neo-conservatism, which, of course, is no kind of conservatism at all.

In today's world, words have changed.

A "liberal" is someone who wants more government control. A "conservative" is someone who wants change. And a "progressive" is someone who values stability over change.

I don't like it either.

I have to say that your portrayal of a radical left only protesting against American military action does not ring true.

I would love to be proven wrong. But yet I have not seen the protests against the Sudanese government now or Saddam in the 90s.

There are no anti-war lefties on the street handing out leaflets that inform about Palestinian terrorism.

There are no anti-war lefties blaming terrorists for terrorism.

If the left are against war, they sure chose odd allies and strange targets.

When a leftie refers to supporters of Israel as "David Dukes", does he ever realise that David Duke is on HIS site, not on Israel's?

When a leftie calls a Muslim Arab-Canadian a "fucking pig" because he happens not to support Hamas, I begin to wonder whether the anti-war left really have such a high respect for Islam or whether it is really just about support for anti-Israeli terror.

http://arabiandissent.blogspot.com/2006/03/foreign-policy-with-spine-part-2.html

(Check the comments.)

The classic philosophy of conservatism relied on the principle of small government, minimal engagement in other parts of the world, fiscal prudence and social hammony. Now does Bush represent any of these principles. You decide. As far as Iraq is conserned to say that there is mayhem there is a gross understatement.

The classic philosophy of conservatism relied on the principle of small government, minimal engagement in other parts of the world, fiscal prudence and social harmony. Now does Bush represent any of these principles. You decide.

There is no "classic philosophy of conservatism". How could there be? That would as ridiculous as a "classic philosophy of progressivism".

What you describe is a political position that does (unfortunately) exist. It's a system that watches the world disintegrate. It's a system that caused hardship and death by neglect.

If you think that you can somehow "prove" that Bush's policies are wrong by showing how they are not the same policies as those of a philosophy you simply call "conservatism", you are really not as smart as I thought you might be.

First of all you would have to show that the policies you describe are "right", or at least working (define "working" too). Then you would have to show that no other policies could possibly work as well, better, or slightly worse.

Then you would have to be honest enough to find a real name for your position. Just calling it the "classic philosophy of conservatism" doesn't cut it, as there is no such thing as a "classic philosophy of conservatism". (The term "conservative" describes a relationship to other philosophies, it does not define a philosophy.)

Conservatives want the preserve what they consider the good elements of the current system or an older system that was already abandoned. That system CAN be the policies you describe.

But it can also be the exact opposite or something completely different. It depends on which country you live in or what components of the existing system (or the earlier system) you want to preserve.

I certainly don't want to preserve American isolationism. It was never a good system.

It's a system that watches the world disintegrate. It's a system that caused hardship and death by

you think that you can somehow "prove" that Bush's policies are wrong by showing how they are not the same policies as those of a philosophy you simply call "conservatism

Political Philosophy is not a discipline that submits itslf to easy polemic. What I describe as Conservative would be the general principles of philosophers such as McPherson, Popper and von Hayek. To me Conservative is a politically alive person who engages with tradition in a creative, non destructive way. Therefore Bush and the Bush policies are not conservative in any given sense of the word and that is what Fukuyama is saying. You may disagree but that is a different matter.

As for Iraq: What political or strategic objectives were achieved by the 3 years of war, killing, and destruction. If the WMD had exixted atleast the strategic objectives would have been accomplished. Was anything gained by that needless brutal war.

When we pursue those policies we're deemed isolationist and driven by a rampant, materialistic free market. I suppose 1 million Rwandans would call it 'minding our own business', if they were alive to call it anything.

In the speech I reference on my blog, Harry Belafonte described the same thing, and called it apathy. Thus it becomes a no-win situation.

As for Iraq: What political or strategic objectives were achieved by the 3 years of war, killing, and destruction. If the WMD had exixted atleast the strategic objectives would have been accomplished. Was anything gained by that needless brutal war.

This question was answered so often, I only answer it again for the benefit of readers.

Yes, something was gained.

a) Fewer people die in Iraq now than before the invasion.

