Posted on 03/22/2011 6:53:59 PM PDT by 11th_VA
Dillydallying, intervening late and preemptive discounting any commitment of ground forces sets the conditions for failure. ***Intervening in Libya wasn't a bad idea, it's how we did it.*** The way we went about it does not stack the deck in our favor to have the revolt succeed because intervention came late (Qaddafi had time to shore up support, kill man rebels etc) and our reluctance to get more involved on the ground more or less removes us as a major player in shaping the post Qaddafi Libya if the rebels do win.
Germany was threatened during the Balkan campaign in so far that the refugee crisis flooded them too. Germany at one point had in excess of 250,000 refugees within her borders. Furthermore, the problem was spreading with the Turks having volunteers go there to fight, skirmishes break out across the Greek border, the Russians getting involved on the side of the Serbs....... sounds very WWIish. The Germans are historically and economically tied to Croatia, and the Germans helped destabilize and tear Yugoslavia apart by recognizing Croatia as a sovereign state (Genscher) while on all political maps this was still one nation. Later the Germans pushed to have Croatia be a member of the EU as quickly as possible....... It's funny in a sort of way. The Euro’s see themselves as intellectual, cultured and far more cosmopolitan than us Americans, but in reality even today they are provincial and short sighted in thinking. The Germans supported the Balkan intervention for a slew of reasons to include a political need as pictures rolled in of mass graves, mortar attacks in markets, impotent UN peacekeepers etc. You had a desire to play old cards like with Croatia and a huge issue with displaced/refugee people that were flooding Germany and being put up in tent cities. From the German perspective, intervention was a definite “need.” But 7 years later, the Germans said “nein” after 3,000 Americans perish in a terrorist attack.
Furthermore, the Cold War wasn't really cold. Dozens of Americans died even in Europe in what was essentially a proxy and shadow war with the Warsaw Pact at the hands of terrorist attacks or in clandestine operations. Germany was very much so in “need” of NATO then and would have never acted the way she does today, because her own @ss depended on these institutions and the mutual trust and support we provide for each other. The problems with Germany didn't really begin to raise its ugly head until AFTER the fall of the wall (1989). That's when the threat picture went away and they felt not only a new sense of national identity but also liberated from a threat and able to play the sort of back stabbing games they did in Iraq with the US.
NATO for most our allies is a one way road.
Oh really? Libya isn't a security risk? You mean to tell me that Libyan missiles impacting in Sicily, their former chemical weapons program, their involvement in the Pan Am 103 attack, the La Belle attack, their “Line of death” in the Mediterranean......... isn't a threat? If I was Italy or France, I would be very concerned about Qaddafi and Libya and it would be a near permanent security concern even prior to this intervention. Furthermore, Libya is an OPEC nation and one of the worlds major oil producers. This nation has strategic value especially to Europe, which as with Iraq gets more oil from there than we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
And and and.........
I look at what happened in Libya as an “opportunity.” In this case possibly a squandered one. You have a legitimate case to make for intervention, the support of the local population in Libya, a weakened dictator that has done some horrible things in the past and can't be trusted today. The Libyan intervention isn't a bad idea, it's just that somethings need a real effort and commitment to them in order to achieve a good outcome. Partial, sort of a cancer treatment will not bring the same probability of a good outcome as a quick, decisive, aggressive and full spectrum treatment of this disease.
Instead of assigning emotionally laden words like Libyan “adventure” (What Schroeder did with Iraq in 2002) assign the word “Opportunity.” It's the Libyan opportunity. Decisions such as this shouldn't be made based on emotional arguments with no substance though. The politics of the matter should not trump the national and Western interests. So far what scares me, is that the one who should be a leader has abdicated all responsibility in order to get credit for having taken action, but shed himself all responsibility of the aftermath and consequences or even if this mission fails all together. Leadership isn't about “managing by committee” or “appealing to higher authorities” or “blaming others” or “avoidance.” Pretty speeches, ones physical appearance, posturing and political maneuvering is not what leadership is about.
The way we went about it is wrong, but intervention was a good idea.
All supported the UN intervention on behalf of Korea in the 50s. But who's there today?
All supported the Coalition intervention in Desert Shield/Storm in 1991, but who ended up dealing with it in the inter war years 1991 - 2003?
