Edit: Sadly, the real Arab view of America

[GrantDawg]

This has to be what we concentrate on next.

[Bee]

sad but accurate

[JeeberD]

I'm not sure how accurate this report was, but on Fox news a couple of days ago they had a report that at several Mosques in the middle east that the muslim "Preachers" (not sure what they're called) were talking all their smack about America, calling for death on America when the worshipers in the Mosque started booing and chanting "Allah makes Islam strong, Allah makes America strong."

I only heard it reported one time on Fox news, so like I said, I'm not sure how accurate the report is, but it would be great if it were true...

[Franklinnoble]

Fundamentalist Islam requires jihad against all infidels who refuse to convert. It's in the Koran, and as long as there are muslims who follow their scriptures to the letter, there will be conflict between muslim and non-muslim nations.

[astralhaze]

If only that were the whole picture.

[NoMyths]

Yeah, because all Arabs hate Americans! Down with the sand-anistas!

I wonder if the reasons they hate America are listed on the back of the sign? Something tells me "freedom" isn't on that list.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

The Arab World ''hates'' us because ....well being Israel's friend is one of them and well there are many reasons ....some cogent some not so cogent .

[John Galt]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Yeah, because all Arabs hate Americans! Down with the sand-anistas!

I wonder if the reasons they hate America are listed on the back of the sign? Something tells me "freedom" isn't on that list.

Very good (and funny) post. The "jealous of our freedom" view of those who oppose the US is an all too common, very narrow perspective on the world.

[mrskippy]

What I find amazing is all the Iraqi-Americans in Dearborn (and elsewhere) waving American and Iraqi flags, celebrating the liberation.

What I find amazing is Iraqi people and American soldiers together tearing down a statue of Saddam.

What I find amazing is how the rest of the Arab world scoffs at America, while Iraqi people rejoice.

One Iraqi-American put it right -- Al Jazeera and other Arab TV networks are pretty much pro-Saddam and quite likely receive heavy funding from him.

Also Neil Cavuto's commentary today on Fox News about the war ... was so dead on. I'm trying to look for the text of it and post it here.

[mrskippy]

Dola ...

Here's Neil Cavuto's comments from Fox News. Good stuff. It can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83711,00.html or read below:

By Neil Cavuto


I want to talk to the French right now and the Germans and the Russians. I want to talk to all those who opposed the liberation of Iraq. I want to show you all something. I want to show you the joyous scene in downtown Baghdad today.





People oppressed. Now people free. People once hopeless. Now hopeful. People you forgot. But we remembered.

If you had things your way, they'd still be under the thumb of a dictator. And you were fine with that. We were not. You had no problem telling them, "live with it." We had a big problem telling them, "get over it."

Look at their faces. See their smiles. And feel their joy, their freedom and their fervor. How do you feel now? Still sure going the extra mile for them wasn't worth it? I don't think they'd agree.

While you were debating, they were suffering. While you were kowtowing to a dictator you knew was an ogre, they were enduring under a dictator they knew was even worse. They lived in huts and tenements. He lived in castles. But that didn't bother you.

They scraped by to get morsels. You skulked by to get contracts. They couldn't realize a penny from the oil that made Saddam rich. You didn't seem to care, as long as it made you rich.

You opted for profit over principle and deals that made a dictator richer and his people poorer. You argued the world had no right to interfere in a sovereign nation. But you won't waste a nanosecond to worm your way into this new nation. Now you want in, when for so long the masses have been kept out.

You are as crass as you are cunning, as phony as you are pathetic.

I ask you to look at their faces. Then look at your own. See the triumph of the human spirit and the coalition soldiers who fought and died for it. Then see your own pathetic selves, who -- even now -- can't come close to appreciating it.

[astralhaze]

Well, if Neil Cavuto said it then it must be true.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Well, if Neil Cavuto said it then it must be true.

Yes, everybody knows that Eddie Vedder has all the answers.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Hammer755
Yes, everybody knows that Eddie Vedder has all the answers.

No no, get it right. The commies take their orders from the Dixie Chicks.

[mrskippy]

I think many people will be saying what Neil is saying, especially as France, Russia, and Germany try to worm their way in after the hostilities fully end.

How many French soldiers died liberating the Iraqi people?
How many Russian soldiers died liberating the Iraqi people?
How many German soldiers died liberating the Iraqi people?

Now ...

How many Coaltion soldiers died liberating the Iraqi people?

And more importantly ...

