Ot-Our Other Arab War- The one 200 years ago

Our Arab War, The One 200 Years Ago - Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public affairs consultant
January 5, 2004 For those who think it is always wiser to put together an international panel of negotiators to try to talk foreign enemies into being nice, I present to you, our Arab war. The one 200 years ago. The one in which diplomacy failed miserably. The one in which Europe refused to help. The one we conducted alone. And won. The Barbary Wars Talk about forgetting the lessons of history. One of the first ones we learned 200 years ago was that "diplomacy" and "multilateralism" sometimes must end and direct action must begin. Back then, pirates from the North African states of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli routinely plundered and seized our ships, demanded ransoms for captive crews or sold our sailors into slavery. European shipping routinely suffered the same fate. Europe's answer was "let's negotiate," which meant sitting down with some pasha and asking him how much money he wanted to leave them alone. Then forking over millions.
Thomas Jefferson thought that approach ridiculous, inviting never-ending blackmail. As the American minister to France, he strongly urged a multinational alliance to "reduce the piratical states to peace." Pick them off one at a time "through the medium of war," so the others get the message, and they'll give up their piracy too. Some European powers were "favorably disposed," as Jefferson said, to a joint operation. But guess who had reservations? France. (No kidding, you can't make up this stuff.) France, because of its own interests, was suspected of secretly supporting the Barbary powers. So, the plan collapsed in favor of a policy of continued negotiations (read: appeasement) - meaning supplicating the blackmailers to tell us how much money they wanted for the ransom of ships and sailors and for annual tributes
. When Jefferson became president in 1801, he finally could do something about it himself. He simply refused Tripoli's demand for a tribute. That provoked Tripoli to declare war on us, as if this young, upstart pup of a nation had any right to stand up for its principles. Jefferson's response was a no-nonsense piece of clarity. He sent a squadron of ships to blockade and bombard Tripoli. The results of these efforts were somewhat mixed. But on Feb. 16 of this year, we will celebrate the bicentennial of Lt. Stephen Decatur leading 74 volunteers into Tripoli harbor to burn the previously captured American frigate, The Philadelphia, so it could not be used for piracy. It was considered one of the most heroic actions in US naval history. The next year, Marines bravely stormed a harbor fortress, an act now commemorated in the "Marine Corps Hymn" with the words ". . . to the shores of Tripoli." Eventually, Morocco, seeing what was in store for it, dropped out of the fight And the threat of "regime change" in Tripoli led to a treaty of somewhat dubious benefits for the United States.
Demonstrating the need for perseverance and patience, a series of victories in 1815 by Commodores William Bainbridge and Decatur finally led to a Treaty ending both piracy against us and tribute payments by us. We even extracted monetary compensation for property they seized from us. Meanwhile, Europeans, continuing their multilateral, diplomatic approach kept paying and paying and paying.
Lessons? No, it doesn't prove that diplomacy and international cooperation never work. But it demonstrates a principle: The United States, when confronted with weak resolve from the international community against enemies, sometimes needs to stand alone for what is right. And it sometimes works. By coincidence, Tripoli today is the capital of Libya, whose leader Moammar Gadhafi, noticing the pounding that the United States gave to tyrants in Afghanistan and Iraq, abandoned his own weapons of mass destruction program. Perhaps Gadhafi, unlike some of our own blindly antiwar academics, commentators and politicians, has read history, especially as it happened in Libya.
One more footnote: France finally settled the hash of the Barbary Coast states in 1830 when it simply went in and took over the place. The official provocation, according to France, was some sort of an insult to the French consul in Algiers. France, demonstrating its superior humanitarian instincts, remained there as a colonial power for a century. Unlike the United States, which, wanting only to protect its citizens and its ships, got out when it won. "
Gunner
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This has little to do with your present problems. If you wish to avoid terrorist attacks, America merely has to stop acting in Israel's interests. Moreover, the freedom fighters aren't sponsored by any government and they can't be curbed by one. Look at Iraq for example.
.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There are a couple of elements of this editorial that relates to the present situation:
" Eventually, Morocco, seeing what was in store for it, dropped out of the fight And the threat of "regime change" in Tripoli led to a treaty of somewhat dubious benefits for the United States. "
and:
"France finally settled the hash of the Barbary Coast states in 1830 when it simply went in and took over the place. The official provocation, according to France, was some sort of an insult to the French consul in Algiers. France, demonstrating its superior humanitarian instincts, remained there as a colonial power for a century. "
The French couldn't get out because they couldn't establish a local government stable enough to last on its own.
"Unlike the United States, which, wanting only to protect its citizens and its ships, got out when it won."
When dealing with the Middle East, it is very hard to determine what "winning" means.
Raul wrote:

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glenn Ashmore wrote:

And now all of Moslem Algeria is moving to France and in 50 years France will be a colony of Algeria.
The Independent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ah yes, comply with their wishes and they will leave us alone. But wait, what if they aren't "they", but a bunch of different groups who have conflicting wishes? What if they can't get along or agree among themselves, who do we placate? Placate one, anger the other, you still have terrorism. Our policies are our business, and if we are attacked we retaliate and remove the attacker and their "ability" not "intention" to do us harm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
6e70 wrote:

Well put.

Dead peoples got no intentions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Raul wrote:

Bullshit. Israel is merely the present excuse. The West is "invading" Islamic countries with Barbie Dolls, "BayWatch", female anchors on the news programs, and the Internet. Give up Israel, and one of those will be the next excuse.
"Dar Al-Harb" and "Dar Al-Islam"
BTW, The only reason we are sitting on Israel is to keep them from conquering the oil producing countries and jacking up the prices. Otherwise we'd stop holding them back and they'd cleanse the middle east of Moslems as thoroughly as the Moslems have cleansed the countries they have invaded of Jews and Christians. (And that's ALL Moslem countries except Saudi Arabia.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Israel has one small problem in that respect. We are their supply line. I have no doubt that Israel could defeat any Arab army and probably all of them together so long as we supply the arms and money. The IDF fights very bravely when it can sit high in the air and fire missiles. When their tank units are well equipped they will go into Palestinian areas and kill indiscriminately.
If they were equipped just like the Palestinians would they be so brave? Or would they hop the next plane for home?
Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:42:29 GMT, "Phil Orenstein"

Ah, but Israel wasn't a state then.
The information about the Dayr Yasin massacre came from the British who then ruled Palestine. The information about the '48 war came from the UN High Commission and the intelligence services of several nations, including Britain, France, and the US. The Library of Congress has it all on file.
Gary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wake up and smell the coffee! If you want to believe the false propaganda and lies promoted by the Arab Higher Committee and the British seeking to generate support among the Arab populations for the extermination of Israel (even though 'Israel wasn't a state then') that's your choice in a free society where you can hear both sides.
But over there you can only hear and believe one side, the side that is accountable to religious doctrine. And they seem to have forgotten to instruct the students of their dogma that Jews were living there already, albeit in small numbers and the rest emigrated to escape persecution and murder of an entire population. The problem is, however that their well oiled PR machinery and religious dogma never generated enough support amongst the Arab nations to defeat Israel, that's why they seek brainwashed youth to strap explosives to their bodies and shout "god is great" as they murder innocent Arabs and Jews and Americans. Get your head out of the sand.
But rather than getting into a he-said she-said debate over the facts, I choose to support Israel in her fight, which is the same as ours which we discovered after 9/11, an enemy that wants to destroy democracy in the name of god. Did you forget, or are you just a supporter of those whom you call "freedom fighters" who revel in death and destruction and danced in the streets on 9/11 as if they had just won the Super Bowl?
Phil
wrote:

certified
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

-
not
or
You must be another of those "conservative thinkers" from misc.survivalism.
You have reading comprehension disabilities.
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

-
not
or
You must be another of those great "conservative thinkers" from misc.survivalism.
You have reading comprehension disabilities.
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:13:21 +0000, Offbreed wrote:

Indeed the Islam was invading the West more than two centuries before the crusades. Check the date on the battle of Tours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What, exactly, were the Turks doing, when the West began the crusades?
--
I'd rather know one such man [like Beethoven] than all the golf
professionals.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can use this stupid excuse to preemptively invade literally any country whose citizens were involved in terrorism against America. India'd be a good example. Moreover, getting rid of western channels is a very easy thing to do. They needn't attack the country producing them. In Iran, they broadcast european programmes with the nudity and profanity removed.

There are christians in most arab countries. Jews would be still if not for the creation of Israel. When the jews were being persecuted in spain, they took refuge in muslim countries. Twenty thousand of their descendents still live in Turkey. It was always Europe which persecuted the jews, not arabs.
You fit right in with the rest of the dumb American loons in misc.survivalism with your ignorance of history or even current affairs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Raul wrote:

The Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus are blowing up embassies? I got it, the Hairless-Krishnuts are banging the tambourines again. That's terrorism, alright. Ever have to listen to them pounding and chanting, hour after hour, day after day? (Not likely you have; they'd end up in prison or dead in most Moslem countries.)

Yes, I know the preachers are trying to censor everything coming into the area, do they cover womens legs and cleavage? Both are "attacks" on Moslem morality.
They are not doing so well with the internet.
However. They are NOT, according to their lights, *attacking* the West. They believe they are DEFENDING themselves from attack. It's just that what they count as an attack is not what the West regards as an attack.
Allah allows Moslems to do anything they like to unbelievers (slave raiding in Sudan for example), especially if it's likely to result in the survivors converting to Islam. If an unbeliever tries to prevent the Moslem from doing something, that is, therefore, an attack on the Moslem, and therefore an attack on all Islam.

(For starters, I'm an atheist and regard all religious people as slightly cracked.)
How many Christians?
Is the trend up or down?
How many can attend their churches?
(Are there restrictions on Moslems attending their services in Israel or any Christian country?)
Can a Christian hand out literature on Christianity?
(What Christian, or Jewish, countries prohibit passing out Moslem literature that does not advocate violence?)
How many synagogues and Christian churches are there in, for example Saudi Arabia?
(How many Mosques are there in Israel? What Christian countries prevent the building of Mosques? I don't mean restrictions on building houses of worship in a particular place, I mean "Mosques", specifically.)
What happens when a Christian brings religious material into Saudi Arabia?
(What happens when Moslems carry religious materials, aside from revolutionary screed, into Israel or any Christian country?)

Are you trying to imply that they moved to Israel voluntarily?

The Jews have been chased from piller to post ever since the Romans got fed up with them and kicked their asses in Israel.
But, if the Sepharadim have such fond memories of sheltering in Moorish Spain, why are they so influential in Israel today? Why are there more Jews in Christian/Western countries than in Moslem countries? [LOL, aside from "Israel", their country of origin. Or would it be better for them to return to the original home of Abraham, the goat thief - Babylon (Iraq)?]
Oh, I'm quite certain that the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Bayazid) welcomed the Sepharadim to Istanbul *only* out of humanitarian interests. The Jews being the leading scientists at the time with the best gun smiths had nothing to do with it. Nor did the (taxible) wealth they brought with them. Ferdinand was a shit brained fool for allowing the merchant class to persuade him to give them the boot.

A mere 20 thousand? By now there should be 20 million, or more. Why isn't there? And Turkey is hardly typical of Islamic nations.

That's a laugh. Moslems use a political dictionary. They define acts by who it is doing it and who it is happening to. By Moslem definition, Moslems have never persecuted anyone, nor murdered anyone, nor enslaved anyone, nor robbed anyone.
Other people define things in a slightly different fashion.
And, yes, I know what "Marrano" means, both in it's application to the crypto Jews, and it's slang meaning of "pig". And I also know how the Inquisition got it's start by chasing down and murdering the Marranos and the Moriscoes.

Would you like cites on the restrictions placed on Christians in Saudi Arabia? How about cites on the enslavement of Christians in Sudan? The terrorist activity in the Philippines? Indonesia? A count of the Moslem invasions and massacres in India?
Shall we discuss Sharia law, and honor killings? Death sentences for "blasphemy" and it's rather elastic definitions? Divorce decrees left on cell phones?
(BANG) "Today is a day of rejoicing. The village is relieved of a sinner, and a sinner is relieved of her sins" accidently showing an ankle, wasn't it?).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Truely an advanced culture.
They have at last solved the lawyer problem.
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cliff Huprich wrote:

(I claim foul on that one <G>.)
It does not go both ways. The men can walk out at will and at whim, the women have absolutely no way out.
Men and women should be treated fairly. This (and the California divorce courts) is not equitable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Raul) wrote in message

It's one of Bush'es new Zero Tolerance programs. It's called Just Say No ! to Intelligence !! The slightest inclination to use your brain and whoosh ! out ya go ! God-fearing Patriotic Americans won't stand that kinda leftist free-thinking crap, ya know. If the Founding Fathers had wanted Americans to use their heads they'da planted watermelon !.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Be a little carefull there, or you will start to sound like Chairman Mao. :-) ...lew...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.