The US and Britain have an ally located between Syria and Iran.

c) Iran and Syria are now both surrounded by states unfriendly to them.

d) The debt to Iraqi Shi'ites is paid.

e) The Kurds can finally live without fear.

f) Kuwait can finally live without fear.

Your "needless brutal war" allows millions of Iraqi children to grow up with health care and without fear. The mass graves are finally history. And the Kurds now know that the Iraqi government won't gas them any more.

As for the WMDs, we don't know where they are. But we do know that they have existed (I can and did show you pictures of Kurdish victims of Saddam's poisin gas) and we know that Saddam has not told the UN what happened to them.

If you have reason to believe that Saddam's WMDs have indeed been destroyed, please present evidence (of such destruction, not of the failure to find them). I am sure many Jews, Kurds, and other minorities in the region would be eager to learn that they are finally safe.

When we pursue those policies we're deemed isolationist and driven by a rampant, materialistic free market.

And rightfully so!

I suppose 1 million Rwandans would call it 'minding our own business', if they were alive to call it anything.

It's only sad that Bahu's ideals always seem to represent philosophies that fail to prevent or even end such tragedies.

It seems he is only happy when hundreds of thousands die. In foreign countries.

"It seems he is only happy when hundreds of thousands die. In foreign countries."

I don't believe that. I just think he's looking at the Bush administration in a vacuum. He doesn't like how the power is being used, so he takes issue with the power. Perhaps Bush was imprudent to do things the way he did. I don't think so, but that is a matter of interpretation. I think hamstringing the presidency will only lead to more tragedies like Rwanda, though.

I don't believe that. I just think he's looking at the Bush administration in a vacuum.

He is obsessed with George Bush. He went as far as denying Saddam's crimes just to make the invasion look more evil.

And he completely believes that it is all right to lie in order to serve the greater truth or whatever the left call it these days.

And he did lie. He lied about Saddam's Iraq. He was corrected many times. There is no benefit of the doubt any more. How could there be.

I bet he only supports isolationism because his beloved fanatical Muslims are currently the target of the opposite policy.

I tell you what I think:

Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion.

He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures.

By admitting that the current most vocal representatives of that culture are evil he would admit that Islam is not such a great valuable culture.

He thus looks for ways to blame Muslim terrorism and Arab nationalism on others.

The only reason Islam is not among the most valuable cultures is, obviously, American neo-conservative policy (and the Jews, but I figure that goes without saying). Fighting such policy, even at the expense of Iraqis and mosques is thus a good thing, because it can save Islam.

That's what I think he believes.

The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard.

Israel produces microchips. What do Arab countries produce?

"Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion. He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures. By admitting that the current most vocal representatives of that culture are evil he would admit that Islam is not such a great valuable culture. He thus looks for ways to blame Muslim terrorism and Arab nationalism on others. The only reason Islam is not among the most valuable cultures is, obviously, American neo-conservative policy (and the Jews, but I figure that goes without saying). Fighting such policy, even at the expense of Iraqis and mosques is thus a good thing, because it can save Islam. That's what I think he believes."

I don't think that is fair at all, and with all due respect I don't think you have to try and undercut someone by digging into what you think their personal motivations are, especially in terms of religion. Bahu has never been one to pan Islam, I grant you that, but I've never seen him make excuses for the worse parts of it, either. Nor, if you note, does he really tear into Christianity.

I come off as a traitor to a lot of conservatives, and that is mainly because I can't bring myself to be dishonest about tactics. You will see people do just as much as Bahu, and worse, in arguments against him. You'll find that we overlook A LOT of stuff that could be turned back on us. I'm as bad as anyone.

Until you can see yourself in the same light that you see your opponent, warts and all, you'll be able to blind yourself to the same things your opponents blind themselves to. Your statement on 'humanity's acheivements' is facetious and ignorant. The world without Christianity wouldn't look much different either.

The fact is neither Islam NOR Christianity is producing a damn thing these days. More often innovation is done in spite of them, and I say this as I consider myself an adherant to Christian teachings to some small degree. If you take the time you will find much to appreciate in "Arab" culture, and until you do you won't be able to grant the discussion the respect it deserves.

