At 08:22 AM 2003-09-23 +1200, I wrote to LIM and GV with title:
 '-#-"wholesale transformation of Muslim societies" war?!' :-

· I've just posted the New York Times article to PF:
 "liberal democracies cannot beat suicide bombers militarily" {via:
http://tinyurl.com/o9cv }, which Diane Fitzsimmons had posted to LIM as:
 "Suicide bombings not related to religion?"

My post starts:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ I can respect this argument; it fits with my opinion, that once a nation uses its armed forces outside its own (non-colony) territory, it gets into a morass of the Vietnam type. The British Empire had to pull its armed forces back to "west of Suez", in my childhood (1940s and 50s), for this same reason.   D.M.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/opinion/22PAPE.html
  in the New York Times, is:

Dying to Kill Us
By ROBERT A. PAPE ; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
 {Robert A. Pape teaches _political_science_ at the University of Chicago.}

CHICAGO — Suicide terrorism has been on the rise around the world for two decades, but there is great confusion as to why.  Since many such attacks — including, of course, those of Sept. 11, 2001 — have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists professing religious motives, it might seem obvious that Islamic fundamentalism is the central cause. This presumption has fueled the belief that future 9/11's can be avoided only by a wholesale transformation of Muslim societies, which in turn was a core reason for broad public support of the invasion of Iraq. 
   However, this presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is wrongheaded, and it may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies that are likely to worsen America's situation.
...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

· That article by professor Pape (of Chicago) has the sentence:

".. belief that [9/11-type terrorism] can be avoided only by a wholesale transformation of Muslim societies, which in turn was a core reason for broad public support [in the U.S.A. _only_] of the invasion of Iraq."

· That sentence has two amazing parts: "a wholesale transformation of Muslim
societies", and "the invasion of Iraq".

· "a wholesale transformation" here implies _by_some_outside_power_. That's why I find it amazing. Iran was democratic before the US/CIA-sponsored over-
throw of the Mossadeq government and the installation of the Shah. I remem-
ber this event. That's what: "a wholesale transformation" means here.

· Many Iranians _currently_ are working for a major transformation, trying to return Iran to a secular democracy, but neither professor Pape nor most Americans have that in mind when they want another society to change so it's more like America.


· Secondly: "the invasion of Iraq". For decades I have watched America use military force (Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, as a tiny sample) to get what they want (or at least what the-government-they-have-elected wants).

· The British Empire did things differently; yes they used soldiers ("The Indian Mutiny", "The Maori Wars"), but largely the "getting what they [the British] want" was done by political means, and resulted in continuing strong economic _and_cultural_ links with Britain after independence was achieved.

· Why on earth do the Americans ignore such a successful (overall) example and rely mainly on guns and killing people, in building their own Empire?

· What is it, with Americans?

David (sent to GV-NZ and LessIsMore lists).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At 09:38 AM 2003-09-23 +1200, I wrote to both lists:

At 08:22 AM 2003-09-23 +1200 I wrote to LessIsMore (08:38 AM 2003-09-23 GV):
> ...
>· Why on earth do the Americans ignore such a successful (overall) example and rely mainly on guns and killing people, in building their own Empire?
>
>· What is it, with Americans?
>
· I've read others' opinions which contribute to answering this, where they say: "history doesn't matter, in the USA, only _now_ matters". Americans are more likely to say: "So what? if the British or the Austro-Hungarians did this or that. Old hat, gone and done-with, not relevant to _us_."

· And the consumer culture, made into a tremendous economic success by America since 1950, gets people thinking "I want it and I want it _now_!"
   So long-term (multi-generational) plans, the sort the British used, aren't interesting.

· A third factor is the change in the 1940s-50s, with the Munroe Doctrine (The USA will decide whether other North and South American nations are free to do what they want politically and militarily). I know little American history, but I do remember that before the 1940s general public attitudes to "foreign wars" like WW-II was isolationist, "keep the boys at home".

· Now I make my opinion clear, in a manner which requires the "-#-" at the front of the Subject.

· Americans are childish; children say: "Why can't I have it _now_?"
  And for children, what happened last year is hazy; earlier than that and it may as well not have happened.
  What _other_people_ do (or did in the past), is only good as a story, it doesn't have much impact on what a child wants to do.


· Hands up, those who want the world ruled/controlled by childish Americans!

David.