FRARY COLUMN: ISLAMOFASCISM AND ISLAMOPHOBIA AT UMF

VERITAS. Let me see if I'm following you here. You suggest that if we shut down 680 bases and pull out of 129 countries our national security problems will be solved? I don't mean to dictate the terms of the discussion, but how do these "statistical bites" (the counterpart to "sound-bites") affect the problems presented by Islamism?

These numbers keep popping up all over the place, but they never seem to provoke any real curiosity. How many of these bases are maintained by skeletal cadres? What are their potential or actual functions? Are these current numbers? Are any scheduled for closure as soon as someone can figure out to do with them? Are there fewer today than ten years ago? How many are maintained simply because of the Pentagon's bureaucratic inertia?

Similar questions arise about the 130 countries. Clearly, we are not talking about 130 divisions or 130 brigades or even 130 battalions. In some cases we must be talking about a handful of special forces troops or military advisors.

"Imperialism" is a popular scare-word, but what are we actually talking about here? Does the US have an interest in international stability? Might it be that without a Pax Americana there will be no Pax at all. It's possible that the Euroweenies will stop their gibbering about "soft power" and build up their military forces if the US no longer protects them. It's possible that S. Koreans can find the resources to defend themselves if the US pulls out. It may be for the best if the Japanese built up their own nuclear forces if the US no longer acts as the regional safe-guard.

It would be useful to address these questions seriously. Flourishing the word imperialism is not especially useful.

At this point in time there is no such thing.

At this time there is no such thing. And the neocon scheme for creating one begins to fade. Perhaps we can hope for a Pax Sinica at some time in the future.

Or perhaps Pax will spring up automatically under the aegis of the UN once American imperialism fades away.

And perhaps I will be crowned Queen of Rumania.

VERITAS come back! I rely on you to keep this thread going. How about a list of Muslim grievances that you hinted at in a previous post?

Similar questions arise about the 130 countries. Clearly, we are not talking about 130 divisions or 130 brigades or even 130 battalions. In some cases we must be talking about a handful of special forces troops or military advisors.

Some cases? Me thinks you dramatically underestimate.

Troops deployments 2005

might be 3 dozen countries that we have more than 50 troops in.

Everyone -

Please excuse for continuing off-topic. I wish to address veritas77's assertion that the U.S. can't afford to pay for a war that is - in economic terms - relatively minor.

veritas77 -

Your eagerness to engage in discussion is admirable, but your presentation of your ideas often suggests the bravado of a bright fourteen-year-old who, having read a book or two, imagines himself to have acquired the secrets of the universe. Your enormous confidence is exceeded only by your apparent capacity for self-deception: anyone who claims it's not hard, with a little effort, to understand how our economy works is a genius, a fool, or a liar. I think we can discount the likelihood of your genius.

For example, having discovered that fiat money is a "debt instrument" (of course it is!) you conclude that a Federal Reserve Note is the functional equivalent of Monopoly money, with all sorts of apocalyptic consequences. This is theoretically absurd and empirically false.

Economists have understood since David Hume's Essays (1742) that the form of money - whether metal or paper credit - has no real effect on a nation's wealth. What is important is that the supply of money - whether ducats, bottle caps, or green pieces of paper - be sufficient for the demand for money.

Hume anticipates Adam Smith -

If you wish to learn something and to persuade others, rather than repeating the (self-evident) statement that "fiat currency is a debt instrument" as if you thereby said something both profound and prophetic, you might try displaying a little less attitude and paying a bit more attention.

Thank you, DAVID. You've done the work and I've printed it up for my files. There are, in fact, three dozen countries where the US has more than 50 servicement., and 16 where deployments exceed 1,000. This may leave the question of American imperialism open for discussion, but it removes the inflated number from serious consideration.

These numbers undercut into the inflated base numbers as well, e.g. I assume the 3 men still on Wake Island have been counted as base personnel.