All said it was horrible what was happening in Columbia where judges were being assassinated etc. but who was left dealing with that?
Who for nearly 40 years has been sitting in the Sinai?
The US “IS” the Wests policeman. Used in a condescending manner, the reality is that we are the economic, political, cultural, symbolic and military powerhouse of the West, Judea Christian, free industrialized world (to which Singapore, Japan, S. Korea etc. belong). The US by default because of her size and capabilities becomes the lead player in these issues. When Obama side steps or wants to step back it's a joke, because in the end, I assure you, we'll still be the key player in all this, even as we tell the TV camera to take more pictures of the French, Italians and Brits....... In the end, we are usually left with the baggage, and unlike our allies that can pick and choose their battles, we are nearly committed/required to act on their behalf. That's the reality of things.
I guess from an emotional and personal perspective, my biggest gripe is when some of our allies play games with our collective security concern or when they belittle our efforts and those with us to self justify their inaction and freeloading status. If they want to be worthless freeloaders and we can't force them, fine; but don't damage the mission or create these BS arguments to make oneself feel good about being a moocher. Mooch and go crawl away into the shadows, don't try to look us in the eye and say you're better than us because you did nothing (A personal perspective).
When I say "I" or "you," you personally are not meant, OK?
True. And so they are concerned. Germany isn't.
I look at what happened in Libya as an “opportunity.”
If you look for wars, I suppose, it is that.
If they want to be worthless freeloaders and we can't force them, fine; but don't damage the mission or create these BS arguments to make oneself feel good about being a moocher
Often, freeloading is the case. In the case of Libya, it is no threat to Germany, and therefore Germany is not freeloading. That is all I have to say about this specific issue. More broadly, I understand that America's superpower role is an accomplished fact, but I wish we erred on the side of inaction more often. Our greatest threat is internal.
Alliances benefit all if done correctly, but like an insurance everyone pays in. The Germans literally don't pay in (% spent on defense as part of GDP), deploying troops, partaking in combat operations, number of casualties ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan )......... BY ANY MEASURE they do not carry their weight ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html ). Alliances don't work when you only pick the battles that interest you and that are low risk with high payoff to oneself but avoid those that are critical to key allies but have little value and high risk to oneself. If everyone did that, you wouldn't have an alliance. What's even worse is when you know others have to deal with the issue anyhow and even though it does benefit you, you hold back because you choose to avoid paying the economic, military, security and political price by becoming involved but still want to reap all the rewards and benefits of this involvement afterward, knowing that other allies are forced to take action.
A historical example where you're most likely able to see it without emotions:
Drugs are killing Germans too. Over 3/4 of all the world cocaine come from Columbia and the cartels are well enough organized and financed to where they hired mercenaries, shot at aircraft with MANPADS (We had helicopters brought down), had armed guards protecting their crops, paid off politicians, murdered cops and judges that went after them (It became so bad that judges would be behind mirrored bullet proof glass and be assigned a security detail with armored vehicles, etc)......... Though the drug deaths and other associated crime was in Germany too as in most Western nations, the Germans chose to sit on the sidelines all through the 80 and 90s during the “war on drugs campaign” which in reality was largely a war on the Colombian cartels and support for the government and security establishment of Columbia. Today Columbia still has issues, but it's better off than what it was 20 years ago, but what did the Germans do to make that happen? Did they have SF there? Did they send people to the School of the America's to train Latin officers? Did they give billions in aide over the years to Columbia to assist the government and its security apparatus in its fight against these cartels that literally have more money than any European defense budget? The legitimate government of Columbia (elected) was waging a civil war with drug cartels that have literally small militia's, their own intel, aviation, snipers, recon communications units (Hell, we kept around Morse code as long as we did largely because of this campaign).
Not only did the Germans not do anything, they exploited this issue in their internal political games. Over and over their media pummeled the School of the America's, portraying it as some despot training center while in reality this training tries to combine the concepts of rule of land warfare and civil leadership over the military as well as ethics in it's curricula. It is essentially the antithesis of what they portray it as, but appealing to the average Germans ignorance (They don't know better- they've never been to Ft Benning or know those that attend, instruct or the curricula of this school) the media to include state run media had a constant anti US, anti intervention/War on Drugs, anti School of the America's message to it. Inevitable defeat/failure was an undertone in near all German media reporting regards the US intervention there, as in Iraq........ and yes the typical “this will be another Vietnam” flew around.
