Useful Fools

About that second group: As an American of Middle Eastern descent, allow me to be the first to say, Damn right!

As an American born in America, I don't see what all the fuss is about?

There's one problem with your racist assumptions. The two persons who perpetrated the second largest terrorist attack on American soil, the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people, many of them defenseless children, completely gutted a federal building, and showed absolutely no remorse, were both white, middle aged men. They came from middle class american families; they were NOT Arabic.

Therefore, I think everyone who is a white, middle class male like Timothy McVeigh should willingly and reasonably expect to face extra suspicion and extra precautions. They should accept this with grace - doing so is their contribution to the nation their parents adopted when they immigrated. (We're all the children of immigrants, some of us have just been here longer than others.)

To those white men aged 30-50 who are willing to undergo these sacrifices, we owe our thanks; To those who do not, our contempt. Isn't America worth a little extra harassment and a body cavity search?

I'm always amazed at the poor quality of thinking that occasionally appears in the comment section.

Your argument is totally and completely innumerate, and hence utterly irrelevant.

The *fact* that radical Islam has declared war on us, killed many, many more americans than McVeigh, and has stated again and again its intent, should give you a clue.

The *fact* that almost all of these people are of middle eastern descent should give you another clue.

But obviously it didn't. You are part of the problem - combating the threat today is requires at least a modicum of critical thinking skills, something you obviously are devoid of.

Think about it... oh never mind... that's asking the impossible.

Ooops, sorry! You, as a white, middle aged American, have already been signed up to receive extra prejudice, suspicion, and precautions. By watching over 5 hours of Fox News a week, you've received this benefit free of charge. These benefits will translate in real life to an extra 3-4 hours delay at the airport, suspicious glances and/or harassment from cops, and an occasional beating from a stupid redneck. Not to mention bonus harassment for your wife and children, etc. You'll need to prove you're one of those "good ones..." not one of the bad ones... you know, one of those ones who's been waging the invisible, non-existant campaign of terror that has killed 0 people in America AFTER the attacks of September 11. You know, during all those 'orange alerts' where nothing happened.

I'm so glad you'll be willing to undergo this sacrifice with grace. Remember, there's no backing out now. You'll need to change your skin color if you want to....please apply to the department of dumb, ignorant, Ann Coulter fans.

Tell ya what, buddy...

I volunteered for and served in the US military. I put up with a lot more harassment than I am asking these folks to do, for my country. I put up with danger and hardship. I lost good friends to that danger.

So I don't have a lot of sympathy for whiners like yourself, and I don't have a problem with asking other Americans who are in a unique position to do their own part to help in this new war.

So nice try with your rhetorical trick, but I've already done the service, suffered the inconvenience of giving YEARS to my country in service of a war (Vietnam). If you want to find a chicken-hawk to deploy that false but effective rhetorical attack, you picked on the wrong guy!

Oh, and as to the campaign of terror after 9-11... while you cleverly said "in America," an irrelevant distinction... have you forgotten the Americans who died in Afghanistan? How about those who died in Bali - innocent American civilians? Those who died at LAX for the mere sin of standing near the El Al counter? Those who have been murdered in Israel? Those who died in our military fighting these murderous bastards?

Then there is this peculiar trick of yours of picking 9-11. It didn't start there!

Hundreds of American peacekeeping troops in Lebanon were killed by Arab militants in 1983. Americans were killed on airliners (remember Robert Stetham?) and a cruise ship (remember Leon Klinghoffer)? They were killed in embassies (including a friend of mine's cousin in Beirut), they were killed on the USS Cole, Daniel Pearl was killed by Al Quaeda in Pakistan after 9-11, the black muslim terrorist Washington snipers killed a number of innocent civilians last year.

So you can insert your tiny cranium into your spacious anus and ignore the fact that these people have *pledged* to kill Americans, are killing Americans *today* in Afghanistan and Iraq, have sworn to keep on killing us until we all become muslims. You can ignore the many incidents that have been prevented by our capture of these crazies... incidents which they were planning which they have bragged about to our people.

Yep... you can go on living happily in your delusional world...you know...peace in our times and all that. You are like Neville Chamberlain after his meeting with Hitler... blind to the danger... except you have no excuse because the bad guys are telling us their intentions and have acted on them in the worst attack ever on US history and in many attacks before and after. And they keep trying and only by increasing our precautions and by good luck have we been able to stop them!

I have tried to figure out how you came to the figure "0 people in America" since 9-11. I guess, first of all, you carefully weasel worded it to ignore those Americans who were killed by these creeps outside America. Very clever! Who cares what happens to Americans outside the country, right? But silly. And then I guess those killed at LAX weren't Americans... just Jews. Is that how you think? They were killed by an Egyptian Arab with ties to Islamic terrorist organizations. Or how about those killed by the Washington snipers? Oh... they aren't Al Quaeda, right? They aren't Arabs, right? But they were Muslims and were killing out of professed Muslim hatred, and one was a member of a muslim hate group.

But I guess since we have been successful (so far) in preventing their attacks on the US that there is no war, no danger. Its all just a joke. We have no reason to take precautions. After all, they killed 0 Americans in America since 9-11.

Well, on 9-10, they had killed 0 Americans in the US since 1993, so I guess we were really safe then too, by your logic!

Thank you for proving my point, that you cannot address a simple fact or comment without raving and ranting. What does the fact that YOU served in Vietnam have to do with anything? Besides the fact that you didn't learn anything about the futility of war?

(I know you'll rave and rant some more, go right ahead...) But will it really prove your point that YOU FEEL that because several Arabic people, many of them not permanent citizens of this country, committed an attack on America, all the other Arabic citizens should be forced to pay? My correlation is valid, and you know it. If you want all Arabic Americans to sacrifice because of 9-11, then all white americans should sacrifice because of McVeigh.

It is only your blind and stupid prejudice that prevents you from seeing both murders as equally horrendous.

Oh, but I forget. You were a Vietnam vet, somehow that makes your ideas and opinions carry more weight than other people's.

Just because you're white doesn't make you right. In fact, it makes you stupid, because you seem to be blinded by your skin color and rendered unable to think correctly.

You may be interested to know that over 60% of all people currently enlisted in the US Army have said they will not reenlist when their tour of duty is up. In fact, the 100,000 protesters on the Mall in DC this past weekend were made up of largely military families and relatives, as well as friends.

People in the military are really tired of all of this. Maybe that's why Bush's popularity level is below 50%, General Clark is almost guaranteed the election next year, and we will have a NEW PRESIDENT and will be the hell out of Iraq and Afganistan (where we should never have gone in the first place.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1070641,00.html

(Listen to the words of some soldiers, if you don't believe me.)

Speaking of ranting and raving, did you read what you wrote?

I bring up my military service simply to show that I am not being hypocritical in asking others to make a small sacrifice on behalf of their country. Lots of people make sacrifices, mine was minor. What I am asking of middle eastern looking Americans is even more minor. Why middle eastern looking? Because *statistically* they represent a greater risk. Your peculiar equality of McVeigh and the Arabs shows either total innumeracy or a stubborn unwillingness to look at reality rather than live in a world of your own mythmaking.

Speaking of mythmaking, even the normally generous crowd estimates of the Washington Post said there were only 10,000 protesters on the mall. And of course your assertion that they were made up largely of military families is utter and total crap, but I am not surprised. By the way, as a long haired guy, I had no trouble infiltrating one of the earlier demonstrations put on by the same sponsors, interviewing the various folks who attended, and photographing them. I encountered exactly one person who was military family. The rest were loons. You might enjoy my report and photos. Or you could read the article about the San Francisco "demonstration" here.

Anyone... go on... call me some more names... live in your dream world of illogical moral equivalences... wish for the restoration of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, as you seem to...

It won't make any difference, because you are just one little nut in a nation that no longer listens to your sort of asshat illogic. If they cared, you would have had a million people at that rally, every weekend.

I think the napalm messed up your brain. You're the only 'Vietnam vet' who i've ever heard actually cheering on more war. I'd REALLY like to see proof that you actually served in Vietnam. How long did you serve there? Did you actually fight? Or, let me guess, you sat on your ass while other people did the fighting around you?

What's really sad is that you spend all this time on your blog and nobody even reads it. For laughs, I linked it to a humor site, and that's why we've all been posting comments lately. You don't want to know what we've been posting about you on the site where I linked you. Even the conservatives on the site think you're lame.. and damn, it takes a lot for them to say that.