How many innocent Iraqi's died trying to liberate themselves the past few decades?

These people weren't asking for much, just a taste of freedom from a man who made life miserable for everyone except himself, his family, and the most loyal in his inner circle.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Fundamentalist Islam requires jihad against all infidels who refuse to convert. It's in the Koran, and as long as there are muslims who follow their scriptures to the letter, there will be conflict between muslim and non-muslim nations.

you sure about that?

[mrskippy]

Franklinnoble ... you answer that one. I usually get in trouble when I get into those discussions. So I'm shutting up.

[Qwikshot]

What's the over/under for when the Iraqis say/parade/protest "America go home?"

[mrskippy]

We haven't taken Tikrit yet and if we don't the Baath will rise again.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by mrskippy
What I find amazing is all the Iraqi-Americans in Dearborn (and elsewhere) waving American and Iraqi flags, celebrating the liberation.

I definitely would not say ALL Iraqi-Americans here. There has been plenty of vocal opposition to U.S. involvement in Iraq from local Iraqis here in Detroit since the last Gulf War. In the past it has led to some very tension-filled times here.

[mrskippy]

I'm not saying all literally ... I'm saying all in the sense of ... "look at all those people."

[NoMyths]

I seem to remember them celebrating almost as fiercely during the last Iraqi "election." 100% support for Saddam, wasn't that right?

Of course they were forced. But they also aren't unfamiliar with riotous displays, regardless of the event they're "celebrating."

All of that said: I think it's great if the Iraqi people can have a better life after all of this, and it's nice to see them be able to celebrate of their own volition.

Don't underestimate the value of a photo op, though, nor a crowd's desire to participate in one.


Edit: Grammar

[Super Ugly]

"By Neil Cavuto
I want to talk to the French right now and the Germans and the Russians. I want to talk to all those who opposed the liberation of Iraq. I want to show you all something. I want to show you the joyous scene in downtown Baghdad today.
People oppressed. Now people free. People once hopeless. Now hopeful. People you forgot. But we remembered.
If you had things your way, they'd still be under the thumb of a dictator. And you were fine with that. We were not. You had no problem telling them, "live with it." We had a big problem telling them, "get over it."
Look at their faces. See their smiles. And feel their joy, their freedom and their fervor. How do you feel now? Still sure going the extra mile for them wasn't worth it? I don't think they'd agree.
While you were debating, they were suffering. While you were kowtowing to a dictator you knew was an ogre, they were enduring under a dictator they knew was even worse. They lived in huts and tenements. He lived in castles. But that didn't bother you.
They scraped by to get morsels. You skulked by to get contracts. They couldn't realize a penny from the oil that made Saddam rich. You didn't seem to care, as long as it made you rich.
You opted for profit over principle and deals that made a dictator richer and his people poorer. You argued the world had no right to interfere in a sovereign nation. But you won't waste a nanosecond to worm your way into this new nation. Now you want in, when for so long the masses have been kept out.
You are as crass as you are cunning, as phony as you are pathetic.
I ask you to look at their faces. Then look at your own. See the triumph of the human spirit and the coalition soldiers who fought and died for it. Then see your own pathetic selves, who -- even now -- can't come close to appreciating it."

Sorry, but is this guy really a Fox News 'journalist'? My encounters with that cursed network left me with nothing but the shivers, but I'll be damned if that's how respectable journalists talk in the USA. We have that kind of hysteria in our newspapers too, but at least the tabloids here come with naked women on page three ...

[tucker342]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Fundamentalist Islam requires jihad against all infidels who refuse to convert. It's in the Koran, and as long as there are muslims who follow their scriptures to the letter, there will be conflict between muslim and non-muslim nations.

aren't pretty much all religions like that? Are you even sure the Koran says that?

[BishopMVP]

The Koran says a lot of things. So does the Bible. It just depends on how you choose to interpret it.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by tucker342
aren't pretty much all religions like that? Are you even sure the Koran says that?

hey, that was my line.

[sabotai]

Why am I not surprised that mrskippy finds an editorial from Fox News to be dead on?

And for the last 12 years, we haven't given two shits about the Iraqi people either. As SkyDog says, Shame on you Mr. Bush, shame on you Mr. Clinton.

[tucker342]

ya I know

[mrskippy]

Dead on with my sentiments and likely the sentiments of many Americans.

Really now, do you think France should be an integral part in a post-war Iraq.