Over and over they talked about this, had TV shows, discussed it in radio, web articles etc. Flagrantly incorrect, you then had masses of “experts” that essentially used incorrect information (second hand reporting and analysis) as the premise of their further arguments. Whole web-pages devoted to this theme are still out there if you care google it! Knowing better, it's actually quite funny because of how stupid these people are and how biased the reporting was, but the greater point is that the Germans actually “benefited” from this even though they did nothing and actually worked AGAINST us and others. Even though directly affected oneself, not only did they not contribute, but they actually worked against those doing something because internally this was an issue that left oriented politicians thought they could exploit and after all, they don't need those stupid “Ami's” anymore.
Actions like this aren't moral, courageous, intellectual, cultured nor loyal, all various spins that the Germans try to apply to their worthlessness when they come out of the corner swinging trying to pretend like them doing nothing has a deeper reason other than freeloading.
But drugs, too, are internal enemy, because consumption is internal. Our mass culture is all about having fun at zero consequences, naturally we can think of nothing better than getting doped up. This is a good example of how we in America see every problem as a military one when we ought to see it as cultural. When I am in charge, Ft. Benning will teach how to deliver shock and awe to the Hollywood.
Most of these issues emanate and propagate from elsewhere, they require you to go somewhere else and fix them: pirates of the shore of Somalia or strait of Malacca; someone building missiles and developing NBC technology like Iran, formerly Libya; a nation like Iraq that invades Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia; Libya threatening the Mediterranean; assassinations of people within ones borders by foreign agents; massive influx of refugees caused by the regional destabilization of someone like Serbia acting out their wild fantasies; foreign trained, equipped and financed terrorists that hit targets within ones nation; foreign nations that are actively conducting Psyop campaigns on one.......... In the past many and today MOST of our “real” (existential type - not the criminal) of security threats are not ones that are dealt with by policing internally. They are threats that require action outside ones borders.
Again, lets look at Germany:
The La Belle Disco as the Pan Am 103 attacks were Libyan sponsored attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
Or think of this. Let's look at an ever worse freeloader, Austria. You have the Iranians assassinating people in Austria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Ghassemlou Do you really think this is something you can deal with by having a police officer on the street corner somewhere?
The “real” (i.e. existential) threats require one to venture out into those places these $hitheads are bread, taught, financed, trained, equipped....... dealing with the governments that tolerate or even support them..... dealing with the lawlessness in areas that allows some of these characters to do whatever they want, in a vacuum of law and order. Protecting our collective interests is not accomplished by placing one more Polizei somewhere. Germany's RAF problem went away when the wall came down because the RAF was being supported by the former East Block. There is a reason why the wall fell and within a few years the RAF disappeared, why most were caught in the East, why their explosives were Eastern origin (i.e. Semtex)..................... The Polizei wasn't going to solve the RAF problem, the end of the DDR did.
Our collective interests require these so called “military adventures,” a term first coined in 2002 by Schroeder that puts a negative spin on them (This was the SAME GUY that argued for intervention earlier in the Balkans! lol): http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article405731/Schroeder_sagt_definitiv_Nein_zu_Irak_Krieg.html These “military adventures” are in reality required and only because others are doing their bidding for them, can they think like this.
It's a farce, and those mocking, belittling, attacking the interventions are usually the do nothing amoral political cowards, hedging bets, making deals often with these despots and even using the failures or mishaps along the way for their own personal political benefit.
This can't go on as it is.
External threats exist. I did not say any different. However, we in America tend to consider everythign OUR problem. Civil war in Libya is not our problem. Maybe it is France’s, I don’t know. But ours it isn’t.
Incidentally, I liked Reagan’s approach much better. Bomb a disco, get a missile in your backyard. No coalitions, no world policing, nothing of the sort.
Reagan showed true leadership, vision, agility and acuity in how to perceive these threats and deal with them, all requiring different approaches with different desired outcomes: Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iran, Central African Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya twice (1981 and 1986), Columbia, US support of the UK in the Falkland war, the effort against the “Lit path” in Peru, Honduras (defeating the communists), the Greater Cold War in Europe and Asia (example: stationing of GLCM in Germany).....and more.