You are a sad, lonely man. I say lonely because nobody ever posts here, except for you. I kind of pity you, and I won't be returning to comment any more, because I have other blogs to comment on that people actually read.

I think that there will probably come a time when you see the light. It will probably be right before you die. If not, then what happens after death will be difficult for you to absorb. Life is all about a search for truth and meaning; you seem unable to accept basic facts. Your country sent you into a bloody, long, meaningless war and you are proud of that? Even L.B.J. and then Nixon admitted privately that they saw no sense in Vietnam; they felt guilty for the thousands of thousands of deaths that they might have saved. Yet you're proud of this?

If you actually did serve in Vietnam, that is simply sad.

If you're pretending that you served in Vietnam, that is even sadder. I can't think of a way you are not willingly blind.

So goodbye- wallow in your blindness and stupidity; embrace the average; the dumb, what they tell you on TV. We have ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia.

Yes, I served in Vietnam. I have the DD-214 to prove it. No, I didn't get fried by napalm, because I didn't participate in combat (although I watched some). I was, however, a crewmember in a combat aircraft (P-3 Orion) - we just were never sent to do any fighting. And btw, I never claimed to be a Vietnam Vet (although I am) if you read what I wrote.

But what's the point of this? Why attack my service record? Just for fun? By the way, I know plenty of Vietnam Vets who were and are for this war, and I know plenty of active duty military who were and are for it. You probably just hang around with the phoney VV hippies who frequent leftist demonstrations and whine about the raw deal they imagine they got from the government.

What have you done for your country, huh? Ever been in the military? Ever been a disaster volunteer? Ever done anything other than sit around Washington, feel superior, and bitch at other people?

I see no evidence of it. All I know is that Y.A.F.I!

I made a sacrifice. As I said, it was a minor one. I could have been in the thick of it (as my best friend who joined up with me was) or I could have been stationed in the Med and had nothing but a lark. I could have been killed in a P-3 crash, as one of my best friends in the squadron was, but I wasn't. Once you join, they own your ass..., and your fate is random, you follow their orders, and THAT is the sacrifice.

I am proud that I served my country. I am proud that I volunteered to do so. I am proud to know people who gave much, much more than I did in that war. And I think I probably know a heck of a lot more about the meaning of the war than you ever will.

And I am ashamed of my country for deserting the South Vietnamese people in 1975. I am disgusted with the left for forcing that by cutting off ALL US aid to them, leaving them to succumb to an massive armored invasion. It was a shameful time. It sparked a lot of my disgust for the left (as did a lot of the rhetoric and behavior I heard at peace rallies after I left the service).

As to your attempt to hurt my feelings with the nonsense about where you linked to me. Good luck, asshole. I've had professionals go after me (do you know what a drill instructor is? Ever heard of SERE school?). Punks like you aren't exactly what I would consider an imminent threat to my self esteem!

Of course, I don't really believe what you say anyway. You log on here with a pseudonym. You don't name the site. You don't debate, you just throw insults and illogic.

Now as to sad and lonely... one has to wonder why you spend so much time here on my blog. I at least have a creation that I have worked on, and I *know* how many people read it because I have the web logs. And before I blogged, I argued with idiots of your persuasion on Usenet, which was quite satisfying. Your comments tell me that I got to you with the last response... you have nothing left to do but blow a verbal fart at me and run scuttling from the field of battle. If you really are getting your rocks off by showing your buddies how you can piss off an old vet, then you really are a sorry pile.

Fortunately, since we on the right are finally starting to take back the media from lefist idiots, it may not be as important in the future for us to blog about the idiocy and lack of critical thinking inherent in leftist thought.

Oh, and your history about Vietnam is completely wrong in one specific fact. I'll let you try to figure it out.

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Moore, in lieu of your comment, “Americans of Middle Eastern descent…can reasonably expect to face extra suspicion and extra precautions. They should accept this with grace – and doing so is their contribution to their adopted nation.”
Does this mean that the extra suspicion and extra precautions, which I translate to mean, subtle discrimination, (this is my perception), by the word ‘acceptable,’ does this mean it is right?
The Japanese-Americans during World War II, many whom were second and third generations, were forced to evacuate their homes, having to sell them for sometimes a tenth of the cost. They were incarcerated in chain link barracks for the duration of the war, with no possessions, no country, oftentimes separated from their families. In that time-period, this was considered ‘acceptable,’ as hostilities raged over another ‘terrorist’ act, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I use that term loosely because the attack was engaged over a military base, although it was peacetime for the U.S. A generation later, politicians who’d been children at their fathers’ knees, whose knowledge of the war came from nightly radio announcements, appeared on television and decried those once ‘acceptable’ acts, and made reparations to many of those families, although unfortunately in many cases, it done was posthumously.
As a person of non-middle eastern descent, a student majoring in evolutionary sciences, and a Hispanic minority, (all this just for background), I can only sit back and wonder at the rationalizations and justifications people make to others for the understanding of hate. And that they should do so “with grace?”
This country has a long, history of discrimination, suppression, and sociological, subtle and not so subtle, warfare, which although it is not unique throughout the world, IS unique under the idealism of freedom and tolerance that this country operates under. Freedom, tolerance, and acceptance should be a shroud that drapes our ideas towards others; whether we are engaged in a ‘war’ with them or not. An act begins with the idea. And once an idea is self-justified, just about any act can be rationalized.
September 11 was wrong. Yet, the constant cycle of avenging acts will only cost us more innocents; on both sides of the fence. Extremists should not be an issue to the argument; that’s why they are called Extremists, Radicals, and all those other labels.
Conflicts over ideals, religion, skin color, descent, and values have raged for centuries, in foreign lands, and on this very soil. Simply speaking, it needs to stop. No man is better than the other under the basic premise of our Constitution. If Americans are disliked in other lands, it is time to stop and ask: why. Not retaliate with more dislike, more intolerance, and more justifications that lead to horrendous acts. And I speak of those that have occurred between all sides, not just ours.
Middle-Easterners should not accept suspicion and precautions in this country. Just like the Japanese should not have accepted suspicion in the forties, just like the Native Americans should not have accepted suspicion and precaution for a hundred and fifty years (that was the least of it), and the many other minorities who have suffered due to prejudice spawned by events created by others, terrorist or not.
The only contribution ‘acceptance’ will make is justification to fear of a class of people. It is that fear that has festered and fostered where we are today, with more innocents, who do not understand what that fear is about, dying.

a.j.a.

No, it does not make all of the harm done to those American citizens valid. There was (although this is rarely mentioned) a Japanese fifth column in the United States, but it represented a very small number of those persecuted. It may have been prudent at first to round up the Japanese on the West Coast until the situation was understood and their indiviual cases could be analyzed. Those then released deserved an apology and funds to replace whatever money or business they lost during their detention.

What actually happened, which was imprisonment throughout the war, was not appropriate or morally acceptable.

Should terrible events (far worse than 9-11) happen, Arabs or Muslims might be targets of uncontrolled mobs of enraged Americans. I would not at all advocate the creation or tolerance of such mobs (and would hope law enforcement would prevent this). However, I have been around human beings long enough, and studied enough history and psychology, to understand that this kind of event might happen.

It is one reason that I think we should take all possible means to prevent such attacks, because if our citizenry becomes sufficiently enraged, the consequences to innocents who are in the countries of our enemies, and unfortunately those in our country who look like they share the nationality or religion of our enemy will suffer along with those who deserve it - the ones who actually set up the attacks.

It is also a reason that those who might be the target of such irrationality have a duty to themselves to take steps to minimize the probabilities.

Many people think that citizenship comes with no obligations. Others believe that everyone must always be treated alike. Many believe that any use of racial characteristics in making decisions is always wrong. I believe it is usually wrong, but when it one of the inputs which can significantly improve screening for the prevention, not of ordinary crime, but of horrors such as 9-11, to not use that information is to devalue the lives of those who could be saved over the embarassment or inconvenience of those who, through no fault of their own, require more scrutiny in order to significantly improve the odds of preventing such an event.

That I need explain this in such excruciating detail is sad, because it means that slogans and hard, unbending to reality ideologies control too many minds. That I am wasting time explaining it is a personal weakness.

After 9-11, a Sikh was murdered in a nearby city because he wore a turban (I am in the Phoenix metropolitan area). This was both predictable and absolutely unjustified, and a terrible tragedy. The murderer has been brought to justice, but that doesn't bring back this friendly man, father, an brother to his mourning family.

