Originally Posted by The Rani

Posts like this one are why I consider you to be part of the Authoritarian Left. In many ways, you're no more open-minded than sean is.

Disagreeing with sabre-rattling make me a close-minded authoritarian?

Originally Posted by stilltim

I've argued the same on other boards. So, there's not much daylight between us on that one.

To answer the implied question here about whether Islamic extremism is really as serious a threat as the Nazi party was... conservatives generally believe it could become so if we allow it to.

The extremists are determined to do us damage and they are not easy to get rid of. We're talking about an ideology that has the support of 40% of the population of a dozen nations, that has additional supporters all over the world and that hides behind innocent civilians - even children. This will not be a straight up fight as it was with Nazi Germany. It may be even worse.

It may well be that we're in for a lot of nightmares before we find a solution to this problem and I suspect the extremists will have plenty of more opportunities to do serious damage before we manage to do so.

Until we stirred up the hornet's nest in Iraq the threat of militant Islam was declining after peaking in the early 90s. AQ was a little bunch of true believers who retreated to the only place that would let them in after most Islamists dropped their militancy and entered mainstream political life. IMO 9/11 was a very lucky strike.

You tell him, Rani!

Btw, everybody on this forum, I just simply have a very short fuse. I'm not a troll, I just get angry very easily.

Originally Posted by stilltim

I've argued the same on other boards. So, there's not much daylight between us on that one.

To answer the implied question here about whether Islamic extremism is really as serious a threat as the Nazi party was... conservatives generally believe it could become so if we allow it to.

The extremists are determined to do us damage and they are not easy to get rid of. We're talking about an ideology that has the support of 40% of the population of a dozen nations, that has additional supporters all over the world and that hides behind innocent civilians - even children. This will not be a straight up fight as it was with Nazi Germany. It may be even worse.

However they do not control any governments like the nazis and fascist did iran poorly positioned to launch a major conventional invasion of the mideast, let alone europe. And iran's islamism comes from completely different roots than al-qaeda's version.

Originally Posted by stilltim

It may well be that we're in for a lot of nightmares before we find a solution to this problem and I suspect the extremists will have plenty of more opportunities to do serious damage before we manage to do so.

There is a simple solution if comes to that; destroy the enemy human shields if they use civilians in such fashion, just bombard the whole thing. However IMO bin laden attacked on 9/11 becuase he assumed we would be incapable of retaliating. The subsequent conquest of afghanistan and Iraq most likely shocked him. Islamists are relatively easy to beat, as long as you respond forcefully to their aggression they think twice about attacking, i.e islamists generally attack people they're sure wont fight back.

Another threat that should be countered is the resurgent russian expansionism. The weaponry that is supplied to iran is what makes them a threat, Iran unlike nazi germany is an armaments buyer nation not an armaments supplier nation. Thus by themselves they pose little long term threat unless they develop a large-scale native armaments industry.

Originally Posted by Odin

Iran is a threat, but comparing it to Nazi Germany is just stupid hyperbole.

How, exactly, is Iran a threat to you? The introductory clause of your sentence isn't hyperbole, but it sure comes off as stupid (I would say ignorant, but you've observed dialogue long enough that you really don't get to use that particular excuse).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Point taken. I just raise the concern that such comparisons should not only be very well thought out and presented but also deemed truly necessary to make one's central point. Or, one risks being considered a little hyperbolic.

This particular conversation seem directed more at the need for containment than launching personal ad-hominum attacks at a politician or contributor to the forum. While I'm hardly an advocate of deciding issues through Hitler comparisons, we seem to be well on the side of relevance this particular trip around the block.

That said, I'd like to isolate some basic differences between the current crisis and the last.

