Shame of the nation

A lot of them aren't Muslim, so worries about Islamic terror being imported are overblown somewhat. In my Iraq tours, I noted that Chaldean and Assyrian (Christian) Iraqis were represented among translators and specialists far in excess of their share of the population (always a big question mark in and of itself). Christian Iraqis were overrepresented not just because they were qualtitatively better educated and in the professions, but quantitatively as well, because of course unlike most of the Muslims they see positive value in educating the 50% of their people that just happen to be women. Basically I think we should expect that Metro Detroit will get even more Arab that it already is.

Several dozen posts back, Rod speculated about how he would react to having a Middle-Eastern Muslim family as a neighbor (or something like that). I think this is a key insight!!! Eventually, when we live together we learn to understand others better and almost always discover that what we want for ourselves and our children is very much the same. In short, we begin to empathize with our neighbors and decide (consciously or not) that they're more like us than not. (Obviously, there are bad apple examples, too.) Isn't one thing that is happening in the world a 'shrinking' such that the answer to 'Who is my neighbor?' includes more and more people who live farther and farther away? This world is full of problems and dangers, but what really makes it dangerous is the technology effectively available to ANYONE who wants it -- technology that can provide an individual with the destructive power of an army. But guess what? The technological element of this cannot be reversed. Indeed, it existed before 9-11 and does not depend on any one variety of desperate idiot to remain a threat. Remove every potential Islamic terrorist on the planet and someone else is in line to use the threatened and actual death of innocents as a lever of power. It seems to me we're spending a lot of energy projecting the current global dynamic into the future without leaving much if any room for that dynamic to change (except visualizing the 'defeat' of Islamic terrorists, whatever that may really mean). We should -- at a minimum -- try to factor in the effect of Rod's new neighbors (duplicated many times over worldwide) will have on our globe. In fact, maybe we should actually encourage it. (I no longer consider myself a theist, but when I was, I always saw the world's 'shrinking' as part of a divine plan to make us live beside those unlike ourselves and -- over the centuries -- discover via empathy and compassion what values really are universal rather than the product of our own culture or religion.)

SIDEBAR: On Ted Koppel's 'Our Children's Children's War', Gen. Abazaid estimated the military component would be only about 20% of future efforts in said war. So, what is the other 80%? Is leaning to live with those from other cultures a part of this?

But assuming people are the enemy and that there's a terrorist in every Muslim home is also "just not true." There's a middle ground between being Pollyanna multicultural and being paranoid reactionary xenophobe.

Rod, No, don't take my comment as the total solution -- only as something that we forget at our peril. Getting to know one another is a very important part of getting along -- but not the only one. (Remember, I mentioned the bad apples.) This discussion continues to remind me of Hofstadter: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html His observations are good to keep in mind while realizing that some threats are not imaginary. It's a question of emphasis and continued self-questioning. If we fail to question, we end up wherever this administration is heading.

Christian Iraqis were...better educated...quantitatively...because of course unlike most of the Muslims they see positive value in educating the 50% of their people that just happen to be women. This is pretty funny. Why? Because by educating their women, they lowered their birth rate and thus sealed their doom. They now cannot compete number-wise with the Muslims who use their women not for making money but for having children...LOTS of them. Some worldwide stats: (TFR= female lifetime number of kids) (FL = % female illiteracy) (FSS = females in secondary school) 1970: TFR=4.48, FL=45%, FSS=25% 2000: TFR=2.69, FL=26%, FSS=60%
Sidenote: Iraq has a current TFR=4.8 As this makes clear, any culture that decides to educate their women for the workforce will soon be at a population disadvantage. This is why Christians in Iraq are getting out fast: they are losing the demographic war. I just find it funny that we see ourselves as so modern and superior to those Muslims, who are simply kicking the snot out of us...the old fashioned way. Breeding suicide bombers. While the West sits around and congratulates ourselves on our moral superiority for being so feminist.
Oh, and packs our bags and tucks our tail. Can't forget that part!

Kannbrown65: So, they will win because they keep their women ignorant, barefoot and pregnant, and will outbreed us? I would say: they put their considerable female resources where they do the most good in time of war. Your language shows your bias; I don't judge. Just point out the facts. Do I think hardline Muslims will "win" in Iraq? Yes. They have the numbers and the will. We will leave. So, what is your proposal to address this?
I offer no solution. I don't believe there is one except genocide, which I morally oppose. We never should have went, and we should leave now. I assume you plan on disenfranchising women, denying them an education, and mandatory childbearing requirements? And why would you assume that? Because you are a feminist so ideologically driven you cannot have a normal conversation without accusing me of being some sort of a facist? Get a grip. Try to think logically and clearly about the facts without your ideology taking over. After all, if sheer breeding capacity is the only guarantee of success, we must all do our part, right? First, I never said breeding is the "only" factor. However, it is a neccessary one. If you have not the people to throw at a war, you will lose. Look at Cindy Sheehan, whining about Bush because she lost her only son. Imagine she had 5 others. She could accept it better. You can't fight a war with a bunch of Sheehan types breeding your soldiers.

You honestly think that someone can more easily cope with the death of a child because they have a few more? My sister has five children. This doesn't mean that the loss of one would be ANY easier to bear. Secondly, you didn't just say they bred more. You said they bred more because the women were less educated, and this would be why they would win. So, again, how do you plan on addressing this birth discrepancy, even not counting the fact that, person for person, we FAR outnumber the population of Iraq, birthrate or no.
US- over 300 million. Iraq- Around 26 million (which is, of course, an estimate). Birth rate. US- 2.09 children per couple Iraq- 4 children per couple. But we must add in, infant mortality rate. US- 6.03 per 1000 live births. Iraq- 46 deaths per 1000 live births. In all reality, given the almost 10 times infant mortality rate, adding in immigration, and the increased lifespan, the US, educated women and all, somehow 'gets by'.

You were the one equating the number of people they could breed with their success in winning the war. I only pointed out that if population mattered, that we WOULD be easy winners. We aren't, so your theory isn't exactly working out.
Secondly, ironically, Iraq, during the era of Saddam, HAD one of the more educated pool of women in the Middle East. We keep forgetting, it seems. Saddam was a secular dictator, and what mattered to him wasn't religious law, but profit. And taking half your population out of the workforce wasn't good for profits. Saddam got rid of requirements for hijab, mandatory separation of the sexes, and provided for both primary and university educations for females.
They are willing to 'give up their boys' not because they're breeding like rabbits.
They're willing because they are fighting an invading force, who is occupying their country and bombing their homes. Not some military misadventure for causes that have, one by one, been disproven and was, at best, for some possible, future threat.
And THAT would be the big difference.