i don't see bush as trying to develop arab political culture any further than finding someone who doesn't want to kill jews and americans. although, i'm equally unconvinced as to how possible it may be.

Not a cynic, chemist. But definitely a skeptic. Concrete proof is more sensible to base faith on. But too many abstract notions and suggestions are indeed fool's fodder. I choose to base my beliefs on solid, imperical facts and data, not what-if's and maybes that have both supporters and dispellers whose both sides of the arguments have some merit. A lot of this is all supposition, but without sufficient, hard data and records to back it up, it's just that: little more than supposition. And any discontent I have against christianity is no different than how the families of the victims of islamic radicals hold contempt for muslims..

Considering the numbers of US Shermans and White-series halftracks that the US "dumped" on the pro-Israel cause, I am amazed that the US wasn't quick to offload surplus Mustangs, Thunderbolts, and Hellcats: definitely far more lethal beasts than any Messerschmitt knock-offs. ...but maybe, if cid was there (seriously, can we get some legit info this suggestion?), he can shed some light on why it was opted to use combat-flawed German-developed equipment instead of combat-proven and reliable US warbirds. I'm not sensing some kind of weird atonemen here, am I? (using former German-designed weapons to establish the nation of Israel, after so many years of mistreatment).

The Hagannah (IDF) of 1947-50 had no Shermans or White halftracks. At least not from direct US sources. Israel was under a US arms embargo. With the exception of a handful of stolen British Universal Carriers (Bren Carriers), all Israeli "armor" of the 1948 war was home built MadMax type stuff on wheels. The first "combat" aircraft in Ha'Avir use were 25 S-199's and 3 B-17's. The B-17's were purchased privately and transfered illegally. They arrived in July of 1948 in extremely rough shape, yet continued in combat service until late 1956. The S-199's were bought from the Czechs on April 23rd, 1948. Flown by 101st Sqn, no Avia remained servicable beyond May of 1948. Yes, they were purchased before the Mandate had expired. Given that Egyptian Spitfires bombed and strafed Tel Aviv on the day that the Mandate expired, so what? Perhaps to atone for the S-199's, the Czechs offered to the Israelis 50 battle ready Spitfires of their very own. The Chel Ha'Avir had previously assembled two Spits from WW2 crash dumps and crashed Egyptian Spits. One of those Spits was flown by Ezer Weizman and remains the most important preserved aircraft in Israel. Now ask me why those Spitfires were in Czechoslovakia in the first place. The first 4 disarmed P-51 Mustangs arrived in September of 1948 from private donors. In 1951 Sweden sold an additional 25 Mustangs to Israel and in all 29 were operational in 1956. Among their first sorties of the Suez War, the P-51's were deliberately flown through Egyptian telephone lines. Several more P-51's were purchased from Italy in 1955, but by 1957 all were in reserve status. I can find no record of P-51's being used in the 1967 war. Yeah, I'm still borrowing from Bill Gunston and Ezer Weizman...Somehow I don't think they'd mind too much. I read an article a few years back that the Israelis purchased (or were considering) some F-82 Cavaliers and twin-Cavaliers (modernized Mustangs) for COIN use but never saw a follow up. oh yeah. I still have no respect for Islam and I'm getting tired of seeing this post. It doesn't matter whose hands made the tool. All that matters is, will it kill the enemy? IN GREAT NUMBERS, CL.

You know, I can empathize with that dt. I hold religion to a different standard than I hold political ideology or science, but your way does make sense. Skepticism is bred into us today. It's healthy. But I think you understand why people go nuts. talking religion isn't just about evidence and beliefs: it's also about your own identity, and so it's really personal. Hellfire proved that(when I went down the path of philosophy=religion and he decided to call me an idiot). Somethings you just have to figure out for yourself. Yet, I hope you understand the difference in definitions of 'faith' in play here. YOu ask for a reasoned faith, one based in evidence and proof. But, I think you understand that not all things in life allow for that(like the first time your gf goes somewhere without you. You don't really have proof that she'll practice fidelity, but you have faith in her just the same.).But, that for me is what has seperated faith from Faith(and religion definately requires capital F Faith). It isn't for everyone. I'm not saying that you should extend that type to religion, but that you accept that my extending it doesn't mean I'm crazy. I'm sorry you've had bad interactions with religious sects. I've had them too(my old home parish was terrible. I've told cid about some of my experiences. Getting beaten up at Mass isn't a good thing, you know?). It's not supposed to happen, but it does. I hope your bad experiences don't reflectly in an ill manner on me and celebrim..

