Anyway,

I recently read this book (no suprise) and actually found it very educational. If your interested in the subject, you might consider checking it out, even if you disagree.

I think it allowed me to better understand the political differences between the different arab factions. It also helped me better understand what we stand to gain and from where our conflict originated.

http://tinyurl.com/y89jg3

Quote :

"Book Description The United States, argues Michael A. Palmer, is engaged in a political crusade to modernize the Islamic world. Americanism is in the vanguard of modernity’s relentless advance, promoting capitalist markets and democratic institutions. To compete, Islamic societies must adopt a more secular and material approach, as have the West and South and East Asia. But these principles conflict with Islamic fundamentals. Once a vibrant force, much of the Muslim world spent four centuries as prisoner of an Ottoman Empire that embraced feudalism while the West jettisoned it. In the absence of a renaissance or enlightenment, modernization in the Islamic world has been painful and unsuccessful. While many in the West long for an "Islamic reformation," Palmer argues that Islamists such as Osama bin Laden are the face of that reformation. Just as Protestant reformers sought a return to the purity of early Christianity, jihadists desire a return to the halcyon days of conquest and expansion, when the Caliphate controlled a united and powerful Muslim community. American actions have not provoked this conflict, nor can American withdrawal end it, Palmer contends. For example, China, also a once-powerful civilization subjected to Western imperialism, has not produced homicide bombers. Instead, the Chinese are busy modernizing. Islam’s failure to modernize is the root cause of the current situation. Bin Laden and other jihadists understand, correctly, that if Islam is to avoid the materialism and secularism that come with modernity, they must Islamize the West by force. From the Publisher Argues that Osama bin Laden and his followers are waging jihad against not only American policies but also American values Surveys the evolution of religion and politics in the West and Middle East to show why the former successfully modernized and the latter did not Warns that pulling out of Iraq under the pressure of Islamist attack would provide legitimacy for the jihadists, a defeat for a modernized Middle East, and a major setback in the war on terrorism "

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 11:12 AM. Reason : Tiny]

12/14/2006 10:48:40 AM

From the man who brought you:

Quote :

"Guide to UNIX Using Linux, Third Edition "

12/14/2006 10:54:16 AM

Uh, no

Command at Sea:Naval Command and Control since the Sixteenth Century (Harvard University Press (March 31, 2005))

Lee Moves North: Robert E. Lee on the Offensive, 1862-1863 (New York: John Wiley & Son, 1998)

The War That Never Was (Arlington, VA: Vandamere Press, 1994; New York: Ibooks, 2003)

Guardians of the Gulf: The Growth of American Involvement in the Persian Gulf, 1833-1992 (New York: The Free Press, 1992)

On Course for Desert Storm: The U.S. Navy and the Persian Gulf (Washington: Naval Historical Center, 1992)

Arctic Strike: The Campaign on the Northern Flank (New York: Avon Books, 1991)

Origins of the Maritime Strategy: The Development of American Naval Strategy, 1945-1955. 2nd ed. (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1990)

Origins of the Maritime Strategy: American Naval Strategy in the First Postwar Decade (Washington: Naval Historical Center, 1988)

Stoddert’s War: Naval Operations during the Quasi-War with France, 1798-1801 (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1987; Classics of Naval Literature, Naval Institute Press, 1999)

He has contributed to a variety of journals and magazines including: the United States Naval Institute Proceedings, Naval History, The American Neptune, The Mariner’s Mirror, Armed Forces Journal International, Air Power History, Military Review, Armed Forces & Society, The Journal of Military History, The International Journal of Maritime History, The North Carolina Historical Review, The American Historical Review, The International Journal of Middle East Studies, War in History, The Northern Mariner/Le Marin du Nord, and the Naval War College Review.


[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 11:04 AM. Reason : dd]

12/14/2006 11:00:36 AM

http://www.amazon.com/s/104-7011941-2402353?ie=UTF8&index=books&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank&field-author-exact=Palmer%2C%20Michael%20A

12/14/2006 11:01:57 AM

Obviously with your genius you could consider the fact that their might be more than one author by the name of Michael Palmer…

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 11:07 AM. Reason : dd]

12/14/2006 11:05:59 AM

TINYURL FOR FUCKS SAKE YOU MORONS

12/14/2006 11:08:01 AM

U.A.I.M.E.

