Come back in a year. Our troops will still be there and they will hate us.

Hell, come back in three weeks--what the war took.

Funny, Barney, my Arab friends don't agree with you. Could that be because they know something about it and you don't?

Ah, but never mind. You really hope they come to hate us, don't you. I mean, it would make you fantastically happy, almost giddy with joy, wouldn't it?

Why don't you go play Sour Grapes on your own blog?

Poor Barney, you just can't admit you were wrong? We did the right thing. That is one grateful country.

One day at a time. But today looks pretty good!

Oh, look, another Casey! Heh.

Is it just me, or that bottom photo of a chick soldier? I thought they weren't supposed to be in the combat arms, and she sure looks like she's kitted out for a fight...

Hold on, that looks like a British helmet and rifle. Hmmm.

What gets me is that the top picture is apparently of an Army hard stripe Corporal. Don't see a lot of those anymore, I thought they'd gone extinct.

And my experience regarding combat arms and non-combat arms troops is that both are quite able to be kitted out for a fight, regardless of gender -- but I do believe that the second shot is indeed of a British soldier.

Hey Casey T.! cool name. Yeah, looks like a Chicky-Baby... I sure wasn't seeing anything like that when I was 19 or 20. Those kids humble me. to.my.knees.

If I'm wrong, I'll be eating crow in three short weeks.

I'm certain they will be back to hating us because they still hate Israel. And they know Israel couldn't exist without America. Ask your arab friends what they think about American made helicopters firing American made missiles into crowds of palestinians. (Hint: they're angry about it.)

It's extremely unwise to discount the power of Arab shame. Every single one knows that a thousand years ago they had a world class civilization now they are just third world beggars shit upon by wave after wave of invaders. Israel is the white hot needle of shame in every Arab heart: conquering invaders on their land, killing Arabs.

I think that, to the extent that Arab governments so far would rather spend more money on weapons to attack Israel than to spend it on education ... they would continue to be piss poor third world nations.

Should Israel be wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow, would Syria become any richer, any less dictatorial or any more unmessed up? No. Once an Arab leader gets up and says, "I'd rather focus on improving our situation as opposed to upsetting theirs ..." they would have made the first step.

A significant number of the Iraqis will be grateful for a long time. I glad we were able to do this for the Iraqi people and for ourselves.

Barney is right that "they" will soon hate us in as far as the "they" is an extremely vague label, and there already is a "they" over there that still does hate us, or at least is still fighting in us in pockets of resistance. What will happen is that a certain part of the brain trust that is our media will take a certain smug satisfaction in pointing out in a short period of time that "they" still/already hate us for occupying their country.

Of course any amount of gratitude can turn south after a period of time. Look at the French, (Ouch, I hurt my minds eye) on second thought consider the French, they have been a strong ally in the past, due in part to WWII, but it will be a long time before our current grievance with each other will be resolved.

I still think a lot of them are going to hate us, for the innocent dead and the physical damage to the country, however small they might be compared to the pain of living under a tyrant for decades. Hating us is the prerogative of any free person; it doesn't have to be rational.

That doesn't mean it was wrong to set them free.

My buddy Sal, an Arab from Lebanon, quite near Israel, says he doesn't give a shit about Israel and thinks that Israel is something that the tyrants of that region use to distract their people from their own corrupt and despotic regimes.

And the Arab world isn't the way it is from "wave after wave of invaders." It's that way because of due to the thugs running those countries. Iraq is the first chance that world has at something more functional.

We should hope so, anyway.

By the way, yes, that is a female soldier. Neither the Brits nor the Americans have females in combat arms so far as I'm aware, but in today's warfare that doesn't mean a lot. It just means they aren't infantry, basically. That doesn't mean they don't get outfitted with weapons when they need it.

If I'm wrong, I'll be eating crow in three short weeks.

I respect you for saying that.

Now the question will be: what will we accept as proof that this is so? :-)

The Muslim world has stagnated since the 13th century, largely because of its own strenuous efforts, not because of invaders. That world has brought its backwardness on itself, and if any real progress will be made, that world must make it. We can't force them to be free. We can help them, though. The Wahhabis, Salafists and their like will have to change, though. Their call, and their religion.

The Muslim world has stagnated since the 13th century, largely because of its own strenuous efforts, not because of invaders.

So The Crusades, a series of religious wars with the prevailing objectives of "liberating" the Holy Lands in the name of Christianity, and making money, were wholly unrelated to this "stagnation"? Considering that at the time most of the middle east regarded Islam as a more civilised and culturally advanced form of Christianity, it seems somewhat ridiculous for someone to look back and say it stagnated because of something so vague as "strenuous efforts". What does that mean exactly?

I recall reading that when Jerusalem was occupied by the Muslims, they were careful not to interfere with Jewish and Christian places of worship due to the bad precedent it would set. The same could hardly be said of the Christian crusaders who would later slaughter tens of thousands of non-Christians in Jerusalem.

Barney,

Ask your arab friends what they think about American made helicopters firing American made missiles into crowds of palestinians. (Hint: they're angry about it.)