1. In Hitler's time, there was a long unbroken history of both war of aggression against other major powers, and colonial imperialism. Both were considered a natural part of the way things worked, cost effective, and necessary if one wished to play the great power game. Also, few questioned that one ought to play the great power game.
2. Nukes have made war of aggression against other major powers a dubious proposition.
3. When everyone was an imperialistic power, it was not considered polite to arm insurrections against other imperialistic powers. This has reversed. Proxy war is a default doctrine. Thus, colonial imperialism is considered a dubious proposition. Any power setting up a zone of influence, let alone an official colony, must expect insurrection these days.
4. Many locals, knowing this, are rather aggressive in the setting up of insurrections. To a great degree, these insurrections have been successful.
5. Tactics have shifted from 2GW to 4GW. The weapons of choice are assault rifles, mortars, IEDs and suicide bomb vests. While 2GW wars were decided the the size of one's industrial economy, the ability to manufacture tanks, artillery pieces, aircraft and warships, 2GW conflict requires small arms and boots on the ground. This radically changes the balance of power between locals on their home ground and occupying troops from far away.
6. Terror tactics, the use of bombs placed through subterfuge, is unanswered. Defense might be attempted through unprecedented degrees of surveillance. The problem might be escalated by combining terrorist tactics with weapons of mass destruction. The choice, as presented by some conservatives, is between a little temporary liberty and essential security.
7. There are underlying causes. There are ever more people, ever fewer resources, making ecology part of the game. There is a division of wealth, which make economics part of the game. Autocratic governments seldom manage effective governments capable of producing reasonable life styles for the people, which makes politics part of the situation. One must ask if military solutions are at all possible, then consider whether it is proper to address underlying issues.
8. Even if one wishes to address underlying issues, and has some plan to transform some terror breeding part of the world to happy contentment, changing another nation's culture by force is not a trivial issue. It has never been a trivial issue, and the current proxy war tradition -- made popular by the Cold War -- will make it less so.

That might cover the basics. I'm sure I've left stuff out. It is not clear to me that the approaching problems are less than those faced in the 1930s and 1940s. I would just be careful in embracing the metaphors too enthusiastically. In 1941, we could decide to all band together and beat up on fascists. There was a brute force solution. It worked reasonably well.

It is not clear that such a simple brute force solution is available this time. If I am reading the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq correctly, we cannot conquer the remnant autocratic countries one at a time, and force them to become modern democracies at gunpoint. This to me implies underlying concerns must in time be addressed. A format and framework for this to happen seems distant and unachievable.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

How, exactly, is Iran a threat to you? The introductory clause of your sentence isn't hyperbole, but it sure comes off as stupid (I would say ignorant, but you've observed dialogue long enough that you really don't get to use that particular excuse).

Iran is a country that likes the Nazis' Aryan race theories and hates Jews. Go figure?

The topic of this thread is like waiting for Jesus to return and looking for signs.

Originally Posted by New_Waver

Iran is a country that likes the Nazis' Aryan race theories

Asserting that should be followed with a url link to something that supports that assertion. If not a URL, possibly referencing some supporting material elsewhere. I'm thinking you have them confused with the Baathists which also follow a national socialist agenda.

And as for hating the Jews, that hardly sets Iran apart from most of the arab world......or other parts of the world.

The topic of this thread is like waiting for Jesus to return and looking for signs.

HE'S BACK ALREADY! He sells tacos on the corner two blocks down from my office! Stop and see him! The pork tacos are his best.

Originally Posted by Odin

Until we stirred up the hornet's nest in Iraq the threat of militant Islam was declining after peaking in the early 90s. AQ was a little bunch of true believers who retreated to the only place that would let them in after most Islamists dropped their militancy and entered mainstream political life. IMO 9/11 was a very lucky strike.

Fully forty percent of the middle eastern population supported AQ. That's a decline?

And, BTW, in Iraq, that number has been cut in half since we've been there. Elsewhere, it's still at 40%.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

However they do not control any governments like the nazis and fascist did iran poorly positioned to launch a major conventional invasion of the mideast, let alone europe. And iran's islamism comes from completely different roots than al-qaeda's version.

Where have I said anything about a conventional invasion? The kind of threat that terrorists specialize in looks nothing like conventional warfare, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Asserting that should be followed with a url link to something that supports that assertion. If not a URL, possibly referencing some supporting material elsewhere. I'm thinking you have them confused with the Baathists which also follow a national socialist agenda.