This is probably the only argument I've heard that wasn't inherently chauvanistic(i.e. They're arabs, and ergo can't handle Liberal institutions. The ninnys.). But here's the rub scholar. Can the rest of the world wait while the Arabian penninsula figures itself out? Given the propensity of Arab nations to import, like the Ottomans before them, Western weapons of war without the influx of political/cultural institutions I don't think we can. a) Nuclear genie is out of the bottle(Iran, Syria being according to a few sources a wmd store house, hat tip to Michael Leeden, Iraq(foremerly)). b) Stateless international terrorism. c) Economic interconnectedness. d) Our belief in Liberal ideals. I don't see how anyone, including the Europeans, has any choice but to stick their thumb into the Arabian pie. Real world choices, real world consequences..

Do you really believe that there is a link between Jesus and Muhammad? Of course it's not impossible, but the probability is so LOW that it's even hardly worth taking about it. Here again, people get confused by something that is VERY improbable..

Chemist, I'm not disagreeing with you, although I cough up my coffee whenever I read anything about plans to hold democratic elections or build democracies in places that have yet to figured out the Enlightenment. Aghanistan? Hah. That place is so backward they never even got to where the rest of Islam was in their Golden Age. A backwater of backwaters. I'm quite content to do what we've been doing, which is simply replace one set of thugs with another set. SO when I here "democratization" rhetoric I often think it's pure BS intended to make intervention more marketable. The danger with "sticking our thumbs" in the Arab world to kick start their development is that it may well backfire. We bring them enlightenment on the end of a bayonet, and they, foolishly, think, "Gosh, Enlightenment = invader, so out with the Enlightenment." There are rumours of that. I've read accounts of middle class egyptians, the sorts of folks who should be our best allies, saying that "maybe the West really sucks because it's so brutal, so may that liberalism stuff is not for us." They're totally, totally misguided, but they wouldn't be the first ones in world history to cut off their nose to spite their face. I honestly don't know what an alternative approach is. That's what I've been trying to figure out. A less aggressive path that's not some stupid, naive, pie-in-the sky leftist nonsense. I was hoping France might articulate one; I was hoping my French friends would. But I really got nothing from them. But it's a serious question: how do coax at least middle class and elite Arabs to embrace liberalism? Screw the Arab street. I'm interested in the educated ones.

Yeah, a mix of trickle up and trickle down. Real change doesn't come top down or bottom up. From my readings the trully successful innovators/revolutionaries were educated middle class(or higher types). I honestly don't know if the middle class is all that swayable. My experiences over on the China board are kinda leading to that conclusion. Maybe all that we have that really works is Enlightenment at the point of a bayonette. That's a rather unsatisfactory answer, I know. Like I said, real world choices come with real world consequences. We could go through the rather difficult and expensive route of restructuring the West, and add in some heinous migration rules for those out of the ME because of the terror threat(not advocating, just examining an alternative) instead. Go toward economic and physical isolation of the ME. But that's just as likely to sponsor terrorist acts is Poverty Theory is correct. You're more sociologist than I am, what do you think scholar?/

Your "causal inferrence" theory is correct. The IDF system is a bit strange. If you are not born in Israel (Sabra they call it), the institution is pretty disposed toward disregarding whatever you say. But if IDF leadership thinks you are someone that should not be ignored, they have a system of honorary rank. The main practical effect is when you ask for a pencil (or whatever) the average bear cannot refuse you outright. But the other practical effect is that general officers do not ignore you. They know you are there to say things very different from what their staff would say. In this case, the general did not say anything in the meeting, but the next day he ordered a preliminary collection of data on the equipment concerned. It is possible he had consulted with other people before doing so. But it is unlikely he would have done anything of the sort had the matter not come to his attention the preceeding day. It is a small matter and not particularly remarkable in my experience. People having a hard time believing this probably just don't have much experience as advisors. Few senior leaders will ignore someone the higher echelons think is wroth listening to - at least not if what you say makes sense.