ECONOMIKE. No apologies necessary. A wide latitude inheres to this medium, as long as it doesn't drift to de rerum naturum , and VERITAS' economic theses require a response. I can't agree with your hint that he may be a liar or a fool. Although no genius, he is clearly an intelligent man. Unfortunately, he is trying to make himself dumber than God designed him to be, by sheer will-power. Sheer blasphemy---he's doomed to the torments of eternal perdition and we must be kind to him.

I just couldn't resist attempting a witticism. :oops: It's a weakness, I confess.

Of course I agree that veritas77 is obviously a person of intelligence.

Not a weakness, ECONOMIKE, a bit of cut-and-thrust enlivens the discussion and sharpens the wits of the participants providing it doen't degenerate into crude vilification.

I'm not sure what all to say. Some thoughts...

I believe that sound money works - having spent much some reading Austrian economists and the like.

This is new to me, and seems to contradict that which I do understand - namely that economics is about satisfying unlimited demand with limited supply. Since we know demand for money is unlimited, I don't see how a money system would work with unlimited supply. I recall something about tulips. Perhaps thinking has evolved on the subject since 1742? After all, one must conclude that there was a good reason the Constitution specifically talks about gold and silver. Perhaps not all minds were convinced of the wisdom of Mr. Hume's notions. I'm sure Mr. Hume was never under the employ of any of the European money changers, right?

Also, I object to the notion that the money system needs to be debt based. If the Fed can print it and loan it to the Treasury, why can't the Treasury just print the money itself, and skip the part about interest?

I don't believe that empire works - and that US foreign policy should not be about overt and covert interventionism around the world. We have no legal authority nor do we have moral authority. I don't believe that Korea, Vietnam and the central American operations had anything to do with "national security". Therefore they are illegitimate acts, because they are not defensive in nature.

Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand my point of view: if the news tells me that there is a murderer in my neighborhood, perhaps I'd even received a threatening phone call, I do not have the right to start breaking into my neighbors homes and interrogating everyone I see in order to determine who the killer might be. I have the right to protect myself and my home, but not at the expense of others' right to same.

We could talk about installing the Shah, Operation Gladio, supporting and funding bin Laden, supporting and funding Saddam, supporting and funding the State of Israel - no matter what it does. Either way, so long as the muslim fanatics can point to America occupying their land, their people will be united against us, instead of their real enemy - the radicals in their own ranks. See Iran for a perfect example. Ahmadinejad enjoys little support, support that comes mainly for his willingness to stand up to the United States. He would likely not be in power if it were not for the drums of war being beaten in this country against his. See how we create our own problem? Iran has no reason to want a bomb, except that having one is the only way for a nation to be respected by politicians in Washington (see Pakistan for this, a military dictatorship that we support.)

I am not nearly as studied as you sir, but I do know enough that there are legitimate issues to be considered on both sides of the equation. I'm not ready to dismiss all Muslim grievances in quite the cavalier fashion as did you earlier.

Of course there is a difference if a base has 1 or 1000 or 1000000 military personnel stationed at it, but again - one must consider if the shoe were on the other foot.

What would we say if there were a Chinese military base in our nation?

The bottom line is that nobody on Earth threatens this country and our people as much as we threaten ourselves. We are throwing away our economy and our liberties to battle an enemy that is due in some part to our own actions, and otherwise has little capacity to strike us.

I see a world with less risk and danger to America if we were to adopt a peaceful approach to foreign relations, and reverted away from empire and towards something much more humble. Trade and negotiation would go a long way, and frankly as I said earlier, since war is the health of the state, we ought to be looking towards a future that brings us beyond the notion of the "state" - since after all the state is the biggest criminal there has ever been.

Oh, and you both are right - my arrogance preceeds me, and indeed I would be much better off to remain more humble.

I'm a sound money advocate, too. I just think that there's nothing inherently unsound about fiat currency.

You seem to have misunderstood the quotations. Hume and Smith aren't talking about "unlimited supply" of money. Both recognize the inflationary consequences of an excess.

I think you would find the original source worthwhile. My quotes are from Hume's essays on money and interest. Old as they are, they're still fresh and relevant. Keep in mind that the Austrian School directly descends from the Classical School.

