Our response to 9/11 has become a political issue, but it might be an issue all of us must face squarely. Below is a very provocative article by Ben Stein.
August 20, 2006
EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS
Looking for the Will Beyond the Battlefield
By BEN STEIN
IT?S been a bitter month or so.
Mighty Israel, the redeemer of faith in what free men and women can do with arid desert if they are motivated, redeemer of faith that maybe there is a place for the Jews as a sovereign people and technological superpower, has been fought to a standstill by Hezbollah.
Can it possibly be that Hezbollah is better motivated, better led, better dug in and better armed than the Israeli army, which is supposed to be the best army, pound for pound, in the world? Can it be that Israel, which used to beat whole armies of countries like Egypt and Syria, has been humbled by a few thousand very well-motivated and well-armed men firing from between apartment buildings?
Or could it be that what?s different this time is the trumpet and, specifically, its uncertain sound? Israel geared up for a huge offensive, then called it off, then huffed and puffed, then called it off again, then said, ?Watch out, this time we?re really going to blow your house down,? and then called it off again.
Now, Israel?s very survival is on the line, and it is a tiny state, about the size of New Jersey. If Israel cannot get it together to fight a serious war against a group, Hezbollah, that the State Department identifies as a terrorist organization, who will?
So, Israel, which was supposed to be the shining light of how peace is won, is not shining as bright ? despite President Bush?s extreme support for a good long time.
Terrorists are still hatching plots against the air traffic system of the West, and this time bigger and worse than before. Obviously, Al Qaeda is far from dead. We have much to fear from it still. The fact that the suspects were almost all home-grown Britons makes the situation that much more frightening and unpredictable. How long will it be until American-born terrorists strike against American targets? We are a big country and we have a lot of unhappy people. How long until they organize themselves to kill? Not long, I am afraid.
While we?re at it, yes, it?s miraculous and wonderful that the plot was foiled, if it was. But now the whole Western world will be seriously inconvenienced in its travel for years, maybe decades. Isn?t this already a victory for our enemies? Isn?t this already a blow against world business? Might it be enough to push our already slowed growth into a recession?
But the worst is what is to come: I got a jolting hint of this when I read the obituary for John L.. Weinberg, who ran Goldman Sachs from 1976 to 1990. Mr. Weinberg was 81 when he died this month in Greenwich, Conn., after a lifetime of major achievement. I had the pleasure of dealing with him when he and I were a lot younger and I was in law school, also studying finance, at Yale.
My dear old father was a friend of his father, the venerable Sidney J. Weinberg, who ran Goldman Sachs from 1930 to 1969.. My dad wangled a job interview for me with John Weinberg, an unprepossessing figure but obviously a smart guy. After some talk, he offered me a job. I would start by spending two years sitting at a desk until late at night going over spreadsheets. ?Really?? I asked. That did not seem to be so glamorous. ?Yes, really,? he said. ?That?s how we all start.?
I turned it down and became a poverty lawyer instead. But what I did not know about John Weinberg was that even though he was rich and well connected, as a young man he joined the Marines to fight the Japanese in the Pacific, then fought again in Korea. That was America?s ruling class then. The scions of the rich went off to fight.
My longtime pal and idol, Peter M. Flanigan ? a former high honcho of Dillon, Read; a high aide to my ex-boss, Richard M. Nixon; and heir to a large brewing fortune ? was once a naval aviator. My father left a comfortable job in Washington to join the Navy. The father of my pal Phil DeMuth left a successful career to be an Army Air Corps pilot, flying death-defying missions over Burma. Congressmen resigned to serve. Senators resigned to serve. Professional athletes resigned to serve in the uniform.
Now, who?s fighting for us in the fight of our lives? Brave, idealistic Southerners. Hispanics from New Mexico. Rural men and women from upstate New York. Small-town boys and girls from the Midwest. Do the children of the powers on Wall Street resign to go off and fight? Fight for the system that made them rich? Fight for the way of life that made them princes? Surely, you jest.
And that?s the essence. The other side considers it a privilege to fight and die for its beliefs. Those on the other side cannot wait to line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. On our side, it?s: ?Let the other poor sap do it. I?ve got to make money.? How can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to do private equity deals and derivatives trading? How can we fight this fight with the ruling class absent by its own sweet leave?
I keep thinking, again, that if Israel, with its back to the sea, cannot muster the will to fight in a big way, then the fat, faraway U.S.A. will never be able to do it. I keep saying this and it terrifies me.
We?re in a war with people who want to kill us all and wreck our civilization. They?re taking it very seriously. We, on the other hand, are worrying about leveraged buyouts and special dividends and how much junk debt the newly formed private entity can support before we sell it to the ultimate sucker, the public shareholder.
We?re worrying whether Hollywood will forgive Mel Gibson and what the next move is for big homes in East Hampton. We?re rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The terrorists are the iceberg.
WHAT stands between us and the iceberg are the miraculously brave men and women of the armed forces. They?re heroes and saints as far as I?m concerned. But can they do it without the rest of us? Can they do it while we?re all working on our tans and trying to have our taxes lowered again? How can we leave them out there all alone to die for us when we treat the war to save civilization as something we can just wish away?
If we don?t win this war against the terrorists, there?s not going to be business as usual ever again. If the terrorists get to their goal, there?s not going to be a stock exchange or hedge funds or Bain Capital or the Carlyle Group or even Goldman Sachs. If the terrorists get their way ? and so far, they?re getting their way ? there?s not going to be business, period.