You may be a student in evolutionary sciences (which is a fascinating area of study - my daughter is a systems neuroscientist and of course had to study ecolutionary subjects), but you are obviously not a student of psychology, humanity or logic.

You infer "rationalization of hate" in my writing. How do you come to that conclusion? You imply that I hate Arabas and/or Muslims.

That is offensive and incorrect, although not unexpected. Not unexpected because the poison of multicultural ideology is so strong in our colleges anduUniversities, the ideology of race and ethnicity combined with the Marxist ideas of class conflict and the incessant belief that all problems are caused by "oppressors".

I hate demonstrating non-racism by referring to the race of those around me, and if you are serverely enough conditioned, you won't accept it anyway, but here goes...

One of my best friends, now a proud American citizen, who happens to be Arab, came here after growing up in the Arab world. He would explain to you how wrong you are in your presumption about me. Another friend is Iranian. Another is 50% mestizo Mexican, 25% Navajo, and 25% Apache. My wife and daughter carry Algonquin blood. My sister-in-law is native Japanese. I was in a meeting of five people at my company yesterday with a man from India, one ofrom Iran, and a Jewish man from the United States.

I would love to find out I am wrong in my presumption about the level of conditioning and blind acceptance you have accepted about issues such as race, ethnicity, current and past injustices in those areas, and the responsibilities of citizens of the United States.

What I find annoying is that some people are so quick to assume hatred or racism or any other sort of 'ism instead of employing logic and careful reading. I realize you have an reason - you are young and hence prone to strong views, and a college student no doubt exposed to many incorrect and hateful ideas - probably in the area of multiculturalsim and vicimology. You may have experienced genuine racial slurs in our society (of course, as an asthmatic, I experienced plenty of slurs because of my concomitant lack of athletic ability, but I understand that slurs are common among young males).

That you mentioned your Hispanic identity makes me suspect that you may have been conditioned by identity politics, one of the greatest barriers in our country to the success of the various minorities on whose behalf it is supposedly adopted. It also confers upon you privileges which I do not have, such as Affirmative Action (now concealed by various college entrance tricks).

How dare you infer from my suggestions that I have hatred for any particular ethnic group?

I have hatred for people who hurt other people when it is not justified. I have hatred especially for those who kill or torture. I don't care about the color of their skin or their religion. Their actions speak far louder. I have strong dislike for hatred or anger based on sloppy thinking, and even less respect for hatred and anger based on the inherently illogical and dangerous philosophy of multiculturalsm. I'd rather we let nature take its course, which would result in America being populated by people whose racial makeup is mixed and also unimportant.

I can tell that your view of this country and it's history is highly skewed. Again, your youth and the poisonous meme's you have been exposed to make it understandable, but not excusable.

You are lecturing me about many things I know more about than you. My neighbor, when I was very young, was a Japanese two years out of the camps. My sister-in-law is from Japan, and I love her like I do all members of our family. My brother lived in Saudi Arabia for two years, and has many Arab friends.

You see, unlike yourself - an apparent player in the identity politics realm - I care about what people do, not who they are.

But I also am rational enough to recognize that in some extraordinary circumstance, race matters, and unfortunately, the age of megaterrorism is that circumstance. Just as police broadcast the race of a suspect in a BOLO, it makes sense in security situations to consider the race (and in this case the religion) of passengers, as abhorrent as that is.

I am not advocating persecution, because persecution is done out of hate or to take advantage of somebody. I am advocating something far more obvious: acceptance of a situation which unfortunately exists - the simple probability that terrorism, in this day and age, is much more likely to be committed by a Muslim than by any one else, even though the probability of any individual Muslim doing so or even approving of such is quite low.

As somebody who claims to be studying science, you should understand how Bayesian statistical analysis leads to that unfortunate but true conclusion.

My Arab friend chose to take his first vacation after 9-11 without flying, because he didn't want to make people uncomfortable. He looks a lot like Mohammed Attah. He is an American citicizen, proud of it, and works very hard contributing to our country.

In December, 2001, we found ourselves on a long flight surrounded by Iranians. My daughter immediately struck up a conversation in Farsi - not good Farsi - but Farsi, much to the delight of the elderly Iranian woman sitting next to her.

I grew up in Albuquerque, on land that was stolen by the United States from the original Spanish (not Mexican, btw) landholders in violation of a treaty. The last armed rebellion in the United States, led by Reies Lopez Tijerina, took place in New Mexico. One of my friends was a friend of his.

You fail to understand that blind adherence to the precepts of any ideology is to be willfully blind.

We do, however, share a goal. We want these conflicts to stop. As a young person, you may be more sanguine about this than I am. I once thought that the right ideas would end war. I was very wrong, as I have learned.

I am also a strong proponent of what we are doing in Iraq, although some of the details are wrong. I correspond with Iraqis and soldiers about the situation.

I believe that by helping the Iraqis achieve democracy (and the bouyant economy they can all enjoy if there is not too much corruption), we help ourselves. We plant a seed of democracy in a garden full of crab grass. By allowing Iraqis to be free, we drive a wedge between the people of adjoining lands and their rulers, because those people also desire freedom.

We do not act out of hate. We certainly sought vengeance in Aghanistan, but against Al Qaeda dn the Taliban, vicious gangs that ruled Afghanistant, not the people of Afghanistan. Look at how few innocents we killed and look at how much better a government they now have.

We are doing the same in Iraq, except the entire strategy is preventative. Of course, the fact that we ended the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein is frosting on the cake - we have (if we win) freed another 25 million people.

We could have destroyed the Saddam Regime by massive firepower. Instead, because our goal was to establish a free society (our selfish goal and our humanitarian goal are congruent), we did as little damage as possible. We even used bombs filled only with concrete to destroy tanks parked near houses - an idea that an Air Force person at Diego Garcia figured out.

So you need to understand what we are doing and why we are doing it. Obviously our primary goal in the war (Iraq is merely a theater of conflict) is to reduce terrorism by weapons of mass destruction. If you read elsewhere in this blog, you can find why that was critical, and why it was a very valid worry with Iraq, and why failure to find large stocks of WMDs does not change that at all.

You say:
Conflicts over ideals, religion, skin color, descent, and values have raged for centuries, in foreign lands, and on this very soil. Simply speaking, it needs to stop. No man is better than the other under the basic premise of our Constitution

You are right, but it will not stop. The reason it will not stop is the nature of man. People are not perfect and cannot be made that way by wishing, or as the Nazis and Communists imagined, by eugenics and indoctrination. Every society has a significant number of sociopaths (Sociopathic Personality Disorder). These people will do bad things if they can get away with it. They will kill or torture or cheat or steal.

Other people are often weak and can be lead by sociopaths and other demogogues. This is a fact. One can even find sociobiological theories about it, but they are hard to falsify and hence not very scientific.

You talk about America being disliked in other lands. Since I read papers and blogs from other lands, and correspond with people there, I have a pretty good understanding of why. From your post, it is clear that you do not.

I'll give you some hints without elaboration:

racism (theirs) - go to Japan sometime with someone who understands Japanese and you will see.

envy

propaganda

fear (because we are so powerful)

They look at us the way you looked at my writing - with an already wrong assumption and an oversensitivity to stereotypes. When you saw that I advocated racial profiling and that those being profiled accept it gracefully, it was like ringing a pavlovian racism bell in your ear. It cause the cessation of willingness to consider any possible alternative as to why I advocated what I do.

In your writing I see much of the same. You infer that we are avenging when we are not. The vengeance was against Bin Laden and the Taliban, but it was also an attempt to cleanse the world of some very dangerous and, yes, evil people.

You assume we act out of dislike. You obviously haven't been, as I have been, in touch with the soldiers.

You basically are painting us as people who act as bigots, and I find that sad. Sad because so many have been mislead into such though. Sad because the information is readily available (if you don't just swallow whole the pap from the professors and major news outlets). Sad because it leads to decisions that can be damaging to us and to the people you want us to stop killing.

You say

"The only contribution ‘acceptance’ will make is justification to fear of a class of people. It is that fear that has festered and fostered where we are today, with more innocents, who do not understand what that fear is about, dying. "

The only thing anywhere close to reality in that is that part of our concern, and yes fear, is of dying early at the hands of terrorists, or importantly, having our loved ones die that way.

Otherwise, your point is simply not well thought out, as I pointed out above.