You might also find this short article from Robert Mundell on Gresham's Law interesting. A hard - metallic - currency isn't necessarily a sound currency.

A dollar would still be debt - non-interest-bearing debt. That's what a dollar is, regardless whether it's a Treasury note or a Federal Reserve note.

I think this is empirically false. You are, in my view, assuming that every other regime and organization on the planet pursues its perceived interests rationally. Regarding defense, I favor the precautionary principle.

I don't think you're arrogant, by the way. I apologize for my condescension.

I shall leave it to Economike to debate the economic theory. He is vastly better qualified than yours truly.

So with that said, batter up:

- The last Shah was installed during WWII - by both the US and the Soviet allies. He was deposed in a coup. He regained power in another coup, which was, in fact, supported by the US. There is no question that some of his policies were highly questionable from a human rights perspective. On the other hand, he did a lot to improve education, gave women the right to vote and engaged in a number of other internal improvements in Iran that were admirable. And he was far more willing to work with Arab states than the current incumbents in Tehran.

"Funding bin Laden?" Please - this is largely a leftist myth. bin Laden, at the time of the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan, was one of hundreds of mujahadeen who came to fight off the Soviets. He was a low-level player.

Funding Saddam, IMO, was a bit more of a problem - but you overlook that at the time that was happening Iran was already revealing itself as a real problem for the US. Or did you overlook the Iranian Hostage Crisis? In times of international conflict, one cannot always be too choosy about one's allies. (see above, WWII, 'Soviet allies').

The real enemy in the Muslim world isn't just radicals - it's their own governments. You want to see the source of the problem, look there; you have intensely class-structured societies in which the royal families live fabulously. They have taken the money for themselves and not invested in their own nations. It's no accident that so many Muslim youth are educated in madrassas - their own governments have failed them. Unemployment is high. And governments that should be pilloried for their own roles in ignoring their people turn to that wonderful cure-all: blaming the Jews. If the US is at fault for any of this, it lies in not pressuring these states to be more cognizant of the trouble that their own policies were breeding.

As for supporting and funding Israel, you should bone up on your history. The US didn't fundamentally either support or fund Israel for several of that nation's first decades. It was only after its chief patron, France, decided to back off that the US stepped in. Meantime, look at what Israel has become: the only functioning democracy in that region, an economic powerhouse, a place where women have rights - I could go on, but you (hopefully) get the point. The US may help protect Israel, but the Israelis did most of this on their own. See above, "blaming the Jews."

As for your statement that Iran has no reason to want the bomb... you overlook that the current Iranian leadership is comprised of radical Shia. The Shia tend to hate the Sunna as much as they hate the West. The West is a convenient excuse - but the Iranian bomb isn't about the West. It's about the Arab states.

Mike,

It seems to me that fiat currency and liberty are mutually exclusive. Gold and silver are the forms settled upon repeatedly when people are free to evaluate options for themselves.

In other words, gold and silver as money, or currency backed by gold and silver, are the cream that rises to the top.

On the other hand, an alternative fiat currency represents the use of force to thwart the free market choice. Wouldn't this make fiat currency a tool of authoritarianism?

Eagle,

Your point is taken, however mine is simpler. The leader of Iran should rightly be up to the Iranian people. Not us, and certainly not operatives within covert US government agencies. Using CIA and others to install and upset the internal politics of other nations causes us more harm than the good it produces.

Again, same point as bin Laden. We supported him, and I argue that he is what he has become because we provided him the opportunity to propel himself into something of an icon in the Muslim world. More harm than good seems to have come from this policy.

Same point on Saddam, reasons that look good in the short term seem to repeatedly come around to bite us in the tail. Intervention creates blowback, and causes people to view America as the enemy, rather than the proper ones - as you correctly point out are the leaders of these Muslim nations. Leaders, it seems, who are viewed as American puppets.