And as for hating the Jews, that hardly sets Iran apart from most of the arab world......or other parts of the world.



HE'S BACK ALREADY! He sells tacos on the corner two blocks down from my office! Stop and see him! The pork tacos are his best.

It seems like nothing changes.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

This particular conversation seem directed more at the need for containment than launching personal ad-hominum attacks at a politician or contributor to the forum. While I'm hardly an advocate of deciding issues through Hitler comparisons, we seem to be well on the side of relevance this particular trip around the block.

That said, I'd like to isolate some basic differences between the current crisis and the last.

1. In Hitler's time, there was a long unbroken history of both war of aggression against other major powers, and colonial imperialism. Both were considered a natural part of the way things worked, cost effective, and necessary if one wished to play the great power game. Also, few questioned that one ought to play the great power game.
2. Nukes have made war of aggression against other major powers a dubious proposition.
3. When everyone was an imperialistic power, it was not considered polite to arm insurrections against other imperialistic powers. This has reversed. Proxy war is a default doctrine. Thus, colonial imperialism is considered a dubious proposition. Any power setting up a zone of influence, let alone an official colony, must expect insurrection these days.
4. Many locals, knowing this, are rather aggressive in the setting up of insurrections. To a great degree, these insurrections have been successful.
5. Tactics have shifted from 2GW to 4GW. The weapons of choice are assault rifles, mortars, IEDs and suicide bomb vests. While 2GW wars were decided the the size of one's industrial economy, the ability to manufacture tanks, artillery pieces, aircraft and warships, 2GW conflict requires small arms and boots on the ground. This radically changes the balance of power between locals on their home ground and occupying troops from far away.
6. Terror tactics, the use of bombs placed through subterfuge, is unanswered. Defense might be attempted through unprecedented degrees of surveillance. The problem might be escalated by combining terrorist tactics with weapons of mass destruction. The choice, as presented by some conservatives, is between a little temporary liberty and essential security.
7. There are underlying causes. There are ever more people, ever fewer resources, making ecology part of the game. There is a division of wealth, which make economics part of the game. Autocratic governments seldom manage effective governments capable of producing reasonable life styles for the people, which makes politics part of the situation. One must ask if military solutions are at all possible, then consider whether it is proper to address underlying issues.
8. Even if one wishes to address underlying issues, and has some plan to transform some terror breeding part of the world to happy contentment, changing another nation's culture by force is not a trivial issue. It has never been a trivial issue, and the current proxy war tradition -- made popular by the Cold War -- will make it less so.

That might cover the basics. I'm sure I've left stuff out. It is not clear to me that the approaching problems are less than those faced in the 1930s and 1940s. I would just be careful in embracing the metaphors too enthusiastically. In 1941, we could decide to all band together and beat up on fascists. There was a brute force solution. It worked reasonably well.

It is not clear that such a simple brute force solution is available this time. If I am reading the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq correctly, we cannot conquer the remnant autocratic countries one at a time, and force them to become modern democracies at gunpoint. This to me implies underlying concerns must in time be addressed. A format and framework for this to happen seems distant and unachievable.

For the most part, this is an excellent analysis. As for your ultimate conclusions, I think you'll find that - once you get past the rhetoric on both sides of the argument - the vast majority of conservatives don't completely disagree with them. Contrary to liberal propaganda, there is a distinct preference for diplomacy as a solution even among conservative camps, and this is so for many of the reasons you quoted. More aggressive solutions are considered a last resort.