Nobody answer the questions I posed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

SuperUgly -- Cavuto's piece is clearly commentary, not journalism. And his ability to cut through the b.s. to speak some very clear truths very plainly in recent weeks has made him my hands-down favorite op/ed guy out there.

He's one of the very few people who I simply sit back and marvel at their writing ability.

I think we need to stop supporting Israel. I'd rather have a handful of rich oil producing countries liking us than one non-oil producing one.

Besides...oh wait, that's enough for now

[mrskippy]

Remember the Cavuto commentary was written for "on air" use. When you hear that with the pictures from today, it really puts things into perspective.

Bush I and Clinton, sadly, did fail. But they also were trying to "give peace a chance."

After 9-11 and with the threat the Saddam poses, the current Bush realized that 12 years was truly enough. The UN was only delaying the inevitible. And the inevitible may not have been pretty.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by wignifty
I think we need to stop supporting Israel. I'd rather have a handful of rich oil producing countries liking us than one non-oil producing one.

Never!!!

[GrantDawg]

Even though I posted the comic, I don't fully believe that supporting Israel is the only reason there are many Arabs that hate us. There are as many different reasons that people hate Americans as there are different reasons for people to hate each other. I think many Arabs number one reason is the Palestinian problem though, and I really hope and pray this "road map to peace" is something that might actually lighten that hatred. I don't have much hope for it.

Out of curiosity, what would be your solution to this problem, John?

[mrskippy]

I think many Arabs number one reason is the Palestinian problem though, and I really hope and pray this "road map to peace" is something that might actually lighten that hatred. I don't have much hope for it.

I know I may be flamed for this, but this tends to be a more common Christian view these days:

Any peace between Arabs and Israel, will be as a result of the antichrist. And I believe it's this peace that will lead us into the end times described in Revelation.

Also, it's pretty impossible for the Arabs to agree to any true and lasting peace with Israel. Isaac=Jew/Christian, Ismael=Arab/Muslim and I'm sure most of us know the Bible story there.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by mrskippy
I know I may be flamed for this, but this tends to be a more common Christian view these days:

Any peace between Arabs and Israel, will be as a result of the antichrist. And I believe it's this peace that will lead us into the end times described in Revelation.

Also, it's pretty impossible for the Arabs to agree to any true and lasting peace with Israel. Isaac=Jew/Christian, Ismael=Arab/Muslim and I'm sure most of us know the Bible story there.

I know the Bible quite well, thank you mr.skippy, and I also know that you are so grossly misusing scripture in this point of view that it is sad. I do believe that any "peace" just like all peace in the world would not necessarily be permanent. This area has always been "hot" but there have been long periods of time that conflict has been relatively light, and I am hoping that another period of peace might come. If it does come, it will not be at the bequest of the "antichrist."

[mrskippy]

GrantDawg,

But wouldn't you agree that much of the hate between Arab and Jew dates back to the Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael? It's not a new conflict, by any stretch of the imagination.

When you get a chance read John F. MacArthur's "Terrorism, Jihad, And The Bible"

In fact, everyone should read that one. It's well done.

As for permanent peace, is that possible? Doesn't the permanent, lasting peace of Jerusalem come when Christ returns?

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by mrskippy
GrantDawg,

But wouldn't you agree that much of the hate between Arab and Jew dates back to the Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael? It's not a new conflict, by any stretch of the imagination.

When you get a chance read John F. MacArthur's "Terrorism, Jihad, And The Bible"

In fact, everyone should read that one. It's well done.

As for permanent peace, is that possible? Doesn't the permanent, lasting peace of Jerusalem come when Christ returns?

Did you read my post? I said that there will probably not be a permanent peace, but there can be a "cooling off" in the area and there has been before. Yes, much of this conflict dates back to Abraham, but no one is suggesting that there will be anything like true love between Muslim and Jews. But an end to open hostilities can happen.

As a matter of fact, yours and many evangelical's belief that any peace could never happen and that if it did it would have to be the work of the "antichrist" is one of the reasons I believe that Dubya didn't want to touch this conflict to start with. I think many people wants the US to have a blind alliance with Israel and not try to bring peace to the region because of their pre-millennial views. This is sad because even God condemned Israel when they sinned (read Isaiah, Jeremiah, Matthew, etc.). So even with the pre-millennial belief, it would not be contradictory to condemn Israel when they are in the wrong.

