Robert Clayton Dean writes:

"What a sad commentary on the state of humanity at the dawn of the Third Millenium, that creating freedom and prosperity in a formerly oppressed nation should evoke such widespread opposition."

It's not quite as simple or simplistic as that. Of course there are ideologues who are just panting for the US to fail -- if only to say: I told you so.

But let's look at the problems:

(a) Iraq is not a nation. Iraq is a state consisting of at least three different 'nations' -- Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis. Like racist assholes everywhere, they hate one another's guts.

(b) Average IQ is below the democratic minimum of 90. That means that Iraqis can't even understand the kind of nasty things that happen to people who, well, hate one another's guts. The average Iraqi IQ is, by Western standards, that of a near-moron. It's not their fault, of course. But it's not our fault, either. Racists - they're so fucking dumb.

(c) Get the fuck out, fast -- you can't create 'freedom and prosperity' with a population that mainly consists of mentally retarded racist religious maniacs ('mentally retarded' by Western standards, of course).

The problem with Iraqis is that many of them suck (by Western standards, of course).

Many Iraqis are racist assholes (by Western standards, of course). End racism now -- dump an Iraqi asshole in prison.

Any comments?

(c)

(

Yeah, I've got a comment:
How could you possibly know what the average IQ of the Iraqi is? Are you privy to recent IQ testing?

I find the suggestion that a large group of human beings anywhere differs from the human norm to be ridiculous. I imagine the average Iraqi IQ is 100, just like every other group's average IQ.

In the case of individuals, of course, there can be wide variations from the norm. I have generally noticed that people who habitually use obscene vulgarisms and who make scientifically absurd claims tend to have lower than normal intelligence.

Hanson is an uncomfortable read for many of our more "idealistic" types because he says things very plainly, and doesn't hesitate to challenge many of our most cherished traditional positions.

His analysis of the enmity in Europe, and the solution he proposed a few weeks ago, that of simply saying goodbye to the Germans, French, and Belgians, and moving our troops and other diplomatic offices out of their countries to places where they are welcome, was realistic and prescient.

Hansen also called for the US to be steadfast in its dealings with North Korea, and the result of a firm stand is the current multi-party talks, while many others called for the US to give in to NK's demands for guarentees and bi-lateral talks, which would have even excluded South Korea.

There are some bills coming due in our relations with other countries who have routinely undercut, opposed, and subverted our efforts, both before the fall of the Soviet Union, and since. However, the current situation cannot be "business as usual".

We are in a multi-faceted war with a terrorist enemy which will not hesitate to kill thousands if they think it will make some kind of statement, or punish us for opposing the rule of the Imans. The cynical and corrupt obstructionism of those states who had enormous commercial and military deals ongoing with Iraq's dictator and his friends has been clearly exposed.

It will be a sea change in American foriegn policy if and when we return friendship for friendship, and clearly return coldness for hostility. For almost 50 years, we had to tolerate the backstabbing and treachery of many countries because the struggle against the Soviet empire demanded it.

That struggle is now over. The US won, and the historical record now shows that everything we said about the Soviets was an understatement, while those that continuously pooh-poohed our concerns with that monstrous regime were not only wrong, but complicit in its lethal existence.

The position of the US in this current conflict was made very clear to all---you are with us or you are against us. You can huff and puff all you want.
That's the way it's going to be.

Bravo Doug!

I wasn't sure if Charles' post was just a stunningly ignorant joke, or genuine racial hatred.

I for one am quite taken with the Iraqi people. I don't begrudge them one penny of the $4 billion we send them each month.

And I am not going to sit here and watch some hateful bigot tear them to shreds. In my view, that type of revolting viewpoint deserves the highest degree of opprobrium.

"Racists--they're so fucking dumb."

Screw you Charles.

Doug writes:

"I have generally noticed that people who habitually use obscene vulgarisms and who make scientifically absurd claims tend to have lower than normal intelligence."

I think he is certainly right about that. It's also true that unintelligent people are more likely to be racist than others, i.e. a racist mindset correlates with low IQ. Fuck these vulgar foul-mouthed assholes is what I say.

That also applies to low-IQ human breeding populations (which is not to say that high IQ breeding populations are angels -- look at what the Germans did to the Jews): just consider the tribalist mass murder that is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa.

And I don't 'hate' Iraqis. I just don't think there's much we can do to convert them into peace-loving, law-abiding democrats. If elections are ever held there, they will probably be of the one man, one vote, one time variety.

What are we to do? Put a soldier or policeman behind every male Iraqi to ensure they behave politely and stop slaughtering one another?

Get serious. Iraq, like all Arab countries, is and will remain a basket case.

Charles,

Social Darwinism is in fact racism. Its worse than the garden variety because it attempts to use false science to bolster its case.

See my post at the "hand of history" for an explaination of the matter.

I'd assumed Charles Copeland was a mere troll, but it is beginning to look like he's quite sincere in hammering every arbitrary subset of humanity into the mould of prejudice. I do hope he's just a clever troll who will get bored, otherwise it is going to prove most tiring. Not nice either way, o editors.

Where's the energetic Kodiak when we need him?

Hanson (and Dean) are wrong about the fundamental disagreement, which isn't American bellicose unilateralism vs. European multilateral pacifism. It is about Iraq and the Arab world in general, and how Islamic people will react to certain policies.

War sceptics such as myself do not believe Iraq will become a pro-Western democratic nation at gunpoint. The Arab world seems fundamentally different from the West. Even tiny and prosperous Kuwait isn't democratic. Millions of Arabs live in Europe and a significant part of the rest are exposed to Western satellite TV from across the Mediterranean. Yet far too few -- particularly among males -- regard secular values and tolerance as something positive. They like our standard of living and "gadgets" but reject the rest.

Face it, folks -- this is a battle you cannot win. Israel has been trying to defeat Arab terrorism for decades. Fortunately, there is a good alternative: Just refuse to play the game!
Withdraw all troops from these so-called "sacred lands" of Islam and ignore the area. Oil will gradually become a less important commodity in any case, and the Middle East backwater has little else of interest to the world economy. If the Arabs want to remain stuck in medieval poverty, I'd say we should leave them alone. Particularly if the result of meddling in their internal affairs is *LESS* personal freedom and safety in America and Europe.

MARCU$

"Withdraw all troops from these so-called "sacred lands" of Islam and ignore the area."

I would be happy to if the Islamists would do likewise. Unfortunately, they insist on killing Americans at every opportunity, and have crossed a great divide and begun doing it in the US. This is not tolerable, and ignoring them will not make the killers go away. Rather, it will incite them and pave the way for more atrocities.

Very interesting