You might, at the same time, learn what the word "Arab" means. You may be shocked to find that "Arab" isn't very descriptive in terms of your argument.

Your statement on 'humanity's acheivements' is facetious and ignorant. The world without Christianity wouldn't look much different either.

Perhaps. But a world without western culture would. And there is nothing facetious or ignorant about pointing that out.

I don't think I made any claims about Christianity at all.

You might, at the same time, learn what the word "Arab" means. You may be shocked to find that "Arab" isn't very descriptive in terms of your argument.

I thought it was pretty clear what "Arab" means in the context of comparing cultures. There is an Arab nation as defined by Arab nationalists. What the word "Arab" really means, according to you, has hardly much to do with the culture of nationalism I was referring to.

I and German nationalists also disagree about what "German" means. But that doesn't mean I cannot make statements about the German nation as they defined it.


Bahu doesn't make excuses for the worst parts of Islamic and Arab nationalist culture, he merely claims these things, like Saddam's crimes, didn't happen. I don't see why that is better.

No, the problem is many/most of the people you are talking about when you say "arab culture" aren't even arabs. Iranians aren't arabs. Pakistanis aren't Arabs. Afghanis aren't arabs. Even if you make it mean people who speak Arabic, you'll find that much of the time you aren't talking about Arabs.

I don't see Bahu talking about Arab nationalism, anyway. I don't want to get personal as you have, but if I am not mistaken 'Virupaksha' is Indian in origin. I have payed a lot more attention to what Bahu has to say than most of the knee-jerk critics around here, and honestly I couldn't really tell you if Bahu is Muslim or not.

Given that, I think it is pretty sad for you to bring what may or may not be his religion into it. He's going out of his way to read and base his opinions on something more than just 'nationalism'. Even if you don't agree with the source of his information, it's still a damn site better than someone with the gall to say "He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures." off the top of his head out of spite...

You know I agree with you a lot of the time Leauki, but you're way beyond the pale with that attack. The Col says things far more nutty than Bahu, and you don't accuse him of being a crazed muslim nationalist. You see this guy's name and detect that perhaps English is his second language, so you take a short cut in the debate.

You know I agree with you a lot of the time Leauki, but you're way beyond the pale with that attack. The Col says things far more nutty than Bahu, and you don't accuse him of being a crazed muslim nationalist. You see this guy's name and detect that perhaps English is his second language, so you take a short cut in the debate.

You're correct in the fact that the col does says some "crazy" stuff! But.....he has NEVER stuck up for the muslims and cut America down like Bahu seems to like doing!

If you would, please point out which Muslims Bahu has "stuck up for". If I recall the reason we are over there now is because WE are supposedly sticking up for the Muslims. I don't agree with 90% of what Bahu says, but I've seen him go after Clinton, and I've seen him express himself on many different issues in ways that weren't party line or religious dogma.

You guys have just brainwashed yourself into believing that people who oppose you hate America, and frankly it is making me sicker all the time. You don't even know that Bahu doesn't live in America. For all you know he's living a mile from you. Leauki's attack amounted to "I think yer one of them thar Muslims" and couldn't have been more sad and self-defeating.

Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion.He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures.

The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard

Israel produces microchips. What do Arab countries produce?

I thank Baker Street for putting the record straight. I am not a Muslim and I am not a blinkered apologist for evry brutal Arab or Non Arab dictator. I am by convi tion a civil libertarian with a strong civil society inclination. At a personal note I had my entire education in the USA and do have tremendous admiration for many American values and institutions. There are many who believe that USA under George Bush is imposing military solutions in the place of diplomatic and political solutions. This is what Fukuyama is saying. I am just writing my critique of Fukuyama. I am familiar with his work though I sisagree with some of his views. I always say that you should subject evetrthing to a critical test and only then accept. Do not believe political leadres blindly.

The second statement is just ignorant absurdity. In fact Western Civilization as you know it today would not have existed without Islam. It was Arab scholrs, yes, in Bagdad and Alexandria who tranlated Greek texts and these were transmitted to Europe in the 14th century through their retranlation into Latin. Did you know that both Paris and Oxford Universities had chairs for Arabic Language studiers in the 14th century.