Also, it should not be contradictory to pray for peace, even in Israel/Palestine since this is exactly what we are commanded to do. And seeing as I do not believe God asks us to pray for that which is impossible, it would not be against God to try and work for peace.

Understand this, skippy, peace in this context does not mean a complete end to contention between peoples. We had peace between the US and the Soviets for many years though we where at war in another way. I'm talking about an end to open conflict. Not necessarily that everybody will love each other.

[GrantDawg]

P.s. Love MacArthur's works for the most part, but haven't read that one. I definitely don't agree with many of his eschatological views.

[Dutch]

And for the last 12 years, we haven't given two shits about the Iraqi people either. As SkyDog says, Shame on you Mr. Bush, shame on you Mr. Clinton.

Actually, Mr. Bush Sr. pressed hard for toppling the Saddam regime (if you remember 1990) but the UN coalition forces refused to go for it. In order to keep the coalition together and strong we had to clearly define our goals. We accomplished those goals based on UN demands.

Then the UN put their standard sanctions in place and Bush was obliged (if we remember that far back) to "Give Sanctions a Chance".

Then came President Clinton who was obliged to "Give Sanctions a Chance" even as the views in the Arab world shrunk away from appreciation (1991) to down right hatred (1995) of "American Sanctions" on Iraq.

To be fair, Clinton just didn't know. I don't think anybody really understood until 9/11. And nobody really appreciated it further until Saddam Hussein's regime was the only regime on this planet that refused to send sympathies and probably quite happily began plotting how he could muster up something similar. Afterall, he was in charge of an entire nation, not just a 100 million dollar operation in a cave in Afghanistan. Global reach was his ticket.

So that brings us to today. Gore would have failed. Bush will be remembered in 10 years as being a strong President, who did what he said he would do, and made a very positive difference in the world.

[SackAttack]

Only by those who choose to do so in the first place, Dutch. You're still going to have approximately half the country who, for political reasons, are never going to stand with Dubya on this one (or on any other issue, honestly).

They'll stand there and tell you how patriotic they are, and that even though they don't/didn't support Bush on this, they supported the troops. You know, the 'politically correct' thing to say lest you risk drawing unfavorable national attention to yourself.

But 10 years from now, those people aren't gonna say "By golly, that President G.W. Bush was a strong, courageous man with the conviction to stand by his principles and back up soft words with a large stick." They'll have very little positive to say about him, even as they acknowledge that the world is a better place. They'll simply whitewash any contributions that he may have made, because after all, he was an idiot, right? He couldn't possibly have made a positive difference in the lives of millions.

It works both ways. If it were a liberal Democrat in the White House right now, there'd still be half the country who would refuse to give credit where it's due.

History is written by the winners, but recorded by those with the largest axe to grind. Even as the Iraqi people celebrate their newfound freedom, the rest of the Arab world impugns "Mr. Bush" and decries "American imperialism." People believe what they want to believe, evidence to the contrary.

War for oil, disarmament, or liberation - whatever the driving cause may be, there are those who will believe different because they simply cannot fathom the idea of a man they don't like, don't respect, and to whom they consider themselves morally and intellectually superior might have done the right thing.

It's unfortunate. The shout of tyranny overwhelms the whisper of freedom, and too many are willing to live with that, for whatever reasons they're comfortable with. Sixty-five years ago, there was a contingent in this country that didn't think Nazi Germany was doing anything wrong - or, at least, nothing so grievously wrong that it required our attention and action.

It took an unthinkable attack on American soil by one of Germany's allies to galvanize the nation, and the horrors exposed by the defeat of the Axis still cling to our collective national conscience to this day - although, it would seem, we worry more about the fate of those with whom we warred than that of their victims.

I realize that the parallels between the Axis and Hussein's Iraq aren't necessarily crisp and clear, but I leave you with the thought that weighs on my mind at the moment:

Between 1936 and 1941 (possibly earlier than '36, it's nearly 2 am and my history is slightly fuzzy), Japan waged a war of conquest on the South Pacific, seizing many areas rich in natural resources necessary for the unleashing of the dogs of war. Rubber, oil, and the like. They enslaved the Korean peninsula, as well as Manchuria, using the young women in those territories as basically slave prostitutes for the Japanese military.

The Germans may or may not have stooped to those levels of sexual depravity, but they certainly built their war machine on the backs of millions of European Jews and various other political prisoners.

In the case of Germany, from where I'm sitting, the wanton disregard for the Versailles Treaty was due primarily to the presence of a larger threat to the east: the Soviets. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn, then, that the Great Depression may have led Western companies to sell goods to Germany that may have been used in war.