Everyone with the really big money at stake is ? again ? bidding for the best deck chairs as the iceberg looms, not so far, any longer, under the surface, and very large and very cold and very solid.
Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist. E-mail: ebiz@nytimes.<wbr>com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 126
At any rate, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, now that the majority of Americans know it, and it's time that all pundits figure it out as well.
Also, the very fact that they consider us to be at such great risk, fully five years after 9/11, should be all that one needs to know to realize that this president has failed miserably, yet again.
Personally, my fears lie in an economy that has been driven deeply into an unsustainable level of debt held by foreign countries that may or may not have our best interests in mind, a national heathcare system that is quickly devouring us while leaving 1/6 of us uninsured and killing 18,000 of us each year as a direct result of having no healthcare coverage, obvious signs of climate change that may well challenge the entire globe as never before in the history of civilized man, a dishonest white house and a rogue president that has absolutely no regard for constitutional and federal laws, an unbelievably costly and entirely illegal and unnecessary "war" in Iraq that is responsible for thousands of deaths each month, and many other extremely disconcerting issues that we currently face.
My chances of being killed by a terrorist attack are so minute that they're not even worthy of my concern, frankly. In my mind, the best thing that we can do to beat terrorism is to stop fearing it, since it draws its strength and power directly from irrational fear. The absolute worse thing that we could've done was to surrender the very freedoms that they supposedly hate us for, and launch an illegal and unnecessary military invasion and occupation of a nation that causes us no threat of harm.
Ben, seriously, you need to start really looking at this so-called "war on terror," and begin to ask yourself if what this president has done is making things better or worse. I've yet to have anybody show me one clear thing that he's done that has demonstrably made this country one iota safer. However, I can name 20 things off the top of my head that he's done to make us LESS safe and secure.
That SHOULD tell you something. If, after 5 years of surrending freedoms and rights, astronomical amounts of debt spending, and a gargantuan increase in the size of the federal government, we're still "this close" to being slammed again, something is most definitely not right. For starters, we should NOT be seeing record numbers of global attacks as we are. For another thing, shouldn't we have at least a couple of convictions by now?
Just what do we have to show at this point, for all that this nation has lost in its pursuit of this so called "war on terror?" Where's the beef?
Please, point out the sentence of hatred and disgust. I'm all ears.
"If someone has a view different from yours, you bash them with rhetoric that only you and the radical left can believe."
Please, feel free to provide documented rebuttal to any and everything that I post. I welcome all points of view. I have not, however, found the arguments of the right to be based on terribly firm footing on many topics of discussion. One of those many areas happen to be the so-called "war on terror." I have yet to see a single demonstrable piece of evidence that Bush has done anything to actually combat, hinder, slow, or stop terrorism. I keep asking, and I keep getting nothing. You're up to bat, big guy. Don't let us all down after making your grand entrance.
"I bet Timothy Mcveigh had the same view as you do. I fear your kind more than any Muslim terrorist. "
Speaking of hatred and disgust. Some might find this type of statement to be pretty irrational and quite full of rhetoric, Mr. Flounder. Careful.
Really? In what sense? I couldn't pull a coherent message out of it. It looks to me like Mr. Stein cut his article into a thousand pieces, tossed it all up into the air, and just taped it together as it lay.
How come nobody can offer me demonstrable evidence that Bush has done anything positive with regard to terrorist threats?
I probably can match you.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
6
and you?
I honestly couldn't make any sense of what he was trying to say. If his point is that the rich are not fighting any war, he's of course correct. It's always been that way, hasn't it? The poor join the military because they often have no other avenue to education. The rich buy themselves deferrments...sometimes five of them.
"Daniel, how many years have you spent serving your country in the military?
I probably can match you."
Ben, I believe that Daniel is pointing out that the loudest voices in favor of military action usually seem to be those who've never served themselves. Are you disagreeing with this?
SmartDoc
Ben Thank you for sharing the article. Veyr important points
25.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Stein can set a better example by signing up himself and leading the way.
Guess what, Matt? I ain't scared of your little boogiemen. I'm not scared of Osama. I'm not scared of al Qaeda. I'm not scared of any fictitious future boogieman. You want to know why? Because I know that my chances of being killed or even harmed by a terror attack are about as strong as my chances of winning the lottery. In other words, not very.
I'll tell you what I AM afraid of, though. I'm afraid of losing the democratic freedoms, rights, and protections that so many brave Americans have fought and died for over the years, because there are those among us who're so frightened that they're willing to gleefully hand over those very precious treasures.
If "they hate us because we're free," why are you people so willing to make yourselves less free? Isn't that caving into exactly what they want? Sure seems like it to me.
Personally, I'll load up my weapons, sharpen my dog's teeth, and take my chances against your little boogieman of the day. Just give me my Goddamned freedom back.
I agree with Clark. There is not a logical connection to be made by linking Israel's Hizbollah war with the US invasion of Iraq and 9/11.
Clark does raise a very important basic question regarding Iraq. How much is this war costing us?
No matter how you do the accounting, the total cost has exceeded every estimate we've ever been given. The credibility of those who decided we needed to have this war is zero. Why would we still believe what the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld are saying now, given their track record?
And STILL, I've yet to see one of these people who're SO willing to surrender what has made America great provide a single shred of demonstrable evidence that anything that Bush has done in the past 5 years has done anything to diminish the threat of terrorism.
So, what the hell is it all for? Why are you people handing over your freedoms and protections, surrendering your grandchildren's futures to foreign debt holders, and allowing your nation to murder and torture tens of thousands of innocent lives on your behalf? Enlighten me.