Obama: Take credit for all good, associate with every positive figure, theme and event. Disassociate with all negative themes, people and events. Let Holder tell the world about GITMO staying open and tribunals after all. Let Gates tell the public about cuts on FCS, Zumwald, F22, missile defense. Stand in front of solar farms, wind farms...........
In reality Reagan showed exceptional ability to handle various security issues simultaneously and apply various policies and strategies to achieve differing goals with each. He didn't make his “popularity” or the “politics” of the situation center stage in the decision making and like Bush H and Bush W he was willing to take a black eye and assumed a leading role.
He was willing to take action and stood out front, not leading from the rear by pointing the finger at multilateralism, supra national institutions or the spread/shared responsibility from a committee decision. He acted swiftly, decisively and in most cases correctly. He stuck his neck out, something this coward Obama would never do. In reality Libya for Obama is the consequence of the political beating he took over Egypt and focus groups that showed that the majority of Americans supported intervention. Even so, he waited until he could get the blessing of the UN, NATO and Arab League, and pulled a Pontios Pilot so now whatever happens isn't his problem. What a “leader.”/sarc
Pontius Pilate I meant to write.
Because of our historical role and that of some allies, the ability for us to take some damage and still stand (Something as small as the GSG9 in Somalia failing in 78 would have sunk Schmidt politically), our political clout, economic might, military and intelligence capabilities, our ability to work with any party (some of our allies are like water and oil, i.e. Japan/S. Korea, Turkey/Greece, after WWII Germany/France for a while......... Besides, for those who are fighting for ideological reasons, the US is also symbolic, a representation of globalization, Western interests, the Judea Christian world and the expanse of this Western liberal culture that is even creeping into the Muslim/Arab world. They address us in their hate speeches in Iran. Osama addresses us in his speeches. Saddam addressed us in his speeches. Qaddafi addresses us in his speeches............ We are the leader when it comes to the “real threats” out there and our enemies see it that way too.
See, that is a problem. Globalization is simply a threat in itself. It is right that the US represents that, but therefore it represents a vital threat to the existing nations, more damaging than terrorism. It is even a threat to the United States, not that we as a nation recognize it.
I would support expansion of Christian culture, but expansion of Western liberal culture is also not a welcome thing in most of the world, and for a good reason. When you say "Western liberal culture" you probably mean tolerance of opposite views, pluralistic society, representative government. That is what it means in the Christian context; as we lose Christianity as the rule of life, these become empty slogans; to non-Christian nations they ar simply meaningless. To the world outside of the US and Europe, western liberalism means destruction of traditional way of life, introduction of public vice, civil war, corrupt factional governments serving foreign interests. Naturally, the nations of the world resist that.
If we simply defended our turf, like retaliating for attacks on us, everyone would understand. If we had a moral society where people had superior ethical values (for example, had stable families raising chaste children), and wanted to teach others how to achieve that, again many would understand. But we took on that role of a cultural and political crusader, whereas secular liberal culture that we have -- as opposed to Christian culture -- is not attractive to many for many good reasons.
Western ideas of political and economic organization, a rule of law are inherently an EXISTENTIAL threat to the entire power structure of these societies, and the power brokers in these places know this. That's why as long as they could they tried to keep Western influences out, which is impossible in the day and age of Internet, cell phone, satellite TV, global trade, jet air travel and a decline of the physical restrictions to movement in a post Cold War era. Ironically, what makes the threat of terrorism greater to the free Western nations is also the same framework of conditions that threatens the despot in the Middle East and North Africa.
What you are witnessing in North Africa and the Middle East today is another example of the domino theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory (Although the write up in Wikipedia doesn't do it justice - but it makes the general point)
Let's say the US had not massively come in to help Germany, abandoned Berlin and W. Germany had imploded. What is the probability that the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria would have gone too? High. Likewise, after we abandoned Vietnam, what happened in Laos and Cambodia, and eventually was stopped at the borders of Thailand?