As I have told some of the Iraqis I correspond with, someday I hope to travel to a free Iraq, where my wife can enjoy the archeological sites and I can do what I always do in foreign countries, talk to the people - hopefully the Iraqi bloggers.

My wife knows that if it wasn't for her and my daughter, I would be in Iraq right now helping with the reconstruction, as I helped in Mexico City in 1985 after the earthquake (I went there to relay via Amateur Radio information to relatives around the world as to the status of their loved ones. An untold story is that many who advocated the war took their skills to the Iraq out of idealism, not for the money. They went to rebuild.

If I were younger, I would have volunteered for the Armed Service to defend our country after 9-11, like I did for the Vietnam War.

I hope you take this in the spirit it was meant. I am simply asking you to consider alternate explanations for both my recommendations and many of the events in the world today. I hope you understand that my intentions are for the best for all except those who intend to hurt my fellow Americans, those Americans including yourself, of course.

Mr. Moore:

I am going to take your essay a point at a time and attempt to counterpoint it, so if I jump back and forth, forgive me. I will begin from the end and work forward. It seems I was not clear enough in my points, choosing to use broad statements under the assumption of implicit understanding. That they were not means that I will have to use clearer examples.

“You talk about American being disliked in other lands. Since I read papers and blogs from other lands, I have a pretty good understanding of why. From your post, it is clear that you do not. I’ll give you some hints without elaboration. Racism, envy, propaganda, fear, (because we are so powerful).”

I have a quote for you by David Reynolds. “People deny reality. They fight against real feelings caused by real circumstances. They build mental worlds of shrouds, oughts, and might-have-beens. Real changes begin with real appraisal and acceptance of what is. Then realistic action is possible.”
This works both ways. I have read Rising Sun by Michael Crichton, and although I personally have never been to Japan, it gave me quite a bit of insight into the culture. I don’t disagree with you completely on this point.
What I disagree with you is the implicit statement that I do not understand why Americans are disliked in other lands. I am not fully aware of the situation in most countries, so I will choose to elaborate upon the attitudes of the people that I believe I am familiar with. Also for background (which I will counter later the identity pigeonholes that I have been placed in) one of my closest friends is a student studying here in the United States from Lebanon. She grew up there, witnessed the carnage, saw ambulances shot up, hospitals bombed, and civilians murdered. With a great love of the United States, she came here, missing her home enormously but also sobbing the day the towers were bombed because of all the civilians, and innocents, incinerated and murdered. In her eyes, she felt as if the carnage would never go away. Yet, the United States, with all its benevolence, has also made some treacherous moves, moves, which resound years later, which I will also clarify with some examples.
Anyway, back to the quote, this brings me to my point. One of the greatest reasons that the U.S. is disliked in the Arab world comes from the creation of the state of Israel, and the continued support of Israel. As one columnist put it, the United States treats Israel as if it were the fifty-first state.
Consider these points and the historical background behind them. The nation of Palestine, the west bank, the Gaza strip, and Israel, of course, which once was a part of Palestine, is sacred to three major ideologies, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The Canaanites, (the original “Jews”) before Abraham, settled in that fertile land in 3000 B.C. From that time period, until the A.D. 600’s, no less than nine separate empires or cultures attacked, invaded, conquered, and/or enslaved the Canaanite/Israeli people. If you recall, the kingdom was split into two, Israel and Judah in 922 B.C., and that is the spawn of the name of Israel.
The last two cultures to occupy this area, starting from the A.D. 600’s, and I’m including Israel, Palestine, and surrounding areas that are being fought for in the present, were the Arabs and the Turks, mainly Islamic peoples. The Christians and their leaders, inspired the Holy Crusades (three of them), to take back such holy lands, (like Jerusalem) from the ‘infidels.’
They lost. The area of Palestine continues as an Islamic country.
In 1882, the first wave of a Zionist group reenters the now mostly Muslim country of Palestine, of which the amalgamation of the Islam culture and faith has had over a millennium to take hold and consider this place home. The British, who have tenuous control over the area, (due to the Western Imperialistic period-will discuss later), issued a declaration in 1917, named the Balfour Declaration, to the fledgling League of Nations, to establish a Jewish Nation in Palestine, because small pockets of Zionists and Muslims were fighting over the ‘birth right’ of the land.
Bad timing for the British, as this is when all hell broke loose throughout the world during WWI. If I remember correctly, the Ottoman Empire was on the Axis powers, against the U.S and Britain. This may have been a factor later on, in what would occur due to ‘reparations.’
In 1936, while WWII was beginning to roil in through the leadership of a madman, who used the always present anti-Semitism to further his cause, the fighting pockets broke out even more harshly in Palestine.
Now, a note here: Anti-Semitism has existed since before the death of Jesus Christ, from when the Romans occupied Israel, and the Israelites refused to pay their taxes to the empire. I’m going to use a biblical quote from Jesus to the Sadducees where he retorted, “Give unto God what is God’s and give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” This, like I said, is because of their refusal to pay taxes to the empire, which resulted in the A.D. 70 burning of the Temple, which in the present day remnant is called the Wailing Wall. Because of this, when the Israelites were finally suppressed, the only jobs they were relegated to were as tax collectors to the nation of Rome. Tax collectors were hated, for the obvious reason. As cultures migrated (an evolutionary trait), they took the Anti-Semitism with them, and throughout Europe, in the dark and middle ages, any form of banking was considered to be a ‘low’ skill job. This is an analogous theme with the lowest caste of Hindi, where members of a certain caste could only hold certain employment. During the propaganda of post-WWI in Germany, as Hitler was biding his time as an advisor to the Chancellor of Germany, his rhetoric was peppered with references to the Jews who held the money and who controlled the banks. He built upon this theme in order to persuade the Germans that economic crisis at that time could be fixed by seizing ‘their’ property from the Jews, a step stone to taking back ‘reparations’, and finally, what was rightfully ‘theirs’ in the world. That was how the persecution, incarceration, and eventual attempted decimation of the Jewish population took hold; banking and its history to the Roman Empire. They were simply a scapegoat placed there by history.
Now, in 1947, post WWII, Britain now approaches the United Nations to solve the ever-increasing conflicts between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine.
In 1948, just after three years of the ending of the genocide, the United Nations divides Palestine (without their consent) into two independent nations, of which the new nation of Israel holds the holy Jerusalem, supposedly as an internationalized city.
It takes the United States eleven minutes to recognize Israel as an independent nation, and almost 500,000 Muslims suddenly find themselves homeless in this new country. The events leading up to the Six-day war (helped and funded by the United States, which also raised Arabic tensions with us), were such events as the Kufr Qasim, in Palestine, massacre in 1956. After the Six-day war, the Gaza strip and Sinai, part of the British mandate for Palestine fell under Israeli control. East Jerusalem and the West Bank were taken from Jordan, and the Golan Heights were given up by Syria.
Current statistics today, for example, the Gaza strip holds 1.3 million Muslims, and only 7,500 Jewish settlers. (The number of Muslims was elevated in the area because the instant refugees created by the new Israeli nation had to go somewhere). Yet, all the peace agreements have gone to nil because when one side, mostly the Israelis, is asked to leave an area (by the U.S, by the P.L.O. and even by the United Nations), only some of the occupants do. And why should they not, when they are backed by the United States, who, again as the columnist said, treats Israel as the fifty-first state, or like a parent indulging a child.
And all this leads to…yes, I know exactly why the Arab world hates us. We have given them reason to. This little history is a study in logic itself.

Next point, “you assume we act out of dislike. You obviously haven’t been, as I have been, in touch with the soldiers.”
Now, sir, yes I have been in touch. A long-time friend of mine has just come back from deployment in the Army, and is getting ready to be redeployed again, to Baghdad.
A week ago, I had to lay the wreath at my school’s flagpole for a co-volunteer, student, Navy Seabee, and most importantly, my friend; killed by ‘an improvised explosive device.’
No task could have been more heart wrenching than this. Yet, I am not in some verbal pissing contest in order to prove who has had the most personal exposure or education. It is simply pedantic, don’t you think?