Can't agree with a draft. We had a draft for most of my service and there is little comparison between the motivations then and now. Volunteers prove to be much better at warfare. Besides, Army reenlistment rates have never been higher inspite of the war. Knowing that they have determined and respectable leadership is a big plus.
It is only in recent years that the left has been able to brainwash our university students against our country. Polls show that a majority of college students are unable to envision any reason for fighting for their country.
Thank God for middle America.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Been there, done that. I'm too old to do it again by their standards, and I sure as hell wouldn't sign up to fight an oil and profiteer's war even if I was of proper age.
Give me a legitimate cause, such as defending my home and my precious freedoms, and I'll become my own army. Send me off to fight so that corrupt, filthy bastards can profit from my bloodshed? Not a chance.
Still, nobody can provide me a single shred of demonstrable evidence to prove that what Bush has done in the past 5 years has made us one teensy bit safer. I wonder why? You'd certainly think that those who're so proudly in favor of this endless slaughter would have something to back up their lust for blood, wouldn't you?
"Army reenlistment rates have never been higher inspite of the war. "
Do you have a source of facts you'd like to cite about army re-enlistment rates? I don't believe your claim is credible.
Please note that I was not talking about initial enlistments, only re-enlistments of those already serving.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Every time someone makes this point Clarke Kent starts spouting off about Iraq and how nothing Bush has done has made Americans any safer. Let's get back to the point.
If you disagree with how Bush is fighting the war, then fine, offer some alternatives. But the fact is that Muslim extremism is firmly entrenched in dozens of countries, has hundreds of thousands of active combatants, millions of active supporters and tens of millions (perhaps hundreds) of active sympathisers.
Minimize the threat at your own peril, because their attacks are getting more sophisticated and larger scale. Israel's reluctance to go all out against Hezbollah due to world pressure and a genuine attempt to spare civilian lives is what enabled a few thousand terrorists to fight the best army in the world to a draw. The point of the article is that, like Israel, the rest of us need to get the message that our enemy is in a fight to the death.
Invading Iraq was an error on many levels and the strategy after Hussein was toppled deeply flawed. That has nothing to do with the issue of defeating Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq is only one part of the big picture to which far too many people are turning a blind eye while pouring over their stock portfolios.
For those of you who wish to understand what living through terrorism or "terrorism" (depending on your perspective of any given conflict and who the terrorists really are, insurgents or state armies) then you might do well and look at Iraq where dozens or hundreds die every month, sometimes every week. That's really living with terror, and we all know who caused it...
We are at war with an enemy that is barely perceptible to
the general population. The fact is we will in the very near future have ourselves in an all out conflict and all this silly back and forth about little picture details and conspiracy theories will be moot. We have been at war with these terrorists for decades and it is only since 9/11 have a good number of us realized we are at war. The next level of this conflict will make us all know we are are war and there will be no question of what we have to do.
We have one rogue nation with a nuke(s) in their possession and another in hot pursuit. WE are supposed to sit by snd let this happen. If one of these nukes is detonated over Tokyo or Seoul are the hand wringers going to wail about why we did nothing to stop this?
I am employed by the world's largest mass transit agency and I do live with the threat of a cowardly terrorists targeting my workplace.
I recieve daily security alerts, I have been evacuated, I show my ID to fellow workers I've know for decades, all because of this barely perceptible war.
You rapssions are misplaced. We liberated the Iraqi people and are now engaged in aiding them in establishing a stable government of the people. It isn't easy work , we all are making sacrifices. Nothing worthwhile doesn't come with sacrifice.
"you might do well and look at Iraq where dozens or hundreds die every month, sometimes every week. That's really living with terror, and we all know who caused it..."
Well I know. The Immams who preach hate and send their congregations out to kill the followers of other Immams, that's who. Bush might have created the circumstances under which this can occur, but let's not lose track of who is doing the killing and who is sending them to do it.
As for this notion that the threat is barely perceptible, we've had not attacks recently, blah, blah, blah, look at it another way. Over a billion people live under Sharia law already. 1/2 a billion women live lives little better than breeding stock, are murdered by their own families for outrageous acts like speaking to strange men without permission, and are beaten by their husbands if they voice an opinion of their own. Dozens of countries under Muslim domination suppress minorities mercilessly and in some cases actively work to exterminate them.
A BILLION people live like that and its barely perceptable?
The creeping doom is upon us. Just because it is moving slow and seems to be far away doesn't change the direction that it is moving or that it will get here eventualy unless we move to stop it.
"War is to be avoided. But if you must fight, fight as far from home as possible" - Sun Tzu
How many of that billion are "out to kill Americans" or westerners in general, or people in general? Al Qaeda and its kind dont give a damn who they kill, they kill for impact, they dont consider the religion or the beliefs of who they kill. The only significant threat from any Al Qaeda branded group is "Al Qaeda in Iraq", a group which would not have existed if Iraq had not been invaded.
Oh and im sure the countless thousands (since noone has chosen to count them) who have died in their thousands in Iraq are literally "eternally" grateful for their freedom which the US has bestowed on them. I wonder whether they and their families would have been happier to live under Saddam or to be dead as a result of their freedom. How many Iraqis, US and coalition soldiers and their families would now have preferred to tolerate Saddam rather than live through that particular hell?
Another insult, this time to the dead.
David it's like it's always 2002 with you."
Now there's a cogent argument. Man, you totaly discredited me with that one.
Nobody is attacking "East Noplace USA", but they are plotting to attack our area, they have already and they are conspiring to do it again.
It is naive to think they are not.