Just look at our nation. We are tricked into focusing our gaze upon foreign "enemies" at the expense of examining our own leaders. Same is true for Muslims in the Middle East. Corrupt leaders are given wider latitude to abuse the people as they are sold on the notion that their problems are the fault of Americans. This can be seen in Mexico, Iran, Saudi, etc. These nations could be among the most prosperous in the world with the natural resources they have. Yet, somehow their people are content to blame the United States.

As I understand, the mullahs in Iran are NOT in favor of nuclear weapons, and they hold considerably more power than Ahmadinejad. That said, if the Iranians wish nuclear war with its neighbors, it is not my place to stop them. Ourselves having twice used the bomb in Japan, as well as depositing all sorts of DU around the Middle East, how can we possibly begin to tell anyone else that such weapons are not permissible?

The hypocrisy of our foreign policy is the main source of my frustration. We are no different or better than any other people in terms of international law and warfare. If we retain the right to possess and deploy nuclear weapons, than so does everyone else. If we retain the right to invade and occupy foreign lands, than so does everyone else. If we retain the right to initiate "preventive" war against enemies real or imagined, than so does everyone else.

Perhaps it's time to set the bar a little bit higher. Perhaps we might demonstrate a commitment to the pursuit of something better than more of the same. Perhaps, with a new approach, we might actually be able to make the world a better place. Perhaps if we set a good example, and demonstrated what can be accomplished through peace and real justice, others might catch on and demand the same for themselves.

If this country is the role model for the world, we are truly living in hell on earth.

.

Travel much? 26 years of military service and still going here. I have traveled the globe and not to the 'tourist' destinations. That's my basis for saying the quote above is one of the stupidest thing I have read on this site.

- Somalia, Ethiopia, Albania, the Ivory Coast, rural India, rural Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Vietnam, western Iraq…..these places are hell on earth.

Play that out for us.
What will this approach look like?
What is real justice and how will we pursue it?

How will others express this demand?
What approach will they take in pursuit of their demand?

Veritas77 -

Gold, silver, cigarettes, nylons, and private letters of credit are among the forms settled on repeatedly when people can't trust the government to maintain a stable currency - whether the currency is metallic or fiat. Free people can create their own forms of currency, including debt instruments. People will attempt to create their own monetary stability - gold or paper - when governments fail to provide it.

I again suggest that you'd find Mundell's article on Gresham's Law of great interest, as it addresses some problems of instability of "gold and silver as money." Just as a fiat currency is not inherently unstable, so a metal-based currency is not inherently stable.

No, no more than official misuse of a metal-based currency is a tool of authoritarianism.

You seem to assume that the legal issuance of precious-metal-backed currency is somehow superior - more stable, reliable, or freedom-enhancing - than a fiat currency. One might get this impression from the historically exceptional period of the nineteenth-century, when the Bank of England successfully managed the stability of a gold-backed pound, but this notion is empirically false. I'd say that the success of the nineteenth-century gold standard was not due to the gold-standard per se, but due to the reliability of the central bank that maintained it. History proves that governments can mismanage metal currencies just as readily as they can misuse fiat currencies. You have written that all fiat currencies fail - bear in mind that all gold-backed currencies have failed too. This is not exactly cream rising to the top.

The true test of any currency - metal or paper - is the credibility of its issuer. Given a choice, I'd prefer a stable fiat currency over an unreliable gold-backed one.

Your response re: blowback is an ironic tour de force. Cool Thank you.

Well yea, except for all the parts he left out.

Hitchens and Horowitz are group-thinkers who latch on to the collectivism of modern American "neo-conservatism" - really an oxymoronic term if you ask me. These people believe in state power every bit as much as Hillary or any of the "socialist/communists" in the Democrat party. They simply disagree on minor matters of little significance. Overall, they march in lockstep with one another - their goals being absolute state power.

Again, folks only willing to view one side of the debate over the net effect of past US foreign policy like these two (and Flammen it appears) do no justice to the realities we must face.

I believe you put the cart before the horse. The issue is not why they are murderous barbatrians, but of how to deal with the reality of their barbarism. I take appolgy off the table.