Remember, before we went into Iraq, Sadam had violated something like 17 different UN resolutions. Moreover, the economic sanctions that we had put in place had utterly failed. In addition to the corrupt deals that Sadam had established with certain Europeans, he was bleeding his country dry to keep his personal wealth and his war machine going. We were already beginning to face a humanitarian crisis as it looked like we might lose millions of Iraqi poor due to starvation (and AQ was using the devastation caused by the sanctions as a very effective recruiting tool). Finally, we were spending millions a year doing flybys on his territory and he had started taking pot shots at us. Was any of this a success by any measure of the word? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by playwrite

-- however, I can't buy this. There was something more to "our Reactives" than was with those others. I don't see (or honestly, don't want to believe) our Nation capable of producing 1930s Germany culture. There was something more to Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Nimitz that differentiated them from their Axis Reactive peers, and I don't buy the "yea, they won" argument. I don't see even Patton putting people in ovens under the worst of circumstances.

It was the culture that allowed the Lost in the end to pick and choose which Missionary agenda would succeed. The conservationists, the agrarian reformers, the feminists, and the union organizers proved the least troublesome to most Lost. These were the least shrill of the Missionaries, and the ones most capable of appealing to the pragmatism of the Lost in America. When the Lost finally took over at the end of World War II, the successful Missionary agenda could operate on autopilot; the Lost were not creating or imposing any new morality for America. Even on race, the choices of Truman and Eisenhower seemed more pragmatic than principled.

You can say that our great Lost military figures would never have herded helpless people into concentration camps or to shooting pits. Such was the same with the most competent of the German generals; we don't blame Rommel or Guderian. Generals do not choose the countries or even the political systems for whom they lead troops. We can blame a political culture in Weimar Germany that served as a nursery for extremism.

Also, with a few more years maturation, I'll take my chances with Reactive leadership than the bonehead boomers (hey, Skabungus, I came up with a good one too!) if the current ones leading us are the examples.

I do like the rest of your thoughts though. Although I'd rather take Jane than Diane to the 4T bunker.

On Tuesday, January 20, 2009, the worst Bonehead Boomer of all (George Worthless Bush) will go into retirement, as will the uncharacteristically nasty Silent Dick Cheney (if his heart doesn't get him first). A wet-behind-the-ears Barak Obama would be a huge improvement over a dry drunk who goes seamlessly from adolescence to senescence without passing through a competent midlife (I have known lots of alcoholics who fit that pattern, and I don't know whether alcoholism causes that pattern or merely fits it).

But even if we get further Boom leadership, it will be very different. Those behind Dubya have largely discredited themselves -- as shown in the results of the 2006 Congressional elections. Howe and Strauss have shown that in a late 3T the American public acts as if it wants weak leadership that endorses popular superstitions while leaving management of the economy to owners and bosses -- and gets it. Like Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolidge, it solves nothing while allowing dangers to mount. (One historian faulted Calvin Coolidge for granting no relief to Germany on reparations payments, thus contributing to the economic distress that allowed the rise of the Devil Incarnate in Germany).

Americans are increasingly in a 4T mindset because of the generational constellation even if nothing has happened -- yet. The next President will face the unpleasant reality that an unpopular war is (so far) all that prevents double-digit unemployment, that America has lost respect because of dishonest and corrupt leadership, that Americans are awash in debt despite a veneer of debt-driven spending, and that China has become an economic powerhouse as well as a potential adversary.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Where have I said anything about a conventional invasion? The kind of threat that terrorists specialize in looks nothing like conventional warfare, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat.

However the islamic world is even more at a disadvantage in WMD type warfare than it is at conventional warfare, the west has much more nukes and much larger nukes than those the islamic world could hope to possess. Also muslim cities are more concentrated and have higher density than western cities meaning a WMD war would be a disadvantage to the muslims. Also the mideast countryside is much less supportable to agriculture meaning a nuclear exchange aftereffects would be far more devestating there.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Fully forty percent of the middle eastern population supported AQ. That's a decline?

And, BTW, in Iraq, that number has been cut in half since we've been there. Elsewhere, it's still at 40%.

What I remember is that after 9/11 Middle-Eastern public opinion was on our side untill we invaded Iraq. I remember hearing on the news after 9/11 about Iranians in the streets in support of us.

Originally Posted by stilltim

I'm simply saying that conservative believe liberals are underestimating Islamic terrorism in the same way that liberals of the last cycle underestimated Hitler.