Islamofascists are hijacking a religion to create a totalitarian world governed by "their" rules. Our crime is that the world is enjoying the fruits of our freedom, our cultural influence which is destoying their control over people. People once shielded from other perspectives are seeing that life can be lived differently than that which they were brought up in. This is a threat to those who want to control other people. It is baffling that the politcal left is so against enlightening the world and unshackling it from tyranny.
This looks an awful lot like a tautology, for if we get attacked again, you will no doubt say we should by all means continue. And if we don't ... we should by all means continue.
So I guess we should just keep wandering around the world looking for people to mess with, and then we can keep being treated to anger and fear...and by all means continue. This sounds like a fine way to drive off into oblivion, but wouldn't it be a lot cheaper and less bloody to try something a little more along the lines of dialog, and maybe a friendly gesture or two...just in case the folks we're afraid of are human beings?
Did I accuse the billion people of being out to get us? NO! I said that a billion people already live miserable lives under Muslim domination. The argument was that the threat of Islamic extremism was barely perceptable, to which I pointed out that a billion people are already under that jackboot, which I class as more than "barely perceptable".
Nor did I advocate invading Qatar, etc. Stop putting words in my mouth.
And yes, I am aware of Christian fundamentalists. I dislike them intensely.
And yet again, you dredge up Iraq. Every time someone puts together a logical argument about the big picture, you or someone else gets on your high horse and shouts "oh yeah, what about Iraq, you're insulting all the people who have died there, the US is the real terrorist"
Yes, the US screwed up in Iraq, big time. But the bulk of the people who are being killed are being killed by other Iraqis, and the killing is being done in the name of Islam. Do you think that once either the Sunnis or the Shias exterminate the other that they will stop? Or will they turn their murderous agenda on the Christians and Kurds who live in Iraq? And when they are done with that, they'll turn their attention to Israel, or Spain, or somewhere else they see as vulnerable.
John looks around and sees half a dozen empty wallets and purses laying on the ground. He looks some more and sees a pile of bodies with their throats slit.
So John says to himself, hey, maybe if I'm nice to this guy, give him my money as a gesture, offer to be his friend, it might just turn out he's not such a bad guy after all.
Me, I'm pulling out my Colt 45 and blowing the thug's brains out. The next day John criticizes me for excessive use of force, of over reacting, of not understanding the wrongs that were done to this thug that I am partly responsible for.
Oh wait...he wouldn't say that after all. He's lying in an ally with his empty wallet beside him and his throat slit.
You are complaining that in your opinion "a billion people live miserable lives under Muslim domination". Its a religion, and 99.9% want to be Muslims, if not Sunni then Shia. Its the way they are governed, not their religion that people have a problem with, like people all over the world. I fail to see why you have brought their religion into this except to link it to Al Qaeda, and its associates, atrocities. My point was that if you were saying that Muslims should be "liberated" from their "domination" as you put it, then there are many Islamic countries that the US and UK could choose to invade, including many of their allies.
On the subject of Iraq as I have already said, how many of the people who have died since 2003 would still be alive (well apart from death from the sanctions obviously) if the US and the coalition had not invaded? I realise the truth hurts. Sorry about that.
I thought you said you were not accusing all Muslims? If most of them are like you or I, would we not serve ourselves well to treat them with some compassion and respect? Do you not respond to such treatment?
"On the subject of Iraq as I have already said, how many of the people who have died since 2003 would still be alive (well apart from death from the sanctions obviously) if the US and the coalition had not invaded? I realise the truth hurts. Sorry about that."
I'm sorry too Brian. About a hundred thousand people have died. Maybe two hundred thousand depending on whose numbers you use. More than 2/3 were MUSLIMS KILLING MUSLIMS FOR BEING THE WRONG KIND OF MUSLIM. Now let's put that fact in perspective. The number of people who died due in Saddam's torture chambers or in wars that he started is estimated at between 1.2 and 2.3 MILLION. Does that truth hurt Brian? I'm so sorry.
And Mark, I am not an American nor am I beautiful. But I do see Muslims mudering each other by the droves in Iraq, I do see the extermination of B'hais and other minorities in Iran, I do see Iran funding terrorism world wide, I do see Iran pursuing a nuclear bomb, I do see genocide in Darfur, the death penalty for watching soccer in Somalia, the death penalty for being Shia in Saudi Arabia, I listen when Bin Laden, and Nasrallah and other Muslim leaders advocate the extermination of Jews, Christians and Hindus and I note that the number of people over whom their brand of extremism has power is growing.
"None are so blind as those who will not see"
Johnny Dark
"I thought you said you were not accusing all Muslims? If most of them are like you or I, would we not serve ourselves well to treat them with some compassion and respect? Do you not respond to such treatment?"
I sent money to Indonesia when the Tsunami hit, despite it being a Muslim country, so no, I do not accuse all Muslims, and yes I do reach out to them. That doesn't change the fact the Islam is a repressive religion as the plight of a billion people who live under its jackboot shows and that the leaders of that religion are the creeping doom that the rest of the world must defend itself from.
I don't blame every German for world war II either. That doesn't change the fact that to win world war II we had to fight all of Germany.
I suggest that the US and its allies stop supplying weapons to Islamic countries just on the off chance that you might be right about global Islamic domination David. Especially as the weakest link in global security is Pakistan, a nuclear power, who, surprise surprise, are allies of the US and the UK.
1) The U.S. supported Iraq in the war against Iran. Agreed. At the time they saw Iraq as bad and Iran as worse. So what does that have to do with Ben Stein's original point?