Prepare for war but hope for peace.

Not exactly or there would be a lot more dead Islamists.

At this point in time there is no such thing.

That is only because you have never seen serious war. There has not been one since 1945.

How will others express this demand?
What approach will they take in pursuit of their demand?

Mom,

The US Constitution, Bill of Rights and a peaceful foreign policy of non-intervention is what the approach looks like to me. Real justice to me can be boiled down to the Golden Rule. It means that we don't have royalty who dictates policy as he wishes. It means self government by consent. It means republican rule that serves to protect the unalienable rights of the people first and foremost. We will pursue it simply by following the guidelines that have been laid for us. We will remember that all power is inherent in the people, and that government exists to serve the people. We will remember that all people have rights, and that if my rights are infringed upon by the government, then so too are yours.

I believe that if you read the Declaration of Independence very carefully, you'll come to understand exactly what I believe to be the best model and the reasons therefore.

Other people will express their desires as they see fit. It is not my objective to force others to accept my goals or to accept them as their own. Perhaps they prefer authoritarianism in one form or another. So be it. Their approach will be guided by their goals and current circumstance. Some reforms can and do happen peacefully, others not so.

The catch-all term for my view is "self-determination". I have no interest in dictating to others what they want or how they ought to go about achieving it. Nor do I accept others who do so for me. (This is where non-interventionists like myself diverge from pacifists.) The only reasonable way forward to a better day is through peaceful persuasion. As Dr. King said "wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows."

Mike,

I don't understand. It seems you use the terms "money" and "currency" interchangeably, which confuses me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the opposite of currency is money. They are not the same, and cannot be used interchangeably Money is a commodity or commodity-backed paper, whereas currency is a medium of exchange NOT backed by a commodity. The commodity may or may not be gold and silver. As you indicate, many other goods have served as exchange media or the commodity behind the money from time to time.

I have no particular preference to gold and silver per se, but rather to the concept of commodity backed money that has actual worth versus pieces of paper with no actual worth. Again, gold and silver seem to be wise choices as they are durable AND relatively rare, reasons why tulips, seashells, tree bark and paper do NOT seem to be wise choices.

I understand your point about gold-backed money failing when the issuers of the paper notes overextend their loans. But again, I'd prefer the power to be in the hands of the people to monitor and regulate their banks rather than putting the power in the hands of a few central planners. There is always a risk, I'd prefer the risks to be ones I can more directly control and/or avoid.

I can't really respond to any thing else you've said here because the term "metal-based currency" is not one that I understand. Perhaps you could help clarify?

Okay, veritas, taking this back to the original topic, don't the peaceful activities planned and undertaken in Islamofascism Awareness Week comport with your vision of peaceful pursuit of justice? The backers chose peaceful means to raise awareness about the oppression and violence inherent in Islamism. It's relevant even in a non-interventionist context since Islam is growing in numbers and influence here at home, and if even 10% of adherents are radlicalized (as has been estimated), that's a lot of people.

veritas77 - I do use the terms interchangeably. Your distinction between the two is news to me. Some sort of Austrian idiosyncracy?

Pardon me, but your characterization of paper money as having no actual worth is empirically false. If you had said intrinsic worth, I'd agree. Consider that all currencies are fiat currencies, and that they have actual worth. If you don't believe this, you'll no doubt be happy to send me all the fiat money in your possession.

I agree with you that gold and silver are wise choices. Due to the inherent problems of bimetallism, I'd choose gold alone as a monetary standard.

That was only part of my point. Another is that a government can adulterate the metal money itself.

This is ambiguous. Are you arguing in favor of private banks, rather than a government agency, issuing currency? This is certainly a possible alternative, but brings the attendant problem of private over-issuance of paper credit. Or, alternatively, do you mean a return to government setting the price of interchangeability between gold and paper?

At this point, it's uncertain what risks you mean.

Let me toss out an idea, veritas77. Suppose that the president gave a press conference today and announced that he had directed the Federal Reserve to use a gold-price rule as its monetary standard (you can choose whatever price/ounce ratio you think appropriate). Would that satisfy your wish that the U. S. dollar have an actual worth? Why or why not?