Fuck 'em.

Ben,

So The Crusades, a series of religious wars with the prevailing objectives of "liberating" the Holy Lands in the name of Christianity, and making money...

Why put "liberating" in quotes? Those areas (Spain is not a Holy Land, neither are most of the other areas that were in contention) were, at the time, recently conquered by the Muslim hordes. Attempting to take them back was certainly as valid an action as taking them in the first place. It's rather racist of you to assign all the blame to the Christians.

Well I always thought one used quotes around something when you weren't specifically stating your own opinion, for example paraphrasing? I certainly would never look back on the Crusades and regard the actions of European Crusaders as ethical or just, and as such I'd never use such a approving term as "liberating" (oops did it again) in connection with it as a statement of my own opinion.

Besides which, referring to them as "hordes" is arguably an equally racist if not hypocritical term considering all the pillaging and murdering the Europeans did in Jerusalem!

I'd kiss the hot blonde British soldier in the bottom picture.

Sexy? Check! Just Whiskey and Democracy left to go.

Well, Ben Darlow, if you think it's okay for Arabs to hold a grudge for a centuries-ago invasion (that didn't work -- the only place the Moors were ever expelled from permanently was Spain -- and was only the reponse to the previous invasion of those formerly Christian, Jewish, and pagan lands by Muslims -- or do you think all those countries just spontaneously converted to Islam?), then I guess it's okay for anyone to do so. So...

Let's invade France! I'm really pissed about 1066 and the destruction of my Anglo-Saxon ancestors' culture.

Considering that some of the Crusades that started in Britain would pillage and loot the European countries they passed through, in their travels to Jerusalem, I wouldn't paint those people in a good light at all. They didn't care about Europeans, they didn't care about Arabs, Jews, or anyone else.
So, should the modern inhabitants of Britain be judged by that standard? Or should they be judged by current actions or deeds?
Consider what happens if you replace "Britain" with any other country or region. Then take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

"I recall reading that when Jerusalem was occupied by the Muslims, they were careful not to interfere with Jewish and Christian places of worship due to the bad precedent it would set. " - Ben Darlow
If true, they've changed. Jordanians destroyed numerous synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem between '48 and '67, and paved over a Jewish cemetery on Mount Olives. More recently, Muslims have attacked synagogues in Tunisia, France, Canada, UK, a tomb in Hebron ...

Well, Ben Darlow, if you think it's okay for Arabs to hold a grudge for a centuries-ago invasion...

um, excuse me... but where did I say it was okay to hold a grudge? I was merely stating that the suggestion Islam had "stagnated" of it's own accord was wrong.

what is it with people taking hold of an argument then swinging it around their head like a multi-purpose argument-winning tool? you read far too much into what I say.

Back nearly 25 years ago, I knew a fellow, an intelligent fellow, a Ph.D. student in mathematics, who once remarked vehemently in a casual conversation that he would never, ever send his kids to a Catholic school. He delivered this remark so vehemently, it was almost as if he was spitting roofing tacks.

Someone asked him, "You wouldn't? Why not?"

Like a pressurized roofing-tack gun, he spat back, "Awww, you know... Inquisition, Crusades, all that shit!"

I will be grateful if nobody "reads far too much into" the little anecdote I've just related. In particular, you mustn't say that I meant anything I didn't say explicitly. That way, I can place my insinuations beyond challenge, and beyond discussion.

that is of course assuming there was an insinuation. if you believe there was one, then you are mistaken sir. I literally was objecting to the assertion that Islamic Culture declined and stagnated all of it's own.

Now in most intelligent reasoned debates, suggesting that the Crusades had some impact on this would be greeted with nodding of heads, not knee-jerk this-guy-must-be-a-left-wing-terrorist-sympathiser hysteria followed by associated sillyness...

Um, last I checked, only the 1st Crusade was really successful at liberating the Holy Land. After that the Muslims retook the area and were largely successful at holding it with the exception of one or two individual cities at a time. In fact, iirc, the 4th crusade sacked Constantinople, while it was still Christian. I really don't think the blame for Muslim stagnation can be laid at the feet of the Crusaders. Not that the Crusades are proud moments in the history of either Christendom or Islam, since they were marked by significant excesses on both sides, but they hardly sounded the death knell for the intellectual flowering of Islam.

Unfortunately, there is a widespread lack of knowledge about the Crusades.

Most of these wars were political, with religion used as a pretext. SOME of the crusades were actually defensive on the part of Christianity. And in most cases, the Muslims won.

The Muslims are also guilty other quite offensive wars toward Christians. Just read about Suleiman the Magnificent and his entire Empire.

The presumption that the Crusades were nothing but a horribly shameful record of evil Christians beating up on honorable Muslims is a sort of trendy thing that a lot of academics insert into their students' heads. The real story is much more complex than that.

As for the (very common) notion that the crusades are an explanation for modern Arab behavior? There is no one on this planet -- no one -- whose ancestors were not at some time or another horribly treated by some invader and some despot. No one. Some groups (the Jews come to mind) have been tough enough to survive, most simply lost their cultures and disappeared, or were wiped out completely.