“We could have destroyed the Saddam Regime by massive firepower…our goal was to establish a free society…our selfish goal and our humanitarian goal are congruent.”
Simple counterpoint here: if the United States is so benevolent, then why was it noticeably absent in 1994, during the Rwanda genocide between the Hutus and the Tutsis? The tally: 800,000 Tutsis dead. The hindsight? Madeline Albright stated, “we should have done something.” This after walking amongst the bodies, the result of100 days of slaughter where the West (the U.S and the U.N) was besieged by calls for help by the Tutsi populace.
In response to this in a documentary, an important figure, (I want to say it was John Ashcroft, but I’m not 100% positive), stated, “The United States does not have allies. The United States has interests.”
If the interest is to reduce terrorism, then why have the weapons of mass destruction, touted so forcefully in the media before the Iraqi Campaign, now been called a ‘mirage,’ ‘elusive,’ and in some articles, ‘propaganda.’
In a country where civilians are dying of sniper shots, burns, and insanitary hospitals, it is very thoughtful that bombs filled only with concrete would be used.

On my commentary about ideals, you wrote, “you are right, but it will not stop. The reason it will not stop is the nature of man. People are not perfect and cannot be made that way by wishing, or as the Nazis and Communists imagined, by eugenics and indoctrination.”

Then simply speaking, man needs to evolve. Behavioral evolution is just as, if not, more important, than physical evolution. We, as in man, are reacting to the stimuli in the environment, but are not adapting, in the sense of changing our attitudes.
It is only the insane who do the same things repeatedly who wonder why they don’t get different results.
In the word s John Muir, “Tug on anything at all and you’ll find it connected to everything in the Universe.”
By ‘tugging’ on our view of other cultures, races, and the like, not only do we find it connected to everything in the Universe, but as history has shown, the world comes crashing down when that one culture says: enough.

This is enough for now. By the way, although I am Hispanic, there are no ‘identity politics’ involved.
The next paragraph down, you write, “how dare you infer from my suggestions that I have hatred for any particular ethic group.”
I don’t believe you have hatred for any particular ethnic group, but alas, you’ve profiled me with little knowledge of where I come from. It is the profiling I had an original problem with, the idea of ‘accepting it,’ and you turned around and did it to me. Hispanic is an add-on. I am second-generation, with blond hair, blue eyes, and skin that turns red after five minutes in the sun. I speak some Spanish, but fluency is hard and takes practice. In fact, my dress, my speech, my attitude, is more ‘mixed’ American than anything else; that generational transition period between the old world and the new. And no. There is no psychological bent from that generational transition that makes me a silly, collegiate liberal, or whatever it was, who does not understand logic. By the way, I am also a non-traditional college student, (making me much older than you probably think), which takes away the pigeon-hole of the academically institutionalized “poisoned multicultural ideology.” I’ve had plenty of time to develop and instigate my own ideology, with no blind adherence to any other ideology; case in point; I have no religious ideology as an agnostic. All I can definitely say is that I don’t know; and neither do the other 90% of the idiots with access to the first amendment and vocal cords. I’m still looking for that remaining ten percent so I can question them.
So, please don’t pigeon-hole, profile, classify, or whatever it is that is in Man’s nature to do. It’s also in Man’s nature to be violent, subjugate, dominate, destroy natural resources, and commit random acts of kindness throughout.
No, I never concluded that you were a bigot (a profiler, definitely, but maybe not a bigot), but rather, backing an option that would in effect, make relationships even more tense with those of of Middle-Eastern descent and/or ties.
This is what is unacceptable, alienating those who we want to help.

One of the greatest reasons that the U.S. is disliked in the Arab world comes from the creation of the state of Israel, and the continued support of Israel. As one columnist put it, the United States treats Israel as if it were the fifty-first state.

Now, a note here Anti-Semitism has existed since before the death of Jesus Christ, from when the Romans occupied Israel, and the Israelites refused to pay their taxes to the empire. I’m going to use a biblical quote from Jesus to the Sadducees where he retorted, “Give unto God what is God’s and give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

This has long been interpreted to mean that Christianity should not be the state, but separate from it. Jesus was a mystic, and was against the idea that religious leaders should be also temporal leaders. It was in fact the prescription for the secular state, where the head of state was not the head of the religion. The Catholic Church at times ignored this command, but in general has obeyed it.

As cultures migrated (an evolutionary trait), they took the Anti-Semitism with them, and throughout Europe, in the dark and middle ages, any form of banking was considered to be a ‘low’ skill job. This is an analogous theme with the lowest caste of Hindi, where members of a certain caste could only hold certain employment. During the propaganda of post-WWI in Germany, as Hitler was biding his time as an advisor to the Chancellor of Germany, his rhetoric was peppered with references to the Jews who held the money and who controlled the banks. He built upon this theme in order to persuade the Germans that economic crisis at that time could be fixed by seizing ‘their’ property from the Jews, a step stone to taking back ‘reparations’, and finally, what was rightfully ‘theirs’ in the world. That was how the persecution, incarceration, and eventual attempted decimation of the Jewish population took hold; banking and its history to the Roman Empire. They were simply a scapegoat placed there by history.

I have some disagreements with that analysis. For one, many Jews became very good at merchant trades, including banking (as a result of the evolution of a migratory group which was subject to frequent persecution - a different adaptation was followed by Gypsies, who became psychics and thieves (and of course we are speaking in generalities that don't apply to every individual)) . By the time Hitler was starting his persecution, he used envy of the wealth of urban Jews, tied to the implication their achievements were from conspiracies and cheating. In other words, by then urban Jews were far from the "untouchable" status (the lowest Indian caste) but were in fact quite successful. Why Hitler chose Jews as scapegoats is unknown. He also persecuted gypsies, homosexuals, priests, intellectuals, and in a different way, Slavs. But he had a special animus towards Jews.

Now, in 1947, post WWII, Britain now approaches the United Nations to solve the ever-increasing conflicts between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine.
In 1948, just after three years of the ending of the genocide, the United Nations divides Palestine (without their consent) into two independent nations, of which the new nation of Israel holds the holy Jerusalem, supposedly as an internationalized city.

One thing is missing here - the fact that there was never an independent nation of Palestine. Since 60 AD the region was controlled by various regimes, the last being the Ottomans from 1517 to 1917. Between the wars it was a protectorate of Britain as authorized by the League of Nations. The League of Nations on 24 July, 1922 set out a Mandate for Palestine which split it into 4 parts, 3 for Jordan (then called trans-Jordan) and 1 for a Jewish National Home.

In 1948, the United Nations proclaimed the UN Partition Plan and Israel proclaimed it's independence.

It takes the United States eleven minutes to recognize Israel as an independent nation, and almost 500,000 Muslims suddenly find themselves homeless in this new country.

This is a very distorted reading of the event. Less than 24 hours after the event, the tiny state of Israel was invaded by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Their intent was to destroy the state and kill all of the Jews. They asked Arabs in Israel to leave because they would otherwise be caught in the intended slaughter. There were also some actions by the Israelis in some areas to drive out the inhabitants, but in general the Israelis intended to create a multicultural state. The Zionists were highly utopian socialists. Those "homeless" Muslims are today 20% of the population of Israel and have the rights of citizenship including the right to vote and some serve in the Knesset. Having been invaded, Israel responded by defending itself in a 15 month long war. In 1949 an Armistice was signed with UN assistance, creating a larger Israel, because the original plan did not create a defensible area.

The events leading up to the Six-day war (helped and funded by the United States, which also raised Arabic tensions with us), were such events as the Kufr Qasim, in Palestine, massacre in 1956.

Very distorted. You leave out the massacres committed by Arabs throughout that period including during the war, when entire communities were butchered. Furthermore, the six day was a naked attempt to destroy Israel and seize its territory by the Arab powers, armed and encouraged by the Soviet Union. It started when Egypt moved troops into the Sinai and ordered U.N. peacekeeping forces out, blockaded the Straits of Tiran, and formed a military alliance with Jordan. Israel launched a pre-emptive defense, destroying the Egyptian Air Force and attacking Jordan. There is no way to interpret this war, if you know the facts, as anything other than an attempt by the Arabs to destroy Israel which was pre-empted just before it was launched. Furthermore, the Israelis attacked and badly damaged a US ship (USS Liberty) during that war (I was in the US Navy at the time). US support during that war was minor.

After the Six-day war, the Gaza strip and Sinai, part of the British mandate for Palestine fell under Israeli control. East Jerusalem and the West Bank were taken from Jordan, and the Golan Heights were given up by Syria.
Current statistics today, for example, the Gaza strip holds 1.3 million Muslims, and only 7,500 Jewish settlers. (The number of Muslims was elevated in the area because the instant refugees created by the new Israeli nation had to go somewhere).