2) Muslims killing Muslims was created by the invasion of 2003? I point out that its not the Americans doing the killing in Iraq and you jump up and say "well yeah, but its the Americans' FAULT they're killing each other". Gee, and here I thought fault lay with the people doing the killing. And this has what to do with Ben Stein's original point?
3) The US and allies should stop supplying weapons to Islamic countries, Pakistan is the weakest link. Half agree. (Had to check if I was going mad, I don't agree with you on much). Pakistan is A weak link. Musharaf is a US ally, but if his government falls to Muslim extremists (which it may) then we will have a nightmare on our hands, nuclear armed Muslim extremists who dont care who they kill. Which has what to do with Ben Stein's point... Oh wow, THAT WAS BEN STEIN'S POINT IF WE DON'T TAKE ACTION TO STOP THE EXTREMISTS FROM GETTING EVEN MORE POWER THEY WILL EVENTUALLY GET AND USE A NUCLEAR BOMB OR OTHER WMD.
Thanks for helping me see the dange Brian.
Why wouldn't more compassion, such as the Tsunami effort, bring more good response from everyday Muslim's, and thereby short circuit the "creeping doom" effect you prophecies?
You are aware, that negativity toward the U.S. in Muslim countries dropped significantly immediately after that tragedy, are you not?Surely harsh rhetoric and invasions are not conducive to building an attitude of acceptance of our intentions?
As for taking pre-emptive action against threats, can you explain why Saudi Arabia and Egypt were never targeted as they were the birthplaces of Al Qaeda's number 1 and number 2 and of the 9/11 hijackers? You should read the Wolfowitz doctrine if you want the real reasons for the pre-emptive action. The neo-cons want global domination as much Islamic extremists do. Its the new Cold War or havent you realised that? The neocons need an enemy to make everyone paranoid about, now that the Soviet Union is gone, and its one of their own creation which, pretty obviously, they are able to control.
You're premise continues to be that there is something we can do to make them like us. You are correct within limits. But everyday Muslims don't control the agenda of the countries they live in, the Immams either run it outright (example Iran) or have tremendous influence (example Saudi Arabia) or the potential to grab power with devastating consequences (example Pakistan) or the determination to denude an area of minorities through repeated terrorism (example only 20% of the original Hindu population in Pakistani Kashmir still lives there). Like the thug in the back ally, we have to recognize when OUR intentions, however good, are irrelevant because we won't change THEIR intentions under any circumstance.
When Iran had an earthquake, the only country in the region that had the equipment and expertise available fast enough to make a difference to those trapped in the rubble was Israel. They freely offered their aid which was immediatly rejected by the Immams on the premise that it was better for those people to die than to be saved by Jews.
How much more of an offer of compassion could have been made by any country in the world? How deep must one's hate be to condemn one's own citizens to being slowly crushed to death rather than accept help from a Jew?
Helping out Indonesia temporarily changed attitudes toward the US. My point if two fold. First it was temporary. Second, it meant NOTHING to the extremists.
So if you think reaching out to them will change their minds, go right ahead. Behind your back the extremists are laughing as they take your money, spend it on weapons, and calling you a stupid infidel.
Now you accuse me of nonsense and introduce yet more irrelavant facts. You must really enjoy being made a fool of. I have somewhere to go so this will be my last post for a while.
OK, so Egypt and Saudi Arabia were never invaded by the US even though they were the birth place of Al Queda's #1 and #2. Let's see if I can figure this out. They were both in Afghanistan. The bulk of their organization was in Afghanistan. The bulk of their training compounds was in Afghanistan. They were being sheltered by the Afghan government. So if we want to put a stop to them, we should bomb the countries they were born in? GOOD GOD MAN HOW DUMB WOULD THAT BE?
I know the line, I know the response, but there was a positive response after the Tsunami effort. Doesn't that mean there is word getting though about what we actually do? And doesn't it mean giving up on dialog is not a rational path, since it leads to eventual massive warfare? You would rather avoid that wouldn't you?
I would dearly loved for the US to have destroyed the Taleban well before 9/11 but since they effectively created them (through their support of the Mujahadeen against the Soviet army), and tolerated them when they came that was never a realistic option. However I can honestly say it was one of the few actions that the US has carried out overseas that I have ever agreed with. So if they prevent the Taleban coming back to power, good on them. (Did I just say that?)
Mark!
You finaly said something worth discussing!
Britain and the US planned to invade North Korea TWICE. The first time Iraq invaded Kuwait so they put all their plans on hold so they could go free Kuwait instead. Once Saddam was bottled up in Bagdad again, they resumed their plans. They had actualy gotten to the point of shifting major resources to the area when Saddam began massing troops on the Kuwait border. The Americans and Brits AGAIN scuttled their plans to deal with North Korea and shifted their forces back to the mid-east and Saddam quickly backed down.
It was these incidents that convinced the military planners in the US that if they dealt with what they considered the larger threats (North Korea and Iran) that Iraq would use the window to make a mess somewhere else. Rightly or wrongly, they concluded that Iraq had to be dealt with first.
It is unfortunate that Iraq turned out to be such a mess, and even more unfortunate that while the US and Britain were tied up in Iraq that North Korea actualy achieved building a nuclear weapon.
So you see, toppling Sadam was intended to be the first step in preventing North Korea from getting a nuke. The price of dealing with NK first was to sacrifice Kuwait. Had the world not dragged their feet for so long, it might have been possible to topple both.
Which is in part Ben Stein's point. If you stand around all day arguing, you just may give your enemies, who are moving as fast as they can, to build something truly awful and use it on you.