12/14/2006 11:08:22 AM

Quote :

"Warns that pulling out of Iraq under the pressure of Islamist attack would provide legitimacy for the jihadists, a defeat for a modernized Middle East, and a major setback in the war on terrorism"

Seeing Bush talk about this very point, I still wonder, can anyone accurately judge this as it relates to the United States, and the potential harm to citizens on our soil? Everyone says that leaving will be a victory for the terrorist, and emboldened them.

So what? How much greater danger does this put US citizens under? If you can't quantify it one way, then you can't quantify it another.

Does all this not sound the same as Vietnam? If we leave, it will be a Communist domino effect happening. It didn't.

12/14/2006 11:13:15 AM

Im sick of comparing the middle east to vietnam. its not the same people for heavens sake.

12/14/2006 11:24:26 AM

Is that your dad's new book?

12/14/2006 11:28:58 AM

PS: i was just being a dick

This book has some interesting comparisons, but nothing we haven't heard before.

12/14/2006 11:31:12 AM

Hot off the presses my man.

12/14/2006 1:23:01 PM

I hate to be conceding so late in the game when Smoker4 barely even looks at TWW anymore, but Palmer's words not only seem correct, but also sound exactly like the words we had in a debate about the policy of fighting these assholes.

I was on the receiving end of those words though, so congrats on the pwnt.

Moving on from the kudos, I'd go on to say that the doom and gloom tone of the article is a little offensive. Hopefully the book goes into more detail about the possibilities of the younger, more capitalistically secular generation may represent a competitive faction with the Islamists. It's hard to argue that places like Qatar aren't outstanding models for what societal advances are possible when people put aside their petty religious distinctions to chase after $$$.

Even the younger generation in the almighty Iran isn't as against the West as the press often portrays them to be. We see only the young Iranians who fight against us. Rarely do we see the ones who love us and are practically begging us to overthrow their President. Their problem again is a generational one, I think. Once the zealotous generation dies off by suicide bombing or natural causes, a profitable peace won't be hard to establish.

The key of course is to turn the tide enough to convince the younger generation to participate in operations to combat the Islamists. Of course, that ultimately smacks of history repeating itself as we could be training future Bin Ladens and our own enemies (as has been the case with the Iraqi police forces), and how one would avoid it, I have no clue.

12/14/2006 2:55:51 PM

Quote :

"Does all this not sound the same as Vietnam? If we leave, it will be a Communist domino effect happening. It didn't."

Tell that to Laos and Cambodia.

12/14/2006 3:04:53 PM

Wow, two insignificant countries! Hmmm...apply that to the middle east?

12/14/2006 5:36:31 PM

i hate the term "homicide bomber".

12/14/2006 5:41:44 PM

Quote :

"Wow, two insignificant countries! Hmmm...apply that to the middle east?"

ahahahaha

"But...but...but...those countries don't count!"

12/14/2006 6:06:31 PM

Maybe we should have stayed in Vietnam.

12/14/2006 6:09:14 PM

Thats exactly what I was trying imply. Thanks.

12/14/2006 6:12:32 PM

Hell, I think I'll go over there right now...

By the way, there is the argument that our involvement (read: bombing) of Cambodia helped Pol Pot rise to power. I'm not sure if it was "leaving" that did it.

12/14/2006 6:39:58 PM

Theres also the argument that the domino effect was much more likely in the 50s and early 60s but became much weaker after the destruction of the Indonesian communist party in 1965.

On the global scale, there was also a string of communist regimes that came to power in the mid and late 70s that could be used to support the theory.

Thats all that I'm going to say about domino theory. Now I'm taking a step back from this can of worms.

12/14/2006 7:12:16 PM

Quote :

"after the destruction of the Indonesian communist party in 1965."

Ah yes. Well, when you kill half a million to a million people, you get results.

12/14/2006 7:15:45 PM

damn skippy

12/14/2006 7:16:24 PM

^^ So it's settled then, we do what all the right wingers want to do, and carpet bomb the fuck out of Iraq?

12/15/2006 4:08:52 AM

The Soap Box
Serious Business

12/15/2006 9:03:53 AM