sent warships to China because a tiny number of British businessmen managed to position THEIR GOOD as the "good of the nation" and then use the national assets of Britain -- the British military might -- to, so to speak, beat the crap out of China, knock her to the ground, and then hold her down while they injected her with drugs and got her hooked...
That was more than a hundred years ago, but it established the theme of the modern era. Nation-states are now just pawns used by the WTO/One World/Globalist types to inject their poison into anyone who won't actually beg them to do it themselves.
Mostly everone in America who has 1) thought about the situation; and 2) not gotten directly involved in profitting from it; hates the WTO/One World/Globalist types almost as much as the Arab.
Look at the way American values have been screwed with over the last few generations. Look at the way American culture has been corrupted and spit on over the last few generations.
The only difference is that Americans -- by and large Christians or people shaped by Christian values -- simply don't have the option of waging psycho war against WTO/One World/Globalist types the way the Arabs do.
-- KotS
Unfortunately, they will carry it beyond their borders. There's about a millenium's worht of precedent to establish that fact. Containment didn't work for the Germanic tribes, it hasn't worked for Communism, and it will not work for the Muslims. They are pushing us to a point where they will need to be exterminated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.