All of which is a rather long-winded way of saying this: Had Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor, what would our obligations have been with respect to the rest of of the industrial world? Should we have gone in anyway, or waited until we found the war taken to our doorstep?

On a national scale, now, instead of a global scale. We have a dictator who has invaded the sovereign territory of (and used chemical weapons against) his neighbors, used chemical weapons on rebellious citizens of his own country, built palaces and monuments to himself while his people suffered, and just generally not been a nice guy. Like Germany before him, he flaunted a peace treaty signed over a decade previously, choosing to ignore the terms laid before him repeatedly, and willfully.

Do we leave him in power simply because we haven't had the political will in the last dozen years to force compliance? Do we continue to let him make a mockery of the global community? Do we use force to compel him to live by the terms of peace? Or do we consign ourselves to a future of reactive warfare, fought only after lives and freedoms, American or otherwise, have been lost through inaction?

I apologize for the rambling nature of the post, and I hope it at least makes some kind of sense. I don't agree with everything this Administration has done, and is doing - the Patriot Act and its presumptuous successors being foremost in my mind.

Still, I do believe that in the current environment, our very security is at stake, and that the actions we've taken on a global scale in the last year and a half have been warranted and necessary to secure life and liberty not just for Americans, but for those who have never known such, or have forgotten freedom's taste. I don't believe that a Democratic White House would have had the will to secure those freedoms, even in the wake of 9/11.

We'll never know for sure, of course, but in an uncertain world ruled by political realities, all things considered, I think we're in much better shape than we might have been.

Josh

[GrantDawg]

Bump to see if John would respond to my post that got buried up there.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Bump to see if John would respond to my post that got buried up there.

Things do tend to get buried in skippy threads. Sorry about that.

My solution to Iraq was lifting sanctions and actually engaging in diplomacy instead of threatening and bombing while calling it diplomacy. My solution to the rest of the Middle East is more complex. I don't think there is much to be done, but frankly I think we should withdraw support from Israel until they improve their human rights record and accede to countless treaties including the Geneva convention. Arming and nuclearizing a country who isn't subject to international law, while bombing another for the same reasons is a little crazy to me. I also think we should stop aiding Egypt as both countries have gotten way to much money for a treaty signed over 20 years ago.

[GrantDawg]

Thanks for the response. I can't say that I would be against withdrawing at least some if not all support from Israel unless major changes in their actions do not come about. I do think we have done more harm in the region than good for following Israel way to blindly.

Do you think that a Palestinian state would ease the tensions? What would it take to make one work?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Thanks for the response. I can't say that I would be against withdrawing at least some if not all support from Israel unless major changes in their actions do not come about. I do think we have done more harm in the region than good for following Israel way to blindly.

Do you think that a Palestinian state would ease the tensions? What would it take to make one work?

I don't know - I've always believe strongly in Palestinian self-determination (as I believe strongly in the formation of a Jewish state), but the current system seems to be a disaster. All sides are to blame and conditions continue to get worse. I'm not sure statehood will solve with the current boundaries, but I doubt it could make things worse than the Apartheid type system that currently exists.

[mrskippy]

Do you think that a Palestinian state would ease the tensions? What would it take to make one work?

No because Hamas and Islamic Jihad will always be around to inflict terror. And I highly doubt the PA would do anything to control it, even after statehood.

The only way to make statehood work would be regime change (no Arafat), accepting the last peace proposal (the one Arafat walked out on that the US and Israel both liked), and making sure the PA severely punishes militants (and making it clear that if the PA doesn't, Israel will). And making sure they don't allow terrorists from Iran and elsewhere to slip in to wreak havoc.

I'm all for a Palestinian state, but I don't believe it is something that should be taken lightly. Israel's security is vital. It wouldn't take much for a rocket to be launched from the border between Israel and the West Bank to reach Tel Aviv. It's not very far. Put it another way, you can go from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv ... in maybe 30 minutes or so. Not very far.

[GrantDawg]

I believe that part of the condition for the "Roadmap" plan is that the new Palestinian premier has real power and that Arafat does not. I've heard that they are showing they have met that condition, but Arafat did try to balk at the last moment.

I'm not convinced that it will solve the problem (Palestinian statehood), but I think it will help. Would Palestine allow an outside force (maybe a UN force of maybe German, French, or some other country other than America) to provide security for their border?