During the last 4T it was the liberals who warned about the nazi threat. The conservatives were the businessmen and others who still advocated detente and trade relations with germany all the way to 1941. The average 1930's conservative probably viewed nazi germany as a nuisance at most and regarded Russia as the real enemy.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Remember, before we went into Iraq, Sadam had violated something like 17 different UN resolutions. Moreover, the economic sanctions that we had put in place had utterly failed. In addition to the corrupt deals that Sadam had established with certain Europeans, he was bleeding his country dry to keep his personal wealth and his war machine going. We were already beginning to face a humanitarian crisis as it looked like we might lose millions of Iraqi poor due to starvation (and AQ was using the devastation caused by the sanctions as a very effective recruiting tool). Finally, we were spending millions a year doing flybys on his territory and he had started taking pot shots at us. Was any of this a success by any measure of the word? I don't think so.

That doesn't excuse the lies used to convince Americans to support invading Iraq. There are a lot of other tin-pot dictators, like Mugabe or the thugs ruling Burma, that are as bad or worse then Saddam was. Then again, Zimbabwe and Burma don't have oil...

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

During the last 4T it was the liberals who warned about the nazi threat. The conservatives were the businessmen and others who still advocated detente and trade relations with germany all the way to 1941. The average 1930's conservative probably viewed nazi germany as a nuisance at most and regarded Russia as the real enemy.

And don't forget all the Tories in Britain that showered praise on Mussolini.

Originally Posted by Odin

And don't forget all the Tories in Britain that showered praise on Mussolini.

Mussolini, Franco and Petain were not the problem. It was Hitler, Stalin and the Japs.

Originally Posted by New_Waver

Mussolini, Franco and Petain were not the problem. It was Hitler, Stalin and the Japs.

They also supported germany and japan before the war as counterweights to soviet russia.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

They also supported germany and japan before the war as counterweights to soviet russia.

It was due to isolationists in the UK and US, whom were economically attracted to those enemy nations and did not want disruption. It's like the Euro anti-Iraq war crowd with ties to Saddam and other oil magnates, or the ex-KGB sale of weapons to their ex-enemies the Taliban.

Originally Posted by Odin

What I remember is that after 9/11 Middle-Eastern public opinion was on our side untill we invaded Iraq. I remember hearing on the news after 9/11 about Iranians in the streets in support of us.

Support? you mean by the same folks who were dancing at the street at seeing 9/11 on the news? I'm sorry. That's a complete liberal fantasy. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the middle east was busy demonizing the west for the damage its sanctions were doing. Major middle eastern newspapers were claiming the policies of America were responsible for murdering thousands of Iraqis a day and under such circumstances, anti-US opinion was growing rapidly and Al Queda was having a recruitment field day.

Maybe if you actually did some real research rather than relying on left wing hate sites for your information, you'd come to some more accurate conclusions.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Support? you mean by the same folks who were dancing at the street at seeing 9/11 on the news? I'm sorry. That's a complete liberal fantasy. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the middle east was busy demonizing the west for the damage its sanctions were doing. Major middle eastern newspapers were claiming the policies of America were responsible for murdering thousands of Iraqis a day and under such circumstances, anti-US opinion was growing rapidly and Al Queda was having a recruitment field day.

Maybe if you actually did some real research rather than relying on left wing hate sites for your information, you'd come to some more accurate conclusions.

LOL, listen to the man!

Originally Posted by stilltim

Support? you mean by the same folks who were dancing at the street at seeing 9/11 on the news? I'm sorry. That's a complete liberal fantasy. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the middle east was busy demonizing the west for the damage its sanctions were doing. Major middle eastern newspapers were claiming the policies of America were responsible for murdering thousands of Iraqis a day and under such circumstances, anti-US opinion was growing rapidly and Al Queda was having a recruitment field day.

Maybe if you actually did some real research rather than relying on left wing hate sites for your information, you'd come to some more accurate conclusions.

Actually there were pro-american demonstrations in tehran after 9/11. I remember seeing them on the news. The anti-american demonstrations were mostly in the palestinian territories.