That Israel maufacures mirochips is not surprising.

Fewer people die in Iraq now than before the invasion.b) The US and Britain have an ally located between Syria and Iran.c) Iran and Syria are now both surrounded by states unfriendly to them.

You have just to see the newpapers and the reports of embedded journalists to know how wrong you are.

the UK you can hear all the usual far left suspects decrying the war using the usual rhetoric of stopping 'American Imperialism'. Now, while I agree that it is deeply unfair to say that all those who oppose(d) the war, were supporters of Saddam Hussein - a cheap rhetorical blow probably flowing from a bad conscience and a weak argument - there are those on the far left who were Hussein-supporters

In fact the Conservative Party should have opposed the war right from the very beginning. You seem to forget that the House of Commons passed the resolution authorising the British troops to invade Iraq with the support of the Conservatives. A large number of Labor MPs abstained or voted against the Blair sponsored resolution along with the Liberals.

You have just to see the newpapers and the reports of embedded journalists to know how wrong you are.

Ok, I'll bite.

Which newspaper says that the number of violent deaths or deaths otherwise caused by Saddam or the occupation has increased?

And what numbers do they base their claim on?

No, the problem is many/most of the people you are talking about when you say "arab culture" aren't even arabs. Iranians aren't arabs. Pakistanis aren't Arabs. Afghanis aren't arabs. Even if you make it mean people who speak Arabic, you'll find that much of the time you aren't talking about Arabs.

I am sorry, Bakerstreet, but that is ridiculous. I don't see why I cannot make statements about the Arab nation just because the Iranians are not a part of them.

You seem to be under the assumption that I cannot possibly criticise Arab nationalism without including Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghanis. Well, I never did include them. They have NOTHING to do with Arab nationalism or the Ba'ath ideology.

I was making no statements about Iranian culture specifically, except under the greater umbrella of Muslim culture. My statements about the Arab nation was, as I said before, about the Arab nation as defined by Arab nationalists.

Your point is not even a fallacy. A fallacy would be to say that I cannot make statements about the Arab nation because there are different definitions of what the Arab nation is (I have told you which one I employed here). But to say I am wrong based on your belief that by "Arab nation" I meant to include Iranians/Afghanis/Pakistanis which would be wrong, is worse.

If you made a point about Germans (as defined by Hitler) and I would tell you that your point is of no value as Poles are not German, what value would my criticism have? Would your statement about the Germans be wrong because I believed you were falsely counting Poles among their numer?

Muslim culture in general and Arab culture in particular are not contributing much (or anything) to humanity's achievements at the moment. That just happens to be true.

And if not true, you can certainly make a better point than "Iranians are not Arabs", because I never made the claim that they were.

The second statement is just ignorant absurdity. In fact Western Civilization as you know it today would not have existed without Islam. It was Arab scholrs, yes, in Bagdad and Alexandria who tranlated Greek texts and these were transmitted to Europe in the 14th century through their retranlation into Latin.

And? I didn't deny past Arab and Muslim glory. I spoke about today.

"The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard."

And I thought I might have overused the word "currently". But apparently I haven't used it enough.

I find it ironic that I can present the claim that Muslim and Arab culture CURRENTLY are not contributing anything to humanity's achievements and instead of examples of Muslim and Arab contributions the two major counter-claims are essentially:

You are wrong because Iranians are not Arabs.

Islam was a great culture 600 years ago.

Both points are correct, but neither contradict my claim; and neither contradict anything I said.

Leauki's attack amounted to "I think yer one of them thar Muslims" and couldn't have been more sad and self-defeating.

Please don't imply a quote when you are not quoting.

I said it is possible that he is a Muslim. I don't find that sad or self-defeating.

You're correct in the fact that the col does says some "crazy" stuff! But.....he has NEVER stuck up for the muslims and cut America down like Bahu seems to like doing!

I see the col as a resident nutter. He is always wrong, I think; but I don't think he consistently denies Saddam's crimes to make his "point".

You guys have just brainwashed yourself into believing that people who oppose you hate America, and frankly it is making me sicker all the time.