The Israelis, as a result of the war, realized that they needed defensible borders. Hence the capture of the Golan Heights. The rest of the area is one that Israel (with the exception of some religious parties) did not want.

One question you fail to raise is why there should be countries created that do not allow Jews to live in them. For that matter, you fail to mention the history where many ancient Jewish populations in Arab countries were attacked during Israel’s war for independence, creating many Jewish refugees who fled to Israel. Nobody ever talks about their “right of return.”

Yet, all the peace agreements have gone to nil because when one side, mostly the Israelis, is asked to leave an area (by the U.S, by the P.L.O. and even by the United Nations), only some of the occupants do.

This is a very incorrect statement. The Palestinians had an opportunity to acquire almost all of that territory in the Oslo Agreement. Until the Intifada was launched, the Palestinians (under the leadership of the KGB trained Egyptian, Yassir Arafat) were one of the most prosperous Arab groups. Yassir Arafat has long shown an ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and to kill many innocent people in the process. It is a sign of defects in the Arab culture (and now European culture) that the intentional attacks against Israeli citizens are cheered or not condemned for the inhuman atrocities they represent.

And why should they not, when they are backed by the United States, who, again as the columnist said, treats Israel as the fifty-first state, or like a parent indulging a child.

Which is utter and total nonsense. By the way, I notice you left out the 1973 war in this little narrative. In that war, Israel was again attacked by multiple Arab powers. This time, they did not launch a pre-emptive attack, and were caught by surprise on a religious holiday (Yom Kippur). The Arab armies were much larger than the Israeli army, having been significantly strengthened by the USSR. For the first time, the Arabs had anti-tank guided missiles, which devastated the Israelis early in the battle. The invasion almost succeeded. The Soviet Union shipped a number of nuclear warheads for Egyptian SCUD missiles. These warheads were kept in a Soviet ship in Alexandria. The were not used because United States intelligence detected them and warned the Soviet Union. The Israelis did not use their nuclear weapons because just before Egyptian forces reached a decision line, they were repulsed.

As a result of that totally unprovoked attack, the Israelis became far less trusting of the Arabs. They had been attacked and almost defeated. Their superior military skills allowed them to turn the tide, cutting off the Egyptian army in the Sinai, leaving no Egyptian forces between the Israeli Army and Cairo. Likewise, the Syrian army was routed, leaving no Syrian forces between the Israeli forces and Damascus. The United States pressured Israel to stop the advance, and Israel returned to the earlier borders.

The fact that you completely left out this war (probably because your source left it out) should tell you how biased your sources are. The information is freely available (except in Arab countries).

And all this leads to…yes, I know exactly why the Arab world hates us. We have given them reason to. This little history is a study in logic itself.

Your little history is badly wrong, biased and oversimplified.. Where did you get it? It couldn't have been a Palestinian history book, because those books don't even show Israel on the maps. By the way, one reason the Arabs hate us is because they believe that history. Another is because our popular culture violates many of their cultural values about sex and women. It is the latter that has become more important in the recruiting of Al Qaeda terrorists. Because Israel humiliated far superior Arab forces in 3 wars, they cannot be forgiven by the shame culture of the Arab countries. But you forget another very significant reason for the attitude: the Arab nations, unlike Israel, are autocratic states. Their leaders use hatred of Israel to distract their population from local failures of the government. A final reason for the hatred is that none of the Arab states have contributed anything to mankind for the last 200 years. All achievements have used technology from other countries. The wealth of the oil states comes from confiscating facilities created by western states. The Arab culture (and the fundamentalist Muslim culture) shows the classic characteristics of a less sophisticated culture in conflict with a more sophisticated one: cultural breakdown and a dramatic increase in violence.

Furthermore, you leave out the fact that the Palestinians used terrorism against the United States and other countries, causing Americans to lose sympathy for them. You also didn't bother to mention that the Palestinians today engage in unforgivable terrorism, which cannot be justified by even your biased history. It is one thing to fight against an occupying army. It is a completely different think to intentionally kill children. The Israelis do not do that.

You leave out that the Oslo Agreement would have given much land to the Palestinian Authority. You leave out the fact that the Palestinian Authority has been given vast sums of money by the United States and Europe, and yet the people are sinking farther into poverty as Arafat and his cronies get wealthier and wealthier. Are you aware that Arafat's wife lives in luxury in Paris?

You have not explained why the United States allies itself with Israel, when our national interests would seem to be more consistent with allying with the oil-owning Arabs.

Next point, “you assume we act out of dislike. You obviously haven’t been, as I have been, in touch with the soldiers.”

Now, sir, yes I have been in touch. A long-time friend of mine has just come back from deployment in the Army, and is getting ready to be redeployed again, to Baghdad.
A week ago, I had to lay the wreath at my school’s flagpole for a co-volunteer, student, Navy Seabee, and most importantly, my friend; killed by ‘an improvised explosive device.’
No task could have been more heart wrenching than this. Yet, I am not in some verbal pissing contest in order to prove who has had the most personal exposure or education. It is simply pedantic, don’t you think?>/i>

It is pedantic for me to point out that pedantic is the wrong word for such a contest. So are you telling me that your friends are telling you that we act out of dislike? Is that what they say? How many of them have you asked? Are they reading the mind of George Bush to come to this conclusion?

In more specific terms, I am asking you to justify your assertion that we are acting out of dislike.

You have zero support for that statement.

“We could have destroyed the Saddam Regime by massive firepower…our goal was to establish a free society…our selfish goal and our humanitarian goal are congruent.”

Simple counterpoint here if the United States is so benevolent, then why was it noticeably absent in 1994, during the Rwanda genocide between the Hutus and the Tutsis? The tally 800,000 Tutsis dead. The hindsight? Madeline Albright stated, “we should have done something.” This after walking amongst the bodies, the result of100 days of slaughter where the West (the U.S and the U.N) was besieged by calls for help by the Tutsi populace.

Well, first you missed the fact that I pointed out that we had a selfish goal and a humanitarian goal that fortunately coincided. Second, you forget that in 1994 we had a different administration in power. Third, there are many tragic wars happening in the world right now - for example the Muslims who control the Sudan take slaves from the black Christians and Animists in their country, castrating the males, and selling them on the block. They currently have 1,000,000 of those people on the run being pursued by their armed forces - that's called ethnic cleansing. We aren't stopping that either. There has been a long-going war in the former Congo, with many atrocities. We aren't stopping that. There is serious repression happening now in Venezuela and we haven't stopped that. To assume that because we don't stop all evil, then we don't wish to stop evil and don't stop any evil is obviously illogical. Finally, you certainly have a poor knowledge of late 20th century history if you don’t know that the United States is the most benevolent country in the world, even if it is not universally and perfectly benevolent. The world isn't that simple.

If you take a careful look at the Rwanda genocide, you will find that the French were responsible for starting the event and the United Nations, which had the responsibility for peacekeeping there, failed to act.

In response to this in a documentary, an important figure, (I want to say it was John Ashcroft, but I’m not 100% positive), stated, “The United States does not have allies. The United States has interests.”

Good grief. That's a famous old statement by Lord Palmer of England.

If the interest is to reduce terrorism, then why have the weapons of mass destruction, touted so forcefully in the media before the Iraqi Campaign, now been called a ‘mirage,’ ‘elusive,’ and in some articles, ‘propaganda.’
In a country where civilians are dying of sniper shots, burns, and insanitary hospitals, it is very thoughtful that bombs filled only with concrete would be used.

You are mocking me about serious issues. Your friend may very well have died because we took the gentle approach to war, rather than simply use our full firepower. Have you thought about that? Many Americans have died. As far as your other charges, let's examine them::

1) sniper shots - total lie. If you know anything about our snipers, you know that they always hit their targets, and they don't shoot at civilians.

2) burns - yes, when there are wars, there are fires. In some cases, civilians are caught up in those. Do you imagine we can fight against an enemy that hides behind women and children without ever killing or injuring a civilian. If so, you are naive. If you do understand it, then you are using rhetorical techniques rather than logic to make your case, since you know full well that we cannot avoid these incidents.

3) Unsanitary hospitals - how do you suppose they got that way? I know - do you? Saddam took the money that was supposed to purchase medical supplies and food and instead kept it for his own use, to bribe the UN, French, Russians and others, and to build 41 palaces during that period.. He did this for two reasons: he was a malignant narcissist who cared nothing for his people (which, if you understand malignant narcissism, is redundant), and by not providing adequate supplies to his hospital, his propaganda people could blame the deaths of children for lack of supplies and sanitation on the sanctions.