My issue is the content of the info provided. If folks are telling half-truths with the goal of agitating an ignorant populace into war, then no it is not inline with a peaceful non-interventionist doctrine. If the goal is to spread racist lies about others, then no, I do not view the "Islamofascism Awareness Week" in any favorable light.

I do not know the entire history of Islam, I cannot read Arabic, nor do I know the know the intents of the folks who put these events on.

What I do know is that Ronald Reagan told us about the "irrationality of middle eastern politics", and I think he had it right. I believe that we would be much better served if we kept out of their internal affairs and afforded them the right of self-determination free from coercion either overtly or covertly.

Rational policy would preclude the importation of any such people, and therefore would prevent any threat to this nation as these are folks with no possible way to invade our nation, given that they have no armies, navies or air forces. I see no reason to fear any new "caliphate" or "global jihad" whatsoever. It is simply preposterous, and indicative of our own pathetic nature.

We stood up to the British King and the vaunted Soviet empire, yet now we're running scared from people who present no threat whatsoever. Very sad indeed.

veritas77 -

For a guy whose name suggests veracity, you have a remarkable talent for making empirically false statements. Case in point.

veritas77 -

For a guy whose name suggests veracity, you have a remarkable talent for making empirically false statements. Case in point.

Throat cutters in Baghdad present me no threat. Even if I grant your premise, which I do not, I'd still argue that the threats from the Mexican invasion and the systematic suppression of rights from our own government are much graver threats to my family and the future of my State. The best the throat cutters can do is convince us to destroy ourselves.

But you're free to disagree. Many do. Tyrants have proven themselves exceptionally skilled at diverting the attention of their people onto external threats in order to mask their own treachery. They've been running the same games for centuries, and the people never seem to wise up.

VERITAS: It’s certainly true that the US will not be ruined if terrorists blow up a few thousand Americans now and again, snuff an occasional US president or even release some chemical or biological agents. Even if we lost a million or so, they could be easily replaced by hard-working Chinese, Mexican and Hindu immigrants. But you can’t count on your fellow citizens to adjust so easily to such scenarios. They might demand measure far more severe than those you fear. The treacherous tyrants who mask their treachery by being treacherous might exploit their anxieties instead of pointing out the statistical insignificance of such losses.

It seems to me that weapons of mass destruction become cheaper and more accessible by the year. Your view of that problem has yet to be aired.

Digression...tangential to Mr. Flammenwerfer's 'experience', Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch spoke at Dartmouth College, October 26 for their Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.
He includes a link to the video of his talk.
Spencer writes:

It appears that Mr. Nelson is dismissing my talk as hateful and violent without even bothering to listen first to what I said. So I ask you to do so, and to write in the comments field below if you believe anything I said was hateful or violent, or even false.

We'll discuss it here, if Nelson and his ilk won't discuss it at Dartmouth. They apparently would rather content themselves with talk of hummus restaurants, as if that will make the global jihad go away. No one is bothering to refute what I said, because, of course, they can't. But if they want to try...

LMD, not tangential at all. Your contribution brings us back to the original topic: Islamo-fascism and the maliciously ignorant response to it throughout academia.

I thought to address the bigotry charge at the outset by a series of questions.

1) Anyone here who hates Muslims raise your hand.---No hand.

2) Anyone here who has sponsored an Muslim Arab immigrant raise your hand.---One hand. Mine.

3) Anyone here who has had a Muslim house-guest for three years raise his hand.---One hand. Mine.

4) Anyone here who has entertained Muslims in his home raise his hand.---A dozen hands, including a couple of known conservatives.

50 Anyone here who has been a guest in a Muslim home raise his hand.---Same result.

I concluded that the evidence did not prove I was not a bigot, but it was clear that no one present was in a position to make the accusation a priori.

So very interesting, Flammenwerfer.
My apologies if someone has asked this prevously, but was your talk recorded and/or video-taped?