Goths, Visigoths, Saxons, Huns, Mongolians... how many examples do we need?

Furthermore, when Napoleon conquered Egypt, was he doing so for Christianity? Nooo.... actually, he claimed to reject Christianity and to embrace Islam. The latter part was a lie, but the former was quite true.

Most wars were conducted specifically for conquest or treasure or similar reasons.

Start naming a few of history's greatest conquerors some time, and note how few of them were particularly religious, or used religion as a primary context for their wars. You'll find surprisingly few--because religious wars are surprisingly rare, for all that we talk about religion as a dangerous force for bloodshed.

Ben Darlow, where did I say explicitly that I was even talking about you? Be specific. You must limit yourself only to what I literally and explicitly said; you must go no further than that. Because I say so, in a peremptory tone of voice. ;-)

If you see anything of yourself in my little anecdote, or in my mention of "insinuations," that's your lookout, not mine.

On the other hand, if you feel that the shoe fits... hey, feel free to wear it. Or not.

Iraqis Storm Embassy in Tehran, but Still Hate U.S.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&e=10&u=/nm/iraq_iran_embassy_dc

If you're going to place the blame on the end of the greatness of the Muslim world, one might want to mention the Mongols, considering that they were pretty much responsible for that. Like with Russia and (to a lesser extent) Eastern Europe, the Mongol invasion and Mongol empire was something from which the Arab world never quite recovered.

(Of course, being creatively screwed by all and sundry in the interwar period had a lot to do with it as well. That Arab kissing a Brit is either extraordinarily forgiving or owner of a significantly poor historical education.)

And Dean, I'll see your supposed Napoleonic atheism (which surprises me, as I always figured that the whole Liberty, Equality and Fraternity thing was rooted in Christianity) and raise you the Thirty Years War. I'd also like to ask about the religious nature of the Huns, Mongols, and others on your list, and whether or not that list is representative of all conquerers in history, or whether it's a cherry picked group of not-currently-associated-with-religion conquerors. While it may not necessarily be about spreading the faith, to say that it's not about religion or that they weren't particularly religious assumes an awful lot.

Let's say I spot you the 30 years' war, ignoring any arguments that it was more about politics. Let's spot you all the raging religious wars in Europe from the time of Martin Luther onward, even though you could make a strong case that they were more political. Let's spot you the Balkans too.

My statement still stands.

By the way, yes, when Napoleon conquered Egypt, he specifically claimed that he rejected Christianity. Look it up. And what the hell would Napoleon have to do with "Liberty, equality, fraternity" anyway?

I have never once read about any of the conquering hordes, discussed in any history book, suggesting a single one had religion as their primary pretext. And no, my examples are not cherry-picked. So I counter-challenge you: find me the ones that ARE religion-based. Because I suggest that you will have a hard time finding them, becuase they by and large aren't there.

You will also be stuck explaining the entire Roman Empire through Constantine.

Also, Stalin, and the entire Soviet Empire, along with Mao's.

Also, most of the European wars pre-Reformation.

Then the major Asian wars, from the Mongol hordes to China to Japan.

Let's face it: the notion that religion is the biggest cause of wars throughout history is common, but shallow at best.

Furthermore, let's go back to your example of the Arab kissing the Brit: why on Earth wouldn't he, considering how much nicer the Brits were than just about any other conquerer who ever rolled through a land that's been conquered countless times throughout history? Maybe his grasp on history is better than yours.

Well Barney, I guess you have all the proof you need, bud. Some Iraqis do still hate us, and that's all we need to know, right?

That wipes everything else out I guess.

The last crusade was centuries before Islamic decline set in. In fact, old world Christendom was in retreat, the temporary gains of the crusades, and the permanent one of Al Andalus in Spain, right up to Battle of Vienna in 1683. By then the previous 150 years of developments in European technology and social organisation were starting to render the Islamic world less of a threat. Islamic civilisation didn't decline so much as it remained where it was (stagnated?) while the rest of the world changed.

I decline, on behalf of my ancestors, to accept any responsibility for this state of affairs.

Here it is 6 days into my prediction of the Iraqi's being back to hating us in three weeks:
------------------------------
Baghdad Seeths With Anger Toward U.S.
Sat Apr 12, 2:14 PM ET

By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - At first they cheered, smiled, offered hearty thumbs-ups to the U.S. soldiers newly in their midst. But across Iraq's lawless capital, that sentiment is evaporating as quickly as Saddam Hussein's government melted away.

Baghdad was bursting with anti-American feeling Saturday as...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030412/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_baghdad_s_anger_2

That's pretty sad, Barney.

You actually believe that this is proof of anything?

This says far more about you than it does about the situation in Iraq.

"Our troops will still be there and they will hate us. Hell, come back in three weeks--what the war took."

It's three weeks today. They hate us.

Ignoring, of course, the poll showing that 65% of the Iraqi people want us there.

Nice try, Barney, but it appears to me that the main bit of hating America going on here is coming from you.

How sad for you.