Iraq was working hard, with the help of France and Russia to end the sanctions, and would have done so had we not invaded. Both France and Russia had been promised oil field concessions and very large bribes were paid to opinion makers and leaders in both countries.

But let me say a bit more. Your mocking commend about concrete bombs is very offensive. When we try our best to minimize civilian casualties, those that mock those efforts are offensive and look like idiots. I have spent time with a person who dropped those bombs. Having been a crewman in a bomber myself at one time, we had a lot to talk about.

Which country in the Arab world would use this kind of technology to protect its enemy's citizens? Your lack of balance is amazing, since you fail to ever compare our activities to those of anyone else, and you mock us for humanitarian efforts. If you are going to do that, you at least owe an explanation for your charges.

For example, why would our snipers shoot at civilians. Also, are you aware that the civilian death toll in Fallujah (reported as around 600) was reduced to 45 after they accounted for which of the dead were combatants. And since the combatants hid among the civilians, civilian deaths were unavoidable.

As for the WMD's, let's start with the following. Instead of looking back with knowledge from today, please explain to me how, in 2002, we could have known the WMD's were not there. I think I challenged you before. Unless you can provide an answer to that, I will conclude you are serious and stop wasting my time.

Read the reports. We found many chemical weapons programs. We found 3 missile programs for long range missiles, which are only useful with WMD warheads. We found laboratories in Secret Police safe houses that were appropriate for producing biological weapons and terrorist quantities of chemical weapons. We found pesticide plants that can easily produce "nerve gas" (organophosphate nerve agents) because they produce a weaker version as a pesticide. Several reporters and military personnel had to be treated for nerve gas poisoning after they visited a camouflaged bunker 6 feet underground full of organophosphates. We found seed stock for the most deadly toxin in the world (botulinum toxins), which could have been converted in a few days to enough toxin to kill every human on earth many times over. We found another plant that produced bacillus thuringensis, a close relative of Anthrax which is used as a pesticide and also for testing Anthrax weapons. That plant could have produced large quantities of Anthrax in days. I could go on, but it won't matter. I can tell from your statements that you are convinced that we are evil.\

As to your other assertions, the battle of Iraq had complex causes, which I explained many times before. A critical one was to keep WMD's from terrorists – a goal we now know has at least partly failed, as Al Qaeda has obtained some of Saddam’s chemical weapons. The fact that you have picked up various misleading adjectives does not address the fact that we found many WMD systems which could have been used quickly by terrorists. Oh, and I forget to mention, the regime was actively working on Ricin toxin, which was an interesting coincidence since Al Qaeda's Ansar Al Islam group, also in Iraq, was working on the same thing.

On my commentary about ideals, you wrote, “you are right, but it will not stop. The reason it will not stop is the nature of man. People are not perfect and cannot be made that way by wishing, or as the Nazis and Communists imagined, by eugenics and indoctrination.”

Then simply speaking, man needs to evolve. Behavioral evolution is just as, if not, more important, than physical evolution. We, as in man, are reacting to the stimuli in the environment, but are not adapting, in the sense of changing our attitudes.

I seriously disagree. We are always adapting. We are just not changing in the way your would like.

By ‘tugging’ on our view of other cultures, races, and the like, not only do we find it connected to everything in the Universe, but as history has shown, the world comes crashing down when that one culture says enough.

Ignoring the irrelevance of John Muir, let's discuss these other ideas. What you deny is the biological determinants and impacts on behavior, an area where my daughter is a researcher. Behavior evolution can only work within the limits of human inborn (genetic) nature. And that nature will not change through evolution in time scales of interest, although future genetic engineering could change it, which might be promising but is likely to be very dangerous. Furthermore, as you must know if you truly understand evolution, it is a slow, hazardous process which produces mostly failures. Behavioral evolution is an interesting concept, but steering that evolution (which, of course, would not be evolution but engineering) is something that man has tried for eons, usually with very tragic results - the deadliest of which was done by the communists.

You last "tugging" sentence is really quite absurd. You can tug on my view of, let's say, aborigines, and the moon is not going to change it's orbit.

This is enough for now. By the way, although I am Hispanic, there are no ‘identity politics’ involved.

If there are no identity politics involved, you would never have defined yourself as, among other things, "a Hispanic minority", as it would be (as it should be) irrelevant.

The next paragraph down, you write, “how dare you infer from my suggestions that I have hatred for any particular ethic group.”
I don’t believe you have hatred for any particular ethnic group, but alas, you’ve profiled me with little knowledge of where I come from. It is the profiling I had an original problem with, the idea of ‘accepting it,’ and you turned around and did it to me. Hispanic is an add-on. I am second-generation, with blond hair, blue eyes, and skin that turns red after five minutes in the sun. I speak some Spanish, but fluency is hard and takes practice. In fact, my dress, my speech, my attitude, is more ‘mixed’ American than anything else; that generational transition period between the old world and the new.

Sorry, but you profiled yourself by unnecessary mentioning that you were Hispanic. As my Hispanic former flight instructor fits your description relatively well, I considered that as a possibility. I knew that you had left out information about where you came from.

And no. There is no psychological bent from that generational transition that makes me a silly, collegiate liberal, or whatever it was, who does not understand logic.

I never expected that you were incapable of understanding logic. It was your starting assumptions and the consistent bias in your conclusions that led to that suspicion.

By the way, I am also a non-traditional college student, (making me much older than you probably think), which takes away the pigeon-hole of the academically institutionalized “poisoned multicultural ideology.” I’ve had plenty of time to develop and instigate my own ideology, with no blind adherence to any other ideology; case in point; I have no religious ideology as an agnostic. All I can definitely say is that I don’t know; and neither do the other 90% of the idiots with access to the first amendment and vocal cords. I’m still looking for that remaining ten percent so I can question them.

So?

So, please don’t pigeon-hole, profile, classify, or whatever it is that is in Man’s nature to do. It’s also in Man’s nature to be violent, subjugate, dominate, destroy natural resources, and commit random acts of kindness throughout. No, I never concluded that you were a bigot (a profiler, definitely, but maybe not a bigot), but rather, backing an option that would in effect, make relationships even more tense with those of of Middle-Eastern descent and/or ties. This is what is unacceptable, alienating those who we want to help.

First, I would point out that you pigeon-hole people also. You have pigeon holed an entire nation based on a remarkably cherry-picked set of facts. And that is human nature too - to select only the facts which support your point of view - one which you have done very thoroughly. We do seem to agree on important aspects of man's nature, and I suspect we agree that we need social structures to minimize or redirect those aspects of man's nature.

Of course I am a person who believes that profiling is a useful tool in some circumstances. I am not ashamed of that, and I am quite aware that it causes some harm, as does any security measure. I am also aware that the harm falls disproportionately on a particular ethnic group, one which in spite of your attempt to wiggle out of it, is one you accused me of hating. That this is true is unfortunate. That this in itself makes the idea wrong is illogical without further information.

I happen to have a pretty independent viewpoint. I examine the assumptions in our society using logic based on a premise that the threat of terrorism is very dangerous, and that appropriate measures need to be taken. I examine it from the point of view of what the worst outcome can be, and I am perfectly willing to ask someone else to put up with an unfair, but necessary, measure if that is necessary. This is not illogical, but it can be offensive to people who weigh factors differently. For example, if we had a history of many acts of terrorism committed by pygmies, wouldn't you agree that it would be silly to pay special attention to Arabs, but perhaps we should check pygmies a little more closely? Wouldn't it be reasonable to politely ask pygmies to understand our reasoning, accept our apologies, and put up with that extra attention? Or do you have some idea of equality that prevents logical measures.

There is a long and consistent pattern of Muslims, especially Arabs and Persians committing terrorist acts against civilians. There are some systemic reasons (related to the Wahhabi sect of Islam in particular but also associated with the actual teachings in the Koran) which make Muslims using today's interpretations more likely to engage in violent activities against non-Muslims. That is a fact, an unfortunate one, but a true one.

So the question is: how far would you go with a politically correct enforced ignorance of one key indicator of danger? What is an acceptable ratio of excess inspections to lives saved? That is the real issue we are talking about it once you clean out the rhetoric.

Did you know that the logic against ethnic profiling prevented inspection of some of the 9-11 hijackers, because the system only allowed two Arabs per flight to be checked? The result was quite catastrophic, although the actual odds of additional scruity detecting the plot were not high.