These sort of things can best be looked at as waves that sweep a region. A friend and I literally predicted what is happening today as soon as the government in Tunisia toppled and before Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, etc were in the news. You normally have some precipitating event......... and all the rest is history. I wish I could pick lottery numbers that well. lol
What you address I agree with, the modern Western culture is one of nihilism, hedonism, it's savage, crude, short sighted, ignorant.... whatever you want to use to describe it. Everyone points the finger at the other, blaming him and talking about how he's even lower than oneself, but in reality Western society as a whole is in decline and can best be described as a cesspool. But that's not what I meant. I meant as you properly assumed the more traditional meaning of the concept of what the world “liberal” really meant before it was perverted. Realize, Capitalism is in all reality amoral. It's neither good nor bad, it's simply what people make of it. You can spend the money in your pocket to help someone or buy some booze and a whore. But Capitalism is the ONLY economic organization/process that truly allows for freedom and liberty in a society. Unfortunelty, as you correctly point out, a society without righteous values and morals buys the booze and whores.
Yes, there is such a thing as a domino effect, and we were right to fight for Germany and for Vietnam. But then the enemy had a sponsor, the Soviet Union. Al Qaeda cannot be compared to that, they are a purely reactive and barely organized force. They are also, like it or not, a popular movement, just like Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. Bring a rule of law to the Middle East and you may end up with a stronger enemy than before, and ten bucks a gallon of gas, easy.
But Capitalism is the ONLY economic organization/process that truly allows for freedom and liberty in a society
First, I would take issue with that. Moral laws allow for liberty. Capitalism is merely a market: buy booze and whores on the free market and soon enough you will not have any freedom left, including in the end even economic freedom. Capitalism functioned very well in America while it was a nation whose moral law was the Christian Bible. Now that we have lost it, as you look around yourself you don't see much freedom: we pay half of what we earn to the government in the form of various taxes, fees and regulations, our children are raised by the government, our pensions are run by the government, real estate market, -- the cornerstone of popular capitalism -- is manipulated by an international band of shysters, it is impossible to start a manufacturing business without an army of lobbyists in DC, access to labor in China, and money in international finance markets. We no longer have capitalism, we have global crony capitalism badly managed by governmental bureaucracies. This kind of thing is existential threat to us; it also is a threat to them of course, but my sympathies are with this country.
It's not necessarily our religion that is the key. Christianity is a religion that historically contained the values/attributes that made for a successful society, but so have others through time. Rather than pinning it on a religion, define the attributes that we and other cultures in time have also had that made them successful.
Successful cultures are:
1. Time sensitive: Its hard to be militarily successful or complete complex economic tasks without a high degree of timeliness, the idea that one has to have something completed or be in a certain place and time to complete a task. Not all cultures are time sensitive. Even among European cultures the Mediterranean nations tend to be far less time sensitive than the Northern ones. Greece for example is very time insensitive. How can complex tasks in society be completed if merging events in time and space such as at a large construction project are near impossible because no one is where they are supposed to be, doing what they are supposed to be doing. The synchronization and coordination gets all out of whack in these cultures.
2. The willingness to use force: Cultures that rise and at least stay in power for a while have the “will” to take what they need or protect what they created. There will always be others out there that want what you have and if you're not willing to fight for it, they will simply take it from you. Rome got it's start that way. A bunch of farmers being ransacked occasionally they eventually got fed up and began arming themselves, protecting what they achieved through their labor.
3. Embrace technology/engineering/science/knowledge: Even if primitive by today's standards, this was true when comparing the ancients as well. Successful societies do not reject the idea of having machines, tools, new weapons, the skills in engineering and architecture improve their efficiency, lethality and effectiveness. Both in fighting and economically speaking, those cultures that embrace change and innovation are ones that thrive. Realize, that there are many cultures like the Amish out there that reject technology. Is a society as in many Muslim countries where women are regarded a pure breeding machines and not educated one that makes the most of it's human capital?
4. Rejection/acceptance of corruption: Societies with a high acceptance of corruption are doomed. These societies are generally operating with a low economic efficiency and all sorts of other issues. The Arab culture is very corrupt. They don't even see corruption for what it is!
Some nice examples (worth looking at):
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table (Look at all the nations on top and all those on bottom)
The map view makes it very obvious what's happening here: http://fryeblog.blog.lib.mcmaster.ca/category/chart-of-the-day/
5. A common vision and cultural identity: Societies that are heterogeneous, a direction we've been heading in ever since we began embracing diversity (vs. assimilation) do not last, and are not successful in amassing wealth and power. They succumb to internal strife, sectarian differences etc. and are unable to to pull together in one direction simultaneously in times of need or even when it's economically beneficial because of economy of scale, risk mitigation etc.
6. The value of children and the institution of family: The basic building block of any society is CHILDREN. Have none, and you go extinct. Not a hard concept to understand, but many societies have gone under because of this: Sparta, Aztecs....... When you sacrifice 2% of your population per year (viable and healthy people), don't be surprised if after 20 - 30 years your civilization just sort of fizzles out of existence. Look at what is happening with Russia today? The Germans....... When you embrace this cult of death the results are long term very predictable. Societies that de facto reduce the family and no longer produce offspring are short lived.
7. A society that has a concept of personal culpability and self determinism in some form: Societies with a deterministic outlook on life are generally less successful. The Arab is a good example with his “Insha’Allah.” The Arab is not a Prussian soldier responsible for cleanliness and maintenance of his equipment. Some societies get so caught up in the after life, that they ignore the present. Some have a near fatalistic view and essentially stick their heads in the sand and there is no more personal accountability or even a concept of behavior/actions = outcome.
8. A value in output: Societies that value efficiency, precision, production are more successful. We would call this the “Protestant Work Ethic:” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic The idea that the widget maker that makes better widgets or builds more of them is worth more! The concept that their is value in labor, that it's ones duty to expend oneself to make as much and as well as possible: Think Rosie the Riveter. This is in stark contrast to the modern American liberal that wants to guarantee outcomes (education, health care, retirements.....etc) regardless of decisions and behaviors made.
There have been societies that are non Christian that were highly successful. While I am Christian and believe God, Jesus, what the Bible tells me, I also understand that there were other societies predating the new testament and thereafter that were successful without ever hearing the gospel: pre Christian/Constantine Rome, Egypt, some of the Chinese dynasties, in Japan.......... However, you will be hard pressed finding a successful society that lacks these attributes in mention. Often what happens is that a culture rises to power, looses the cultural traits that made them successful, and like the Greeks or Romans, fades into obscurity. Even though the Romans had adopted Christianity!
As an individual, your true degree of self determinism is limited and will vary from culture to culture, depending on how much freedom there is within it. However, while at the micro level you might have bad luck through illness, weather etc. and end up poor or ill even though working hard and doing the right things, at the macro level it appears that it is near entirely “culture” that defines success and failure. Cultures in austere resource depleted conditions STILL rose to power and amassed wealth when they adopt collectively certain traits. Literally, societies living in very harsh climates, with little resources, poor soil to grow things etc STILL managed to become wealthy and powerful, while some cultures with massive resources, fertile earth failed. Arguing that necessity is the mother of invention and that it is "because" of necessity that these cultures rose to power and prosperity is backwards and one can find many examples of cultures in resource rich and fertile soil that also rose to power. What did Germany and Japan have after WWII to catapult them to where they are today? Both are fairly resource depleted nations, yet both rose from the ashes like a phoenix.
It's culture that makes wealth, not wealth that makes culture. Mike Tyson is still who he is, even after making his millions, and he will most likely die poor as many of these people that rise to success that way do. German prisoner of war in WWII held in the US were afforded a large degree of movement and freedom in their activities. They weren't abused and we provided for them the essentials as required for POW’s. Their camps by the time the war ended had theaters, sit down cafeteria style eating lounges, they were growing additional vegetables to augment what they received as rations...... because they built that. They created the conditions they lived in and frankly they weren't that bad! They lived BETTER than the civilian in Germany having to live with food rationing etc.
Let's take a look at the Arab-Muslim world.
The bad: High acceptance of corruption, not very embracing of knowledge in reality (women are kept down, anything that contradicts their religion is suppressed........), very fatalistic/determinist in outlook, not very time sensitive for the most part.
The good: They will use force (not good for us when they see their interests and ours colliding), they have a collective identity, they have a concept of culpability and they breed quickly.
Here's another example of culture makes wealth, not vice versa:
http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/lottery-winners-go-broke-prospect-theory/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/70165/winning_the_lottery_curse_or_a_blessing.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/powerball-winner-cursed/story?id=3012631
Most people, that were in debt, behind in payments will be so again after a while even after they win the jackpot (even millions). Only those that had control of their finances and weren't living above their means before they won, actually hold onto and make something of their wealth long term. Culture makes wealth. Go into the American ghetto's, look around and you see broken houses, fences, walk ways......... How much money does it really take to buy a bucket of paint? You'll see people sitting on their bum, people hanging out.....but no one is painting, nailing, digging, sweeping, doing something that will make their surroundings better. They are all waiting for a miracle from the government or lottery.
The problem with this new threat posed through Islam is that it doesn't have a single leader that beats his shoe on the table and screams “We will bury you” (Khrushchev)! The layperson has a hard time understanding the threat because you really can't put your arm around it as with the “Evil Empire” (Reagan). Americans have a very difficult time calling a spade a spade anyhow when it comes to the super sensitive concepts of race, religion, sex, national origin, and today sexual orientation.
You can mix any of these religions and not have a problem, but as soon as you add Muslims to the mix with any other, things go “boom.”
Hindu and Muslim - India, boom.
Buddhist and Muslim - Thailand, boom.
Jews and Muslims - Israel, boom.
Christians and Muslims - UK, USA, wherever, boom.
You can mix Buddhist, Hindu, Christians and Jews and they can get along. Sure, I think the other is wrong like he thinks I'm wrong, but we're not going to engage in decapitations over it. However, you can't add Muslims to any one of them because then things go boom and decapitations do happen. All religions know they're right. Most religions try to convert others to their faith. But Islam is mutually exclusive, violent, oppressive to others when in charge. Even the most liberal (in the traditional sense of the word) Muslim nations like Turkey are still places where they heavily discriminate against non Muslims. Islam “as practiced” is not a tolerant religion, but converts at the edge of the sword and there is a reason why they are super sensitive to the term crusade as Bush once used. It is “they” who are on a crusade, may that be Osama, Iran with her Islamic Revolution, the Wahhabi Saudi’s, those calling themselves Palestinians (They are of no relation to the Philistines) and wanting to wipe Israel off the map. The crusades to many of them happened yesterday. In their Mosques in Europe, here in the US, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers and Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers and their lives, the pledge of allegiance, the meaning of the flag herself are not the theme of discussion. lol
This problem ain't going away anytime soon and what is happening in the Middle East now might seem like a change of course to some, but it's not. The fundamental ideological cleft between two very different world views and one being mutually exclusive and intolerant of all others remains. This will rage on for decades and Osama, Iraq, Libya, etc are simply battlefields in a much larger ideological struggle they very much so see and perceive and we in the West deny. We will try our best to make Libya into a secular event and America for political reasons will try hard to pretend she's not the puppet master, but in the end, even Libya will become a battle in this ideological struggle. You can't stop it, no matter how nice and good that Obama speech feels.
You are correct that there are cultures superior to other cultures. You are wrong to divorce culture from Christianity. Further, it is not important to be successful, it is important to be right. It is the wrong in others that gives us a permission to fight war on them. Wars therefore are justly used to correct a wrong; the party that has not the Truth may not use force in order to be "successful", -- it lost already.
But truth is Jesus Christ. Truth is a person, -- that particular person. It is not a thing or a thought: it comes from the mouth of God Who makes it the truth.
It is possible, in the historical perspective, to be a reflection of some truths and be not Christian. Such were many societies of the Antiquity, that now perished. Today, some truths are presented in an un-Christian setting. So, a Muslim society can approximate justice because Islam is, after all, a Christian heresy. Pagan Japan can as well, because their spiritual intuition even without the light of the Gospel, has lead them to some universal truths.
Rome perished as a pagan creation that grew into Christianity. Medieval Europe -- I include Byzantium -- was Rome's successor, which perpetuated the best of Rome and placed it in the proper, Christian setting. While we don't like to see in ourselves an extension of Medieval Europe this is what we are: we exist coasting on the values of the Middle Ages. We better not lose them. If we do, it won't be another "more successful" society to replace us: anti-Christ will emerge, and then the history will end.
Our role is unique because we are charged with the lamp of Christianity. If we act as God told us to, we shall be successful and truth will be with us. If instead we act so that to survive better for our own sake, we shall lose as a society.
I think, America is entering a neo-Pagan period. The itch to get into wars is a sign of that. We better reform ourselves and soon.
Well, yes, but you cannot fight a religion, which Islam is, with physical weaponry. You fight them with truth. Which is, see above, a uniquely Christian thing.
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.