You might try and convince Brian to stop helping you, I think you're doing much better on your own :-)
So to reply to your last post, actualy I DO advocate continuing dialogue in the hopes of averting a war. It does get through, but it gets through to the people in the street, not the people in power. Since it is the people in power who determine if we go to war or not, and the people in the street are just going along, their attitude matters not UNLESS they become to incensed with their own leadership that they over throw it instead. That's a LONG time from happening, decades or more, and if a suicidal Immam pulls the trigger at any time before that...
Sun Tzu said "If you want peace, prepare for war." Ben Stein just said pretty much the same thing, that we are ignoring the build up of some very nasty forces and if we don't prepare properly for them, we will be at war before know it.
Where to begin? I was told never to fight someone who is defenseless, and I know this is just a battle of wits....
I'm not even certain where to begin! You asked me to explain why the US didn't invade Egypt and Saudi Arabia as that was where Al Qaeda's top people were born, and frankly the question was so dumb I almost didn't answer, but hey, I figured maybe the guy really doesn't understand and I'll spell it out for him.
But I read your last post about six times and I still can't make enough sense out of it to mock it. If you are saying that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are harbouring terrorists because two of them were born there....well that's just so dumb it deserves no response. If you are saying that this is what the neo-cons think...well then if thats what the neo-cons think why are they not advocating for invading those countries? which makes your assertion sound even dumber!
Al Qaeda's leadership left Saudi Arabia and Eqypt precisely because those countries were no longer tolerating them and had they stayed, they would have been jailed or even executed. That hardly constitutes harbouring them, though they could have moved much quicker to arrest them so that we wouldn't have to worry about them getting their hands on a nuke now...HEY! Ben Stein's point again!
2) The neocons do not advocate bombing those countries primarily because they are western allies, serving strategic and economic purposes. I believe a primary motivation for the invasion of Iraq was a middle eastern base for the US after they left Saudi Arabia.
3) Al Qaeda's leadership left Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Well Bin Laden and al-Zawahri are on the loose in Pakistan, probably. Al Qaeda has probably been most active of all in Saudi Arabia itself since 9/11. And as it is (Supposedly) a global organisation, and now most probably a flag of convenience for many Islamic groups from various nations, it is unlikely that "Al Qaeda's leadership left Saudi Arabia and Eqypt " since Al Qaeda would no longer appear to be a single group (if it ever was).
Terror begets terror. The long-term plan of the neocons is for us to live in interminable fear, well until China becomes a true superpower then (in their minds) all will be right with the world as then we can go back to the Cold War again. Hooray!
There IS no such thing as an Islamic fundamentalist. All those rocket attacks, suicide bombings, hijacked planes, beheadings those are all FAKE. Just like landing on the moon. Its all a big conspiracy. Hey, I bet if I go to New York the twin towers are still there under a blanket or something. Damn those neocons that had me completely fooled. And the Palestinian Authority doesnt allow terrorsists to operate on their territory? Wow. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigad, Islamic Jihad, Hamas are all just part of the great American propoganda machine? Boy did they have ME fooled.
Brian, are you a paid propogandist for some Islamic terror group? Because no one, and I mean no one, is going to believe you are that stupid.
-Unknown
Not once did I claim that the Bush Admin. has a viable policy in the Mid East. Not once.
You attribute things to me that I never said and then call me a bullshitter? If you want to challenge my assertion that an attack on NK was planned that's one thing. But when you suggest that I was doing so in support of claims that I never made....
You have run out of arguments to make and facts to present so you just make some up?
There's a word for that...can't quite come up with it...tip of my tongue....AAAAAAAAAAAGH what an awfull taste.
Its BULLSHIT.
Eisenhower said (roughly);
'You can not simultaneously pursue peace and prepare for war '
But what would he know of war, right?
To continue in the direction we're headed is to insure endless violence, we are continuously feeding the violent minded radicals and destroying both our chances of improving our image "on the street", and in close relation, any chance of their overthrow in the near future. What drives you to continue to spread rumors of war? It appears you actually want this too occur.
Its particularly insulting to be called a propagandist for mass murderers, from whichever source they come. I dont support the slaughter of people anywhere in the world, how about you?
It is as much as anyone would do in such circumstances. Oh, and before you ask, that does not condone suicide bombings, as that is an act of terror, just as much as shelling civilian targets, with the feeble excuse that it is "targetting terrorists".
WQith all this blather that has been genreated in this thread, to get back to Ben Stein's point, the Islamofascists are banking on the fact they think we collectively do not have the will to fight for our way of life.
Fact is the Islamofascists want us to live jus the way like the way they were living in Taliban Afghaninstan.
By the way the Afghanis fighting the Russians were just that Afghanis fightin gthe Russians, not a bunch of terrorists exporting their hatred and evil.
The majority appear to apply moral perfection, as defined in Ivy League colleges, to everything the U.S. does. The predictable result is that most of what the U.S. has done does not pass muster. The country is thus considered to be morally reprehensible and its leaders guilty of looking out for their own personal interests and not the interests of its citizenry. Thus, endless criticism and endless derision of the U.S. while every other country and group gets a pass because we are so bad. It is as if anything good the U.S. has ever done never happened or is so insignificant that it should be ignored. This group of people are often multiculturalists and moral relativists.
On the other side of this debate stand those who recognize that while we are not perfect, being fallible humans, we most always try to do the right thing. These people know that there are no perfect solutions to anything, but that good people trying their best can achieve greatness. They know this because the U.S. has done so again and again over its entire history. They know that from almost any standpoint our country is one of the very best countries in the world, if not the best. They know right from wrong and are unwilling to take a relativistic position like "I can't be for or against the Hizbollah".
Thus a very revealing battle. Are we doomed to lose our greatness because of a failure of confidence similar to that which was a major factor in the downfall of Athens and the Greek city states?
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
If you can't tell the difference between deliberatly blowing up innocent people and sending tanks into battle to STOP attacks on innocent people, then there's no point debating with you any longer.
John,
I don't want war and I never advocated for it. If war is thrust upon me, I will fight to win it. I applaud you efforts to diffuse the war before it starts and I hope you succeed. If you fail however, you would be a fool not to hope that those who are prepared to fight for freedom (YOUR freedom) succeed.
Mark,
I neither supported nor criticized the decision to invade Iraq, nor did I once support Bush policies at all. You said it was dumb to attack Iraq when it was NK that had nukes and I attempted to explain to you the thinking (right or wrong) in the American military establishment that lead them to deal with Iraq first. That does not mean I support their position. The scuttled plans to deal with NK were discussed several times by ex Bush admin advisors in the Washington Post and the New York Times and if you had read the interviews you would know that some of the plans went back to the Clinton admin. Just because a plan was made and never implemented does not mean it was fiction or that it not relevant to current discussion.
Ben,
I am not an American, but I truly admire the guts of the Americans to repeatedly stand up an do what they think is right. Sometimes they are dead wrong and sometimes they are right but they're implementation is so bad that they would have been better off doing nothing. But on the whole there is no country in the world that has done as much for freedom as the United States.
Coming from someone who equates American soldiers with terrorists, I feel honored.
One is defined by one's enemies.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Makes me think your real agenda is to create readership of antagonistic articles so you can sell books.
You constantly equate the government with the U.S. If one expresses dissent, you say they are against the U.S. If one points out a flawed policy, their against this country. If one decries an injustice, they're deriding America.
Hey! I AM America. You ARE America. America is not the government, it's We the People. It's our duty as citizens to participate in the free exchange of ideas, and contribute to the national awareness. That's what we're supposed to do in order to insure we are the true seat of power.
Please stop saying people are against the U.S. because they are against any or all of the current administrations actions. You're being very UNamerican.
To get back to the original point. Today a report has come out which states that British and US policy in the middle east has served to promote Iran's agenda in the region. Previously we have had similar reports that point the finger of blame for increasing the threat of terror at the US invasion of Iraq. Everything which the Bush administration CLAIMS to be its objectives has the opposite effect. Are they really that useless that they cant identify the possible outcome of their strategies? Or are they really operating to a different agenda?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5277362.stm
As Clark asked right at the beginning, can you tell us all exactly what this "war on terror" has achieved thus far?
I keep presenting arguments that the threat of Islamofascism is real and you keep equating my arguments to a support for Bush policies. The reality of the threat is one thing, the correct strategy to deal with it entirely another. Can you not see that these are two different topics?
The Americans were very naive in terms of understanding what the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq would be like. As I said several times in this thread, they screwed up royaly (depite which you claim I support their policies).
You can be critical of the manner in which the war on terror is being conducted and I will agree with you on a lot of points. But YOUR argument seems to be that there really is no enemy, its all a conspiracy by the neo-cons to create a fictitious enemy in order to have someone to fight.
One only has to peruse the headlines from Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Chechnya and many others to know how naive that thought is.
I fall into the latter camp you desribed. I know we aren't perfect, but I know we are trying to do thew right thing. We aren't just going out and hunting down those who seek to harm us, we are also trying to elevate the standard of living of the inncocent bystanders in this conflict. I don't care if the politcial lleft has no concept of this, I don't care how little they think of our country. I am confident we have enough good people in this country with their heads on right to ignore these selfish little whiners, who sympathize with our enemies. My problem with the left is the majority of them want to see the same downfall of our country as the Islamofascists do. I find the lef thas a very low tolerance of any opinion other than their own. The left likes to fabricate scenarios and claim them as fact. The left itself engages in the same terrorist modus operandi as the Islamofascists, don't think so? Just look at the Earth Liberation Front, a bunch of non connected cells all engaging in a common terrorist fashion, attacking ski resorts, car dealerships, condo developments.... The left "fights " for a women's choice as long as that choice is to terminate an innocent life...THey are against the death penalty because for one reason they give is we may be wrong and kill an innocent, but yet they don't extend the thought that we may be wrong as to when a life is a life....hypocrisy rules their thoughts but they all have one thing in common they want to see the downfall of our country.
I also not that several people have decided to use the Whitehouse's word of the moment "Islamofascist or Islamofascism", a sectarian, verging on racist term.
And so the brainwashing continues.... wtg George
The joy of the internet is that you can research any new information which comes to light and apparently the origins of the term are disputed, probably because it is easy, or simplistic to tag "fascist" to anything which you care to disagree with as it has connotations of hate and supremacy. So, in light of that I give you:
http://www.answers.com/topic/islamofascism
It also enlightened me to the term "Christofascism" which is also extremely offensive but could be used just as "legitimately" against fundamentalist Christians such as Mr Bush, or as the term Judaeofascism could be used against the Israeli government and army. Dont you find these terms in the least bit offensive?
No one said Islamofascist applies to all Muslims, once again you put words in other peoples mouths and then denigrate them for it. If some band of Christians sets out to force Christianity on the world and sets about killing anyone who resists, then the term would apply. Since thats not happening, your proposal that it is an apt term is what is offensive. You wrap yourself in the cloak of morality, but as your continued excusal of atrocities committed in the name of Islam by Hamas and Hezbollah coupled with your calling of military action to try and stop them terrorism shows, the only bigot here is you.
When did I say those terms were "apt"?
You read very selectively David. I also think you should perhaps read my posts again because it takes some bizarre twists of logic to call me a bigot or to accuse me of excusing atrocities.
But have it your way, whatever you think thats up to you.
But the real culprits are the Immams who send their congregations out to kill the congregations of other Immams. Yes the United States has failed to bring stability to Iraq. But let's put the blame for all the killing on the people who are doing the killing.
Seems to me the left likes to get caught up in obfuscation rather than reality. Fact is war is not something anybody should relish. Fact is we were attacked, and it was one of a series of attacks that went unanswered. The Khobar Towers, the African Emabassies, the USS Cole....were the first salvos in this war and we did nothing to retaliate.
Don't lecture me or the rest of the world about how there are so many living under tyranny and threats of terror and then diatribe about how we are wrong to look it square in the face and confront it. 60 million or people were liberated by our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and yet none of this is celebratd by the political left. How pathetic the politcal left is, to see liberation of oppressed people and not get behind developing governments of the people. It speaks volumes of the politcal left's true motivations.
We are Americans, we don't let ourselves be intimidated, threatened, murdered....without going after the thugs responsible and either terminating them or taking them prisoner, whatever the situation warrants.
Got a problem with that? Too bad, it is how you defeat evil. You tell me how many C-rations or their equivalent the Russsians dropped over Afghanistan whilst they were engaged in a war there? You tell me how free the Iraqis would be to pump and market their crude oil if Communist China had overthrown Hussein. I can tell you on both accounte...NONE.
You can leave your leftist, defeatist crap at the door. We are at war and unlike the political left I am expecting to win, no matter how long it takes. Appeasers never seem to learn that the more you appease, the more you will be appeasing until the appeased decides they want the whole kit and kaboodle.
My whole point is that there is a lot of New England in GW, maybe more than he would even like to admit.
I don't even know what this scary "fundamentalism" that GW is supposedly subscribing to is in the context put forth in these postings.
I believe it to be a bunch of predisposed bias and perceptions based more on the accuser's reality than the actual reality.
Is it now to be believed that if one lives a life guided by one's Christian faith, that that is supposed to be frowned upon? When I leave my local Roman Catholic church on Sundays our pastor reminds us to do some good in the ensuing week, help somebody's life get better. THat is a far cry from kill the infidels. The sermons I listen to are about helping the downtrodden, the poor, the infirmed....I don't receive instructions on how to murder someone because there life style doesn't abide by rhe morals of the Catholic church. In fact we had a visiting priest at a recent Mass, that related to us his life in Haiti and asked for our help in the form of donations to further his work helping the poor in that impoverished nation. How many of these Mosques around the world are coordinating relief work to help the poor and impoverished? How many sister Theresa's has Islam produced? Where are the Muslim charities feeding, medicating , educating... the poor of this world. I dare say there are NONE, they spend all their time indoctrinating, brainwashing, filling heads with hatred...
Here is another arguement that I can say, "cut the crap clown shoes" you are off base, you don't get to turn the tables and create a monster where there is no monster. Try getting onboard with going after the true evil in this world. What a clown, going on and on about how the "Good Guys" are somehow deluded.....
It should have learned by now that it should be trying to put out the fires of hate rather than continuing to stoke them.
Do you really think that fighting Communism was an excuse? The Russians were building a giant military dictatorship that suppresed freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, executed tens of millions of dissentors and had the stated goal of taking over the world. The cold war was about limiting their growth, confronting them on every front, making it plain we would fight them at every turn and that they had better be carefull what they did or the consequences would be terrible. In the end that military dictatorship collapsed and hundreds of millions of people were freed with minimal (compared to what all out war would have cost) loss of life on both sides.
Along the way there were some difficult choices made. Some allies were evil, but they were the lesser of two evils and some allies were outright mistakes.
Yes the US has made some appaling foreign policy decisions. But the hatred that spews from the mouths of Immams all over the world is aimed at everyone who is not Muslim. Read the transcripts of their speeches. They don't quote US foreign policy as justifcation for their hate, they quote the Quran. They don't launch attacks against the US because of US foreign policy. They launch attacks against the US because US foreign policy prevents them from implementing their vision of the world under the rule of their interpretation of the Quran.
The "war on terror" is the new Cold War, Islam is the new Communism. You have an interesting perspective if you really believe ANYONE has won ANYTHING since the US became the only superpower. Oh, and congratulations to the Russians who are now free to live under the Oligarchs. billionaire businessmen and mafia.
The US made some difficult (and some bad) choices in terms of their allies in fighting the cold war. You make it sound like it was the heart and sole of their strategy, which it was not.
**The "war on terror" is the new Cold War, Islam is the new Communism. You have an interesting perspective if you really believe ANYONE has won ANYTHING since the US became the only superpower. Oh, and congratulations to the Russians who are now free to live under the Oligarchs. billionaire businessmen and mafia.**
There you go putting words in my mouth again. I said millions of people have been freed; Poland, Ukraine, and so on. I never said all countries had made the transition well, or that oligarchs and mafia were good things. I wouldn't even count Russia as free at this point.
It took decades to defeat Communism (which wan't even Communism it was military dictatorship in diguise) and it will take decades to defeat Islamofascism. It would take less time if we didn't have nests of idiots like you who won't even admit it exists hampering out efforts.