Then what did "I can only sit back and wonder at the rationalizations and justifications people make to others for the understanding of hate." mean? Since you were commenting on my article, it pretty clearly implies that I am making rationalizations and justifications for ... hate ("the understandin of" clause is bizarre).

You used a large number of political "code words" - i.e. words normally used as pejoratives to invoke a negative emotion. If you were simply trying to convey a concept, why write it as an attack?

Your attitude indicates a pre-judged attitude that the United States is evil, that it's foreign policy is evil.

You use propaganda for history, leaving out very important events. You ignore factual information that is easy to come by, apparently preferring to just read anti-american charges.

I know the purpose of this blog, or whatever it is, was to post comments on the current war on terrorism, however all this talk of history and the Vietnam war has led me to believe that you could help me out a little. I studied the Vietnam war in school, but I'm still very confused as to what exactly we were fighting for. Those who were opposed to it have different explanations than those who fought in it. From what I've studied in school, I'd have to say that I would have been against the war, or at least against the methods used in it, but I'd like to hear what you have to say, since you were there yourself. Also, I respect your opinion because you support yourself well. You're not talking out of your ass like many other people. I'm not really trying to start a discussion, but I just want to know more about the Vietnam war and why you are ashamed that we pulled out of it.

carmela

Unfortunately I have very little time for the next three weeks. So please accept my apologies for a too-short reply. If you try again in about 4 weeks, I may be able to give you more information.

I am not surprised that school wold have taught you to be against the Vietnam War. There are many myths around, and schools (especially in America, although I don't know if that is where you studied it) teach a distorted version.

We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of the Soviet Empire, which it was doing through the creation of puppet states (in Eastern Europe) and dependent states (such as Cuba, Angola, North Vietnam). This was part of the Keenan doctrine of containment, which ruled U.S. foreign policy until replaced by the ultimately victorious Reagan policy of rollback.

The specific reasons for fighting in Vietnam were:

1) It was under sustained communist attack, supplied by the Soviet Union.
2) It's loss would provide a base for the conquest of SouthEast Asia, especially Thailand and the Philippines (the "dominoe theory") and indeed did lead to the loss (and horrible atrocities) of Cambodia, and the loss of Laos. It has been argued (including by Westmoreland, at a speech I attended) that the delay of 20 years that our fighting caused allowed the target countries (Thailand and the Phillipines) to become much more resistant to communist takeover.

3)Cam Rahn bay, where I have been, would provide (and in fact, after the war, did provide) a warm water seaport on the Pacific for the Soviet Union. Prior to the loss of Vietnam, they didn't have such a port.

I would suggest you read this for a lot of historical background which may very well contradict what you learned in school.

The main thing to understand is that by the time we entered the war, it was not a popular uprising in the South, but rather an attempt by the North, which was culturally and ideologically different from the South, to conquer the South. Again, see the history. The most often ignored fact is that in the 1950s, Vietnamese were given the chance to choose whether to live in the Communist North or the authoritarian South, and many moved North or South. Hence the communist attacks against the South were against a population which had voted with its feet to be non-communist.

Another fact usually ignored is thata the Viet Cong was started by Viet Minh fighters who were ordered to stay behind during the population movement to form a basis for North Vietnamese control of a Southern revolution.

Finally, not widely known is the fact that the Viet Cong was destroyed in 1968, as a result of strategic misjudgements by North Vietnamese general Giap, who was demoted as a result (although he is still worshipped as a hero in Vietnam).

Another point to consider is that, although the South was not a democracy, its people were vastly more free than those in the North. It is because of this that more than a million chose to flee, at great danger, on boats rather than continue to live under the communists. This single fact alone shows that the communist conquest was a very bad thing for the Vietnamese.

I am ashamed that we left because it was the first defeat the United States ever suffered, and it was imposed by the leftists inside the United States, with great help from John Kerry.

I am ashamed because we left a people whom by 1973 had achieved safety from the Communists, due to the "Vietnamization" program and a US promise of air support in case of invasion, to be overwhelmed by a North Vietnamese force larger than out entire current army. We did not even allow supplies to get to the South Vietnamese.

In other words, we went into Vietnam for a good reason: to contain the spread of communist totalitarianism and to contain the power of the USSR.

But we also assumed a responsibility for the people of Vietnam, as we now have for the people of Iraq, and because of the activities of the left win, we let down the Vietnamese. The left is now trying to repeat the performance with Iraq (as you can see by other articles on my blog).

To date I have proposed, and must be asserted during the time (1946-63) of President Truman, ab uptly aborted. My unique successes as a situation of great urgency, we do, protectionist system of sovereign nation-state economies from that I sincerely respect your life will be transformed. FOREV!

The crux of the matter to be secure against global tyranny of the original intention of many of the planet into a general, global economic breakdown - crisis, affectin every single time. I've worked hard and struggled all the similar things I've thrown in the name to the world has now entered the terminal phase of that presently doomed world economy.

Mark V. Shaney

I know I come here a little late in the game, but this debate, by all members included, has been both educational and facsinating for me. I would like to add a few observations of mine, if you would so ablige me.

**By the way, one reason the Arabs hate us is because they believe that history.**

History is a very delicate thing. One of my favorite and (for the most part) true quotes is this: "History is written by the winner." It is very difficult to judge why a war was fought because everyone, on both sides and those who are neutral, has their own opinion. These opinions are quickly written in their own history books, and whoever wins usually gets to choose what is written (I say usually because in Russia, they still believe they "won" the Cold War while here in America we say we did. In my opinion, neither won and the only reason we can say we did is because we out spent them).

**Furthermore, you leave out the fact that the Palestinians used terrorism against the United States and other countries, causing Americans to lose sympathy for them. You also didn't bother to mention that the Palestinians today engage in unforgivable terrorism, which cannot be justified by even your biased history. It is one thing to fight against an occupying army. It is a completely different think to intentionally kill children. The Israelis do not do that.**

I beg to differ. From what I have learned reading sidepapers by nearby countries, the killing is going on from both sides, and they rarely discriminate. A few radicals think it would be in their best interest to bomb a bank or something, do so, and in retaliation, people (usually radicals as well) from the other side bomb a building of theirs. By now it is all done in revenge for something the other side did. In my opinion, it is pointless, and there should be some way that a compromise could be reached.

**You have not explained why the United States allies itself with Israel, when our national interests would seem to be more consistent with allying with the oil-owning Arabs.**

This one I believe I can answer, and the answer is simple enough. The American people can't stand to think of themselves as allied to those they see as enemies. The majority of the American people are not Muslim, and relate more to the Jews, so tend to be on their side. If the government decided to ally itself with the oil-owning Arabs (more pratical, I will say), the people would turn (not necessarily in outright rebellion) against the government. It's politics.

**On my commentary about ideals, you wrote, “you are right, but it will not stop. The reason it will not stop is the nature of man. People are not perfect and cannot be made that way by wishing, or as the Nazis and Communists imagined, by eugenics and indoctrination.”
Then simply speaking, man needs to evolve. Behavioral evolution is just as, if not, more important, than physical evolution. We, as in man, are reacting to the stimuli in the environment, but are not adapting, in the sense of changing our attitudes.
I seriously disagree. We are always adapting. We are just not changing in the way your would like.**

This debate back and forth between you and Mr. Aja was very interesting to me. I think you're both right. Mr. Moore says that it is human nature to be greedy and violent(not exact words, but the gist of it). I think that is perfectly true. It is the animalistic side of a human that is based soley on survival and territory. However, I also must agree with Aja. We as humans are seen to be above "animals" because we can think logically and also think beyond this animalistic side. To quote my favorite author, "Life may be unfair, but it is those who use that as an excuse not to change it that keep it that way." Life is unfair, people are "evil," (the word itself is controversial becauase it is an opinion word, for the most part) but it is those are idealistic that give hope to those that despair the Earth will never see peace. We need those with ideals, especially when everything they say seems like a lie.

Last one...

**I can tell from your statements that you are convinced that we are evil.**

I can't speak for Mr. Aja, but as for myself, I do not think you are. To those who will only pay attention to the surface words and not actually think about WHY those words are being said, you may seem evil. However, I will personally thank you for your sacrifice. I don't agree with the fight in Vietnam, but I understand why is was necessary, as I don't like but understand the need to do something in Iraq. Please keep writing and making your readers think. It's the best thing that can happen, now.

online casinos

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: