>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm honored to be here as a token of miscopailon. we'll see where it goes. we'll get to the deserts, questions and answers later. you can ask specific questions about anything, i'll prove i'm

an washington type. if i don't know the answer, i'll tell you. before i launch into the formal lecture, i really do have to comment on some of the professor's remarks as well as those of the rabbi. and when i first went to germany as a young soldier in the 1970s, i was bewildered as someone who spoke german, family is half german, i was a member of the club. things were made to me that wasn't meant for public consumption. for whatever reason, you just can't kill anti-semitism. i'd like to as a way of prelude offer a few of my views on it, specifically concerning the middle east and europe. and begin with europe, you got to understand that while the holocaust was a measurable tragedy for the jewish people, it was a great embarrassment --

>> people can't hear you in the back. can you speak into it. >> sure. it was a great embarrassment for european. an embarrassment as a potent force. when you see the irrational criticism and outright lies told about israel in europe, i think you can understand it in terms of the psychological need. the europeans know full well how monstrous they were in their sins of commission and omission. the collaboration with the nazis by many people beyond the borders of germany. so psychologically in their shame, they need israel to be bad. they need israel to be as guilty of estrousties as they were. which suddenly, it was terrible and several dozen palestinians

were killed. that's concepted out u.s. wits. of course, it didn't. but the europeans leapt on it. i think there is that need. there's even something beyond their need to believe that israel is as bad as they are, therefore, the score is even. it's the astonishing pension, because it goes back to cultures and civilizations to fit decide at various points. we've seen it with many empires. look at german speaking culture. in the 19th entity early 20th century, the most sophisticated and profound in the world. but in north america, especially in the lower 48, in the 19th century, german thought about profoundly prudential.

-- influential. much m more than the french thought and english thought. elmerson and his cycle relied on german thought. then you get to the turn of the century. and the flowering at the turn of the century into the 20th and early 30s in vienna, berlin, and elsewhere. if you look at the genius of it, it is by and large jewish culture. and germany, they turned whether from jealousy, whatever, they turn on it. and they butcher their own culture. and since 1945 germany, the german speaking lands, once the fountain of the greatest intellectual sophistication and development and outpouring in modern history. what have they produced since 1945? automobiles and gummy bears.

it was amazing to me how this could happen. and i know we riddle about it all the time. so i think with the european criticism, i do see it largely as the need to cancel their own guilt. now in the middle east, when i speak to washington-area audiences i stress jealousy as a strategic factor. we don't think that jealousy, no, it's demographics or blah, blah, blah. i truly believe the motion plays a far greater role in human affairs. in our irrational collective choices than does cold logic and analysis. and certainly, in the middle east, how can arab states not be jealous? centuries of comprehensive failure kept by the modern

tragedy. not of the state of the creation of israel. but who got the oil wealth? now once upon a time, many centuries ago, there was a blossoming of arab-speaking culture. we know that. and cultures of life cycles and they fade. but the saudis and the gulf em -- emrites were responsibility. they built sheep pens on a good day. and the saudi, the number one enemy of the united states, the saudis got so much of the money, and despite this in flow of massive unprecedented will. what has the arab world done and achieved?

where is the world class university? where are the software programs? what about the early 20th century style? literally into the sand. the palestinians. what has arab oil wealth done for the palestinians? it has kept them on a drip feed, just enough to keep them alive as a cause. and so when you go to israel, and see the remarkable -- stunning job, the unprecedented creation of a modern just rule of law, democracy amidst the moral squaller and comprehensive incompetence of the middle east, how can arabs not be jealous? if you stand on a northern mountain top of israel and look north, you know exactly where

israel is. it's where the green stops and the brown begins. why can't hundreds of millions of arabs do better? i believe the answer -- culture is fate. and there wounds are largely self-inflected. they were not the victims for the most talk. we'll talk about that more later. how can they not be jealous? jealous found the human factor. you went to the broader world of anti-semitism and really we need a new word. because arabs are semimitic people as well. humanity may or may not need a god. i believe humanity does. but i can guarantee you that human kinds needs a satan. someone to blame when the cows

don't give milk. someone to blame for the epidemic. someone to blame for the bankruptcy. someone to blame for personal and collective failures. we need a satan. throughout so much of history, what more convenience satan could there be than the jews. for so many centuries powerful. what marvels does humanity need to blame others? an entity scattered without critical mass. a satan that can't strike back. what a gift. then of course with the founding of israel, satan can suddenly defend himself. kill himself. history isn't fair. life isn't fair. but i was asked just before this whether i saw any hope with the coming advent of the iranian

nuclear weapons. of course, of course i see hope. i am absolutely confident in the jewish people in the wonderful, creative, brilliant, grace on humanity. they will indeed survive and prosper. but is it will not be easy. because this is a world in which our noblest sentiments are so often frustrated. in washington, i hear people with no sense of history say all men want peace. how many of protectors would like to live in a town or city without police force? all men and women do not want peace. i believe the majority do. history is not changed by majority expect in a few democracies. in iran, does anyone hear believe the average iranian

wants a nuclear confrontation with israel? i certainly don't think so. like average people anywhere, the average iranian wants to get through the day, make more money, get the bills paid. but decisions won't be made by that average iranian. they will be made by those who have grasp and fully intend to retain power. a handful of men who by our standards maybe men, men who have fallen in love with this. we now face, and more of this later, enemies who regard death as a promotion. and that is profoundly different. let me begin what i want to talk about. i want to cram a five-hour opera into the next 10 minutes. specific questions, please ask me about the q and a. but i want to step back. because i believe that speaking from the lower 48 and also

speaking, i think for canada and the west over all, one of our fundamental problems is -- are the e collaborative with which we have tried to -- sought to erase history. we've taken history out of school rooms. history is about making children feel good about themselves of if you do not know history, you will die of myth. fact matters. one the things that are truly worth fighting for are facts. factual history. we are paying a great price for taking it out. so we tend to think, whether in lower 48 or canada, we tend to think of history in election cycles. for the united states, vietnam, it's kind of like greeks and romans; right? it's so far in our past.

world war ii, that's mytholigiz mytholigized now. let me stand back and do what we need to do. certainly in washington, the capital of arguably the greatest power in history. it has not produced a world class strategist in over 50 years. we produce in the military brilliant tactical generals. those who know how to fight. but now how it fits in the flow of history. in washington and so much of the west, i see people clinging to the toth century. because it was pretty good for us. we won. and they know the theories. and now we live in a changed world. a world so different that the

20th century theories and answers do not work. the answers do not answer. but we resist the reality before our eyes. because it was so painful and dangerous to say nothing of politically incorrect. where are we now in 2010? you must look at the grand sweep of history to have any hope of understanding where we are now and thus some faint notion of where we maybe going. history is not a guide to the future. but it will provide you with a dash full of warning lights. it enables you to recognize the same mistake the third or fourth time you've made it. at any rate, where are we? the first place we're at is -- and it's really a very layered complex equation.

we are at the end of the age of ideology. and a turn back to the great stream. now something very strange. from about 200 years from 1989 the fall of the berlin wall or 1991 whereby the formal dissolution of the soviet empire. human kind went through the age of ideology. it frustrates me when president bush would say we're in a war of ideas with al qaeda. no we are not. not at all. there's no ideology on either side. we are fighting for values. democracy is not an ideology. democracy is a technique of human self-governance that uses the tools of elections.

it can be adapted. we are fighting for values, freedom, human rights, the rights of women and so forth. our enemies in the conflict are fighting for belief. our refusal to acknowledge speaking for washington. it's debilitating. religions are for me, although i'm a religious believer, as an analyst, i must separate that. religion is what men and women make of it. we have a genius for perverting the word of god. for bending it until our own ends. we have enemies in al qaeda,

hamas, hezbollah, who are openly not just saying but screaming, shouting, that they are dying for allah. they are file -- fighting for allah. they are fighting for their version of the faith. no, they are only kidding. they don't know what they are talking about. again these are enemies that regard deficit promotion. it is a foundly different situation. when our armies be it u.s., canadian, brits, our counterinsurgency theories, they would have been -- the counter insurgency theories would have been terrific in vietnam 1957. they do not apply to the 21st century. now just give you one brief example. everyone loves to site malaysia. it was far, far bloodier than

historians like to lead on. but it was successful. the profound difference was that no urban chinese, ethnic chinese or no villager was born that way. they were purr saided to become. they could be purr -- persuaded one way or the other. with the death of marxism, leonardism, fascism, all of these human -- man-constructed ideology, inorganic that killed so many human beings. there's still echo in venezuela, but they are functionally dead. there are echoes around the

world. it's over, it's done. that's the good news. the bad news is we leave defaulted back to what human beings have always fought over, blood and belief. so in the aberration period, the war of ideology, people were fighting for ideas. and their minds could be changed. again one way or the other. but now the entire world under the destabilizing impact of globalization. human kind is asking, every individual is asking who am i and the answer now? more and more frequently. it's i'm a muslim. or i'm a jew. i'm bengale or i am passion or kurd. it's a period of breakdown. of admirization. globalization is great for the

crust on the human loathe. but for the average human being. it's the tremendous doubt. it's ignorance was bliss. so you have the 20th century, the insurgencies based on political ideologies. expect for the psychotics, the adherence, these man-made construct for human organization, governance, economy, culture, et cetera. they were sometimes willing to die for their cause but their great preference was to live and participate in the spoils in the change, the new system, the new world order. but now you do have enemies the hard core of whom seek death. and we're dealing not with learned identities, but innate identities. you are a persian. you are a kurd. now the western democracies have by and large gotten beyond

this. not completely, but by and large. we still have our ethic pride, et cetera. but in much of the world, this is the defense mechanism. this is the tribe closing ranks. i am muslim, i am hindu. it's very, very dangerous. because while you can change a malice mind, it's hard to change the identity of a kurd or persian. how do you change the identities? and religion, it's very hard to persuade someone to change their religion. in afghanistan, we can talk about that in the q and a, we're not asking people to change their form of government, we're asking them to change their civilization. and it's very, very hard to persuade a human being to do that and to persuade them enduring it.

they really belief that sitting down in the british library, they would get better cultural and economic. another reason why democracy works p. it's not anism. there's no ism on the end. another reason that it works, democracy as we know it, the isolation of the british isles, they were a hot house. and it took us 800 years, 800 years to get to sarah palin and nancy pelosi. so it's not a perfect process. we're still working on it.

but it's self-core connecting. all of us together can put together better systems and think of how much human beings die for the vanity of a marx or lennon. so that's the first place we are. humanity is past the age of ideology. although new ideology could spring up tomorrow. for now it's done. the bad news is we've defaulted back to blood and belief. faith and ethnicity. where else are we? this is very important. because it bears on the war. we are at the bear beginning of the era. this isn't a left wing or right-wing pitch. i'm trying to look at things objectively. when you look at history, the european powers, the portugese has the longest stay.

they rule some often permissible. they perform and deform. native societies for around the world for up to six centuryies. now the aztecs being flower children, et cetera, et cetera, many of the native societies were pretty nasty. the aztecs and mayans really weren't nice. they weren't perfect views of the world. the point is though around the world, the societies and era had worked out system that is functioned for them. they might have been grizzly, war like, but it worked for

them. then the european impact comes. for a variety of reasons, europe is so powerful that it just overwhelms the native culture for better and worse. and it's not all bad. i mean up until this last decade, anything that worked in india had been built by the brits. they will getting beyond it had now. but my point is this, if you talk to many intellectuals, say postcolonial era, 1947 to 1958 they fall. let us apply common sense. of european impact changing the world. that cannot be undone in three decades. it may indeed take another six centuries for societies to right themselves. look at latin america. most latin -- south american

spanish speaking states, south american, gain their independence in heroic struggles against spain in the second decade of the 20th century. sorry 19th. many of those countries are coming to grips. and with a colonial hangover. this is junior high school physics. what happens when an expersonal force pushes a system and the force is suddenly removed. the reaction is at least equal to the force. in the uniform in which most of us still live. what you are seeing around the world with the religious struggles is a world trying to reshape itself. entries trying to find a new

organic balance. what can work for them? well, the problem is when the european empires which ran from relatively benign to monstrous in the case of the dutch and portugese, in the recession of empire, they left behind the poison pill of dysfunctional borders. on the practical level, this is no more grotesque cause of violence in the world today than dysfunctional borders. look at the department of state, and mention, because gnat views of the state department, they have existed at least since the time of exodus. well, borders have always changes and will change. why on earth does it matter to us? think of where canadian soldiers ha fought and u.s. military since the desert storm.

the multiple conflicts in iraq, somalia, the balkins, afghanistan, they are all either caused by or exacerbateed by dysfunctional borders left behind by europeans who knew them for their own exists. their own selfish reasons. look at afghanistan. afghanistan is not and never was a country, a state as we know it. it's an accident where other people's borders ended. as far as they could and needed to protect the zone, which really started east of the river. in the west, afghanistan's present boundaries include persia, because persia was weak where the borders are gone. the only natural is really in the north, the oxist river.

but that divides uzbeks. the european drawn boundaries drawn again for europe's own interest do one of two things. they either trust people together who do not want to be together or push people apart who do want to be together. for instance, the kurd. 36 to 40 million people without a country. divided. the pashtuns. again probably 40 million people without the country. you have to differentiate on your countries. the taliban while i have no sympathy, they are hillbillies who don't want the revenue coming up their ally.

al qaeda has a global aspirations. they are very serious. so faced with an international mobile enemy aspirations, we are currently concentrating on fighting local hillbillies. we are not thinking. but at any rate, if you look at why saddam invaded kuwait, in the because in the old system of boundaries, kuwait would have been belonged to iraq in his version of the world. somalia. does anyone believe that somalia is or ever will be a functioning state within its current borders ? rationals borders can be drawn. yugoslavia was the frankenstein's period of state. you can no more tell people to

succeed or separate, which we love to do. but they don't listen anymore than your close friends will listen to you when you advice them not to marry that man or woman. this is emotion. people need to learn. some of those states will find they are too strong to function. but first, you go through the breakdown. this is very important because we have been involved in western military, the united states, western militaries, the united states have involved, the great democracies have been involved in trying to get the european imperial of world order. it is madness. people worry about instability. it's coming. the longer you keep the pressure

on, the more violent the explosion. if we can do one thing, our politicians will not, if we can do one thing to attend the world's problem, it would be to develop somewhat peaceful mean of developing worders. you can't -- so many citied are mixed, certainly anybody who studies the middle east know that is. the point is we're not coming to grips with the problems. that men and women are fighting with blood and relief. they are fighting because the european legacy doesn't work. it just doesn't work. by the way, let's go to the next level of complications. our insurgency theory is aimed

at mid 20th century secular revolutionaries. in afghanistan, somalia, and elsewhere, we are faces religious reactionaryies. it requires -- we're trying to treat cancer with flu medicine. it doesn't work. it doesn't function. and the really ugly news, sorry. but 2500 years of recorded history don't offer a single example of religious violent insurgency that has been put down without enormous amounts of blood shed. i cannot find one put down by negotiation. when people are on a blaze with faith and convinced that violence is required by their translation of their faith, it's

gone too far. you know, human societies throughout history whether you look at what's now israel when the germany is in the high middle ages or the middle east in the 20th century, the pattern s -- it always holds up the same way. local people with the power in which they cannot compete. roam in the case of israel 2,000 years ago, the holy roman empire and the power of the church of rome and germanys in the 15th and 16th or the palestinians who cannot we again to compete. you get the same thing. the first step is always that the local, the locals who try to

accommodate themselves to the system. jews try to accommodate to rome's cultural civilizational power. you could not match. for the most of our jews. in the germany, the first thing that you get is our local secular rebellions against the church of rome and centralizing power. you have this much more complex line of thinking. be careful about lionizing the zealots. they killed more jews than they killed romans. then you get the germans arguing the same thing. 130 years of incredibly

religious bloody warfare. now you have the late 20th century in the middle east. where the plo originally while its demands was obsessive was not religious. yasser arafat was hardly the top. if you did not find a means of accommodation in the first stage where they are looking for a political resolution, once it goes into a religion, a religion fuel insurgency, there's no reverse. so on that level, i am not hopeful. the really good haters, the religious if i -- if i --

fanatics. we're in the world of wad borders. but again there's the other level which in the 20th century the countryside came to the cities. it's more cosmopolitan than it is today. whether you speak of cities around the world, as populations expanded, as minor improvements in the public health allowed populations and nourishment and nutrition to explode, the countryside could no longer support them. they went to the cities with a streets whether supposed to be paved with silver, if not gold. and they weren't.

cities could thrive. but the speed, even in the lower 48 which americans from the south came in the northern cities was disabeliasing. because you can't get the sudden flood. so what happens when the country, people come from the countryside, entire villages moving in some cases. yet they have to walk by the shop windows. they go into reaction. and they begin to try to impose the values of the countryside on the city. what we are seeing now, because that is the comprehensive failed civilization in the world today, we're seeing a reaction against

sophistication, against education, against progress. in afghanistan, we are the revolutionaries. again, we are fighting religious reactionaries who want to turn back the clock to ages that never existed. they want to force a form of islam that they regard as purified, that has very little to do with the original teachings or the revelation of muhammad. religion is what men and women make it. we are going through all of the things, hang other the age of imperillism through the end of the age reversion to wars of blood and belief, the tension between rural values and the cosmopolitan play themselves out in so many ways. again, the taliban are fighting for that good old time religion. they are fighting for the way of

life as they see it. it's the last time to talk about before we go to q and a. although there's much more. many other factors disstabilizing the world today. in my generation, we went through the most profound social revolution in all of human history. the transition of women from man's property to man's equal partner. there is no precedent. it changed the roles of the population. an empire society cultures. they don't tell us much about. freud tells us a lot. just like we'd never talk about

jealousy. if you look at the middle east. these are cultures that are afraid. they are terrified of female swalety. women are also a very good say tin to -- the witch. the idea of a witch. cows don't give milk so young nasty or beautiful young women that did it. this is an intractable part of the problem. since i was universities in the late '60s and early '70s, i have stood for women's rights. because i realize early on it made the dating process a lot quicker and keeper. i was there for you sisters. but seriously think about the social revolution. the only respect -- the only

downside of women's emancipation, equal rights, call it what you will, the leveling of the system, the only downside for us is it destroyed 5 through 10 education. women teaching are brilliant. there are now senators and lawyers and doctors and flying yets. but in that time, they had no choice. so you had real first graders, i'm often appalled by the local of so many. i will tell you that official you can take a snap survey of u.s. k-12 teachers that i believe that over 3/4 of them would not be able to accurately date our revolution, our civil war, or world war ii. the historical amnesia is

dangerous. the transition which we welcome which has so enriched us despite the current recession, the introduction of the women into the work force. i know there's still some class sealings. it's amazingingly equal. and the easy with which our societies absorbed this revolutionary change is remarkable. part of the guys was it's watching football and missed the show. but on the whole, we absorbed it well. in other parts of the world, it doesn't work. in afghanistan, for instance, a women is important property. i will tell you if there's one thing, and there's several things that men will fight for

in traditional society, it is their right to abuse women. to regard women as their property. we want to bring education for girls, rights for women. you are dealing with issues so fundamental that we don't begin to comprehend it. there's some things we may not be able to force. and we lie to ourselves. we say, well, all people want the same. explain the mother of a suicide bomber. explain the father who was daughter was murdered because she flirted with a boy. the cultures are different. we all want air, water.

some want better lives after and some want it now. we paint ourself into a terrible dangerous corner. in places such as afghanistan with simplifying terribly. now, ladies and gentlemen, i appreciate your patience. i've only thrown out a few ideas. they have unrealistic expectations of changing a civilization that's 2,000 years old with five years worth of troops and aid? the surest way to defeat ourselves is to set unrealistic goals. in this very complex and difficult world, if we want to function effectively, efficiently, provide for our own security, and be of some benefit

for human kind beyond our borders, we must begin with a realistic appraisal of the world and human kind as they are, not as we wish them to be. when i speak to students i tell them i'm all for being an idealist. the only way to be effective is to begin with a realistic assessment of the world and human human beings. otherwise, you're on the road to the killing fields of cambodia. all of those began with idealism. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> thank you very much. throughout the years i neglected

to indicate at the beginning that real -- ralph peters is the colloquy which we have every year. right? and our director irvin happens to be in florida. couldn't get back for today. but he supports this annual event. which is in the interest of the students in gigrsi program. a few people have said let him speak before the question and answer. i don't know if he wanted to do that. then we lead into the question and answer. that's up for him to decide. >> i think it's important that this be a dialogue. while i am fond of my voice, i

don't promise short answers, i do want to hear from you. fred, you mentioned he couldn't come back from florida. i want to wash you canadians. i've been hearing stuff about well, there's going to be water issues. canada may not want to share its water with the lower 48. if you don't share your water, we are going to take florida back from canada. just so you got it. ladies and gentlemen, questions please? >> if i could identify yourself and ask a question. don't make a statement. >> phil, my questions concerned capitalism and the comment. could we learn anything from the system? >> i think it's important not to exaggerate capitalisms difficulty.

although it can be painful look at where we are. think of the grandparents or parents, they have been good to us. but like any human system, it's imperfect. only god is perfect. so when you have the complex system such capitalism, it's the one ism that isn't an ideology. it's exchanging goods. and it's the most effective one we've found. the problem with socialism, sooner or later, you run out of somebody else's money. [laughter] >> now the tragedy for humanity with many of these ideologies is that the rhetoric of the left is beautiful. it's inspirational. peace and bread. equality of all.

it sounds good. but give me the map to make it happen. give me the direction. when it comes down to making things happen is a discussion of ideology. what was amazing was not the people like hitler were in prison. they design the systems, artificial systems. humanhuman beings sign up for them. what happens when there is a flaw in the system. instead of adopting the system to fit, the answers out change humanity to fit the system. you are on the road to the gulag or the death camps, et cetera, et cetera. to the age of ideology, i certainly say good riddance. but capitalism, you always needs

breaks on any system. -- brakes on any system. every vehicle needs braking mechanism. how hard do you want to hit the brakes? i'm afraid human beings are so subject to the motions and can be stirred up biuret rate -- by rhetoric to first of all drive too fast and hit the brakes too hard. now in the past 20 years, we drove too fast. because capitalism with all of its inequities and flaws has nonetheless given us, those who have been lucky enough to be born in the functional capital of systems the best quality of life and greatest system of freedom in human history. so anybody who says capitalism doesn't work, fine, show me something that has worked better. do you want to live in the old

style state et cetera? capitalism, i am not one who has profited from it. i have a better life than my father and mother who had a better life than their father or mother. the rhetoric from the left, any of the ideologies left, and remember national socialist. what's that stand for? nazi party. national socialist german workers party. let's not forget hitlers roots are on the left. he was very adapt with going wherefore the ambitions would take him. it's the spiring rhetoric about justice. but the left also brings with it the message of revenge. and i don't have to tell this

audience who the stricts of revenge often are. i mean, it's emotionally satisfying to blame others. that's something else. our society, our wonderful society -- this inheritance from england to be honest, this is -- and of course as the christian tradition grafted upon it. but in this wonderful society of ours, we all feel that human tendency, when something going wrong, that's an impulse to blame. but it's amazing the extend to which we get over it. and we roll up our sleeves and fix it. in much of the worlding with that is not the case. the impulse to blame is indulged. and you show me a culture, a society that wallows in blame, i will show you a failed society. so capitalism, it's ugly, imperfect, brutal, everything the left says it is, expect it's the best system that humanity

has deviced for sharing wealth. the little trick about sharing wealth, if there's not wealth, you can't share it. step one is to create wealth. capitalism has done a stunning effective job at that. so i'm reluctant. love the shawl. >> i'm confused by cultures in the arab world are people who don't hesitate to kill their children because of the misdeeds. why do they -- why, for example, in the iran during the election when the grassroots were trying to rise up, why are they so reluctant to assassinate the rulers? >> arabic society is

contradictory. but it's a very disorganized society. you know in the united states military in the schools the slogan was always cooperate and graduate. in the arab world or in pakistan, they never learned to cooperate. i think one the reasons that cooperation work source well in northern america, in our one big culture that accents it's differences between the -- and we have so much in common. we have a lot of differences. but we're frontier cultures. when you were going out west and certainly chewing on any of the frontiers to the 19th century, you might not have liked presbyterians or catholics or

jews. or the indians that are coming. some of that disappears. i'm over simplifying. on the frontier because we didn't come in great mixes. vancouver today. we are con fear cultures. we are still the great experiment. the degree to which we cooperate and trust each other. part of my life is the world of book publishing. a handshake still seals the

deal. in the arab world, it doesn't work. there are so tribe wised -- basically it's a concentric circles. first of all, you take care of your immediate family. that's your immediate family against everybody else. but then your cousins and stuff, you work with them. then it's the extended family. but basically, you can cheat anybody through a family. we must don't do that. individuals do cheat. and no matter race, color, creed, we are honest cultures. and we're willing to share the wealth to a remarkable degree. some of you may preference, if the really good deal is working

with an angeloian, you will probably go with the good deal. we have a come a long way. our society -- we are breaking down age old human boundaries. in much of the world, traditional societies, it's the family against everybody. the tribe against everybody else. it's hard to democracy. democracy tend to work in states such as the canada or u.s. where so complex that no one ethic group today. the church of england can no longer dominate directions. we've got to build coalitions. and they shift. but in the middle east, it's

very hard because you are loyal to your family and tribe. the idea was arabs can't fight. what do arabs fight for? arabs don't fight for states. in the arab world, the state was always the enemy. in afghanistan, i don't know about arab of course, it was the city state of kabul. that's all that matters. they kept the tribes out. so there was no state of integration. we made arabs can't fight because the