That is nonsense. I don't think of myself as representing America or anything like that. What made ME sick was Bahu's repeated denials of Saddam's crimes to back up his claims. That has nothing to do with America as such.

If it makes you sick that I over-react to people doing that, I can understand. But please don't try to make excuses like the idea that you are reacting to the brainwashed.

You seem to forget that the House of Commons passed the resolution authorising the British troops to invade Iraq with the support of the Conservatives.

In fact I forget nothing of the kind. I think you have completely misunderstood my argument. First of all, I am not a British Conservative, so I'm not in a position to defend their (shifting) position(s) on the Iraq war, nor would I ever want to. However, that part of your argument which pointed out that the so-called neo-conservative agenda currently being played out in the middle east is many ways a contradiction of traditional conservative values struck a chord with me and I was agreeing with you. That is all.

As for my overall view, as I told Leauki:

I'm afraid on the matter under discussion (whether America's intervention in Iraq is justified and will eventually bear fruit in increased freedom, prosperity and stability in the middle east) you will find me a bewildered agnostic, so no kind of opponent at all.

Not a clear position, but an honest one.

Whether the Iraq conflich was right or wrong is pretty much hypothetical, it has happened, was it right , in so far as getting rid of Saddam, and his cronies, of course, was it a good idea, probably not , why? mainly because the US, Uk and Australia will be stuck there for some time, during which time the US is going to take a lot of heat for being there. Do the people of Iraq think it was a good thing to get rid of Saddam and Sons, in the main yes, do they want a united country yes. Will it be easy no. Did Mr Bush and his Government go in with the right plan or the right advice probably not, would the war have happened if not for 9/11, I would say eventually, Saddam may not have been a threat,but he was becoming a thorn in the side of many nations, while many others profited from selling arms to him, however sooner or later there would have been a revolt or an attack, it was inevitable, the Guy was mad, and dangerous.
The reality is this debate has been going for some time now and one thing will not change, Saddam and Co were Muderous Grubs, they threatened all nations around them and this wuld eventually extend much further if left unchecked.
So at the end of the day most people would agree he had to go even countries like Iran and many others in th region.
Again I would state that Yes the way the Coalition went in, in regard to the planning for how they would manage after they had defeated Saddam, was poorly planned and short sighted, and yes the US will be singled out as the bad guy, because they are the only super power left and they are very much in the mind of all people in the world, given the wonders of modern technology. Do I agree with the way the coalition planned the whole evet, no, do I think Saddam and co were evil yes. And we can keep debating this subject till the cows come home, however the fact is that what's done is done, so we now need to come to the realisation that the reality is we are there for possibly the long hall, and no amount of moralising either way can change this reality, nor does the fact that Bashing the US administration or Bush and Co for that matter will really make any difference, all we are doing now is becoming apolicgists for a much wider problem, that is the fact that we still have global terrorism on a scale never seen before, and in countries which have never experienced this before, this is the problem, and tis is the one thing which will keep the war in Iraq going infinitum.

Bush/US bashing no matter how much fun it may be for some, and I have to admit I occasionally have indulged, will not make the real problem go away. This being the spread of extreme so called Islamic terrorists, in thed main these are more people who have a hatred of the US or the west as a hole, and are happy to us Islam, as this gives them some justification among these people, and a fertile ground for recruiting more terrorits.
So what we need to find is what solution/s are needed to
a) stop the belief, especially among the disposed and agrieved that this is an Islamic Crusade, and is really a war of hate.
how do we find a way to engage members and leaders of these countries and Islam,so that they see this as being as much a problem for them as it is for the rest of us.
c) sadly we will need to continue the fight against those that have already joined these groups, whether this is by gun or incarseration, this needs to be done and done soon, by slowing and stopping this cancer we can then stop the insurgency in Iraq, and bring peace to these people.
d) we do not need to become apoligists, nor should we cow tow to the likes of the uninformed people like Mr Belefonte, in the case of these people the press needs to stop being a voice for them, get out of the sensationalism, and take a more responsible attitude to a problem which will affect them as much as every one else.
Will this happen, probably not, people would much prefer the easy way out blame the US and its allies.