# Would Terrorists Leave the US Alone?



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Reading the blasting that Dubya is getting today from the Dems, I would like to pose to the forum the question above. Do you or do you not think the terrorists would leave the US alone if it completely pulled out of the Middle East? This would include cutting all foriegn aide to *all* parties, from Egypt to Israel to Palestine, withdrawl of all troops, weapons, etc. Heck, we could even toss in an apology from the US and hand Dubya over to OBL for this thought experiment.

Does anyone think the US would then be safe from terrorists?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

No, I don't believe that Combatus Interruptus is an effective means of protection


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

Although I WISH so, I really doubt it. Many if not all of the terrorists have grown up believing that America is solely responsible for their current state of affairs. I'm not a believer of appeasement; history has repeatedly shown that evil must be confronted. Those that do not have the will to fight may simply end up being the last to be destroyed.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Are they leaving Spain alone? Thailand? 

Many people are so confused about the motivations of the people who run organizations like Al Qaeda, but it really is very simple -- they are supremacists. 

Take a look at what we know about every other supremacist group -- they are intensely xenophobic in that they believe that everyone who doesn't belong to their special sect is sub-human and should therefore be subjugated. The ones who resist being subjugated are to be killed. Like all supremacist organizations, they have a core narrative that is written in such a way as to provide a special legitimacy for carrying out this mission; in this case, it is their religion. 

They are not trying to change policy. They are not separatists (like the IRA, or the Basques). They simply believe that it is their holy mission to forcibly convert, or kill, the infidel. As they see it, destroying American economic and military power is merely the first step in this plan.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

These Islamo-fascists are the same types of "bullies" as were encountered during the 1930's rise of Nazism and Italian Fascism. An inch is never enough. They start from the premise that they are going to kill all "non-believers". When the enemy starts from that premise, the only option is to deal with them with your foot on their throat, and a bayonet at their jugular.

A large part of the real problem has been mentioned before. It is extremely difficult to apply western diplomacy and military doctrine to those who profess a radical bastardization of Islam. War is being conducted against an idea. With Germany and Italy, the rot was at the top (Hitler, Mussolini, e.g.), and not at the level of the "ordinary" citizen. Yes, the Nazis and Fascists had their share of "true believers", but most Germans and Italians were raised in a Judeo-Christian environment. The army of Germany generally fought in defense of the Fatherland. Once the rot was removed, the basic historical German and Italian cultures began to thrive again.

The is a rather over-simplified explanation for purposes of this discussion.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

The bizarre part of the disengagement idea is that it assumes that AQ actually WANTS us to leave them alone.

Nonsense, read their own writings. The intent was to draw the US into armed conflict and the provocations would have continued until that goal was achieved.

Osama also told his flock that America is a paper tiger who lacks the political will to endure any sort of hardship. He pointed to Mogadishu and said that if you kill a few Americans horribly, the rest will run away.

...kinda seems ironic that there is discussion of proving him correct on that.

I can't see an easy solution, I think it is pretty clear that giving up would absolutely be seen as a victory for the terrorists, would doom those left behind who worked with us to be killed, would destroy any credibility in the future when we ask for cooperation. 

About the only outcome I can see that is tolerable is for history to look back in 20 years and say "Yeah, they figured that the west would fold up and play nice but instead they got themselves wiped out completely."

Might be another plausible plan that works but I have yet to hear it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Burying one's head in the sand is a comforting thought and represents the most childish view of world affairs as history has shown again and again. Why some still espouse it is beyond my understanding?

There is a deeper question thought. Suppose we did withdraw and suppose were were left alone; who would fill the vacuum? China, Russia, OBL? And what of our standard of living. What compromises would we have to make for withdrawing and allowing another country to call the shots? Especially given that the country that would fill the void would not be that friendly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

No supporters of the appeasement and withdraw idea out there?


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

At the core these people are motivated by a visceral hatred of Jews and Christians, along with the democratic system and freedom of religion that allow these groups to express their beliefs. So long as members of the aforementioned groups reside in the U.S., it will continue to be the primary target and the country to whom everything bad is ascribed.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I should clarify -- I am actually in favor of a military withdrawal across much of the world, but that belief has nothing to do with terrorism. 

I believe the US military is grotesquely expensive (as all government enterprises are), and permanent foreign military installations serve no legitimate purpose.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Question #2, if I may...

Would the Islamic terrorists leave Malaysia and the Philippines alone if they completely pulled out of the Middle East, including cutting all foreign aide to all parties, from Egypt to Israel to Palestine, and withdrawing all troops, weapons, etc.?

uuhhh... hhmmmm....


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Pulling our troops out at this point would not end future attacks on the U.S. By pulling out now, the foreign enemies would view themselves as being stronger and able to push us around, which in turn would prompt more attacks. 

Is completely pulling out of the Middle East an option, I don't believe so. We've put ourselves in the position of "helper." As the big dog on the block, we have the unenviable task of coming the aid of the little guy or the underdog. It is not always the popular decision to risk the lives of U.S. soldiers on foreign soil, but if it is to help establish democratic governements and or expelling a dictator, it is to the benefit of the U.S. Ultimately, if the Middle East can find peace, the rest of the world might find peace.

That said, do I believe there is a chance in the immediate future for peacful coexistence in the Middle East? I don't believe I'll see it in my life time.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The historical perspective couldn't be any more clear...these bad guys will bring the fight to the US and the rest of the world, unless we take it to them. Whether one agrees with the reasons why the US initiated combat operations in Iraq or not, it has served to relocate and concentrate the focus of the international terrorists activities in that area. This conflict has been stirring for almost five centuries. Perhaps the time has come to end it. To pull out would only serve to invite additional attacks on our soil.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> Osama also told his flock that America is a paper tiger who lacks the political will to endure any sort of hardship. He pointed to Mogadishu and said that if you kill a few Americans horribly, the rest will run away.


And he is correct. Look at how many millions of Americans have been convinced by the Leftists and the DNC that we need to retreat.

It's not that we don't have enough troops, it's that we make them fight with one hand behind thier back. Does anyone think Russia or China would be in Iraq with the kid-gloves we're wearing? How would Iran handle an insurgency? Our enemies, that hide among civilians and religious sights, can kidnapp our soldiers and saw thier heads off on TV; but our newspapers are outraged from a picture of a dog barking at a prisoner and our elected leaders are comparing our own soldiers to the SS and our prisons to gulag.

We should have made an example out of Fallujah, then told Sadr City they were next.

A tidbit you won't hear from the Mainstream Media; a reporter was recently in Abu Gharib prison and the prisoners were begging for the Americans to come back, because conditions were so much better in the good ole days before the Iraqi govt/military took the prison over.

edit - however I'm a total isolationist and actually think we should have pulled away from almost all our overseas outposts at the end of the Cold War, yet maintained an ability to reach-out-and-nuke-someone if they were to attack us.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't think we would be left alone if we pulled out. 

There is too much gut level hatred from at least a sizeable minority of the people over there now.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There has allready been a retreat. Saddam publically hung Jews in one pogram, I doubt if many persian jews remain in Iran, the last two afghan jews left some years ago and the Taliban blasted ancient sandstone buddhas to rubble. My christian jordanian friend is intensely loyal to the King, yet her career army father could not go higher than colonel unless he converted. They live in California. Back in Afghanistan the public trial of an afghan convert to christianity was hushed up by his clandestine departure. There are villages in France where french girls face rape if uncovered by immigrants from Algeria.It looks like first the jews and next all of Christendom in those once pre mohametan lands are destined for extinction, and nations dominantly Jew and Christian next, according to their hookah pipe dreams. A U.N. official from Scandinavia was attacking our 'paltry' initial contribution to tsunami relief before the waves had even subsided, yet no mention was made of the near indifference displayed by Saudi Arabia ( wish I could name an entire land after my house, er tent the first winning leader was in) or the deadline set by Indonesia for foriegn aid workers to leave. Is it any wonder Kashmir, victim of the horrific earthquake received so little attention? My view has been slowly shifting from understanding to frustration, no little influenced by some rather revealing attitudes and actions of 'friends.' I'm afraid we need to 'stand down' like the USAF or USN will do after a rash of air accidents, rethink EVERYTHING and come back like Scarface snarling " say hello to my leetle friend."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Pull out? Retreat?

Pull out from what? We were attacked by Saudis mainly based in and supported by a Saudi Islamic fundamentalist based in Afghanistan. It was logical to attack the source of the invasion, OBL and Afghanistan, both to avenge the attack and to prevent further attacks. The invasion of Afghanistan had the support of almost everyone from every political persuasion in the United States and the rest of the world, and there are many countries still supporting our efforts in Afghanistan.

It is unfortunate that the United States did not take the al Qaeda threat seriously enough to concentrate its efforts on eliminating it, but instead actually withdrew special forces who were in Tora Bora trying to capture bin Laden and relocated them to Iraq to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.

It was completely illogical to invade Iraq, and dishonest to claim, as Bush's people did repeatedly, that Hussein was supporting al Qaeda. The invasion and occupation of Iraq have had the effect of attracting the enemies of the United States to Iraq, where they had not previously been established. They have also had the effect of intensifying anti-American feeling and adding to the forces massed against us. This isn't a case of fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in Topeka, it's a case of sticking our hand in the hornet's nest so they don't come out and sting us on the porch.

So what do we do now? Obviously, if we withdraw from Iraq today, or next month, or next year, chaos will ensue. That makes sense, since chaos is what is there now. The supporters of the war cannot point to any time in the future when our withdrawal will not be followed by chaos, or to any effective measures we are taking that can be expected to reduce the likelihood of chaos when we inevitably leave. That being the case, the result of our continued occupation of Iraq is to turn more Iraqis against us, killing more of them and more of us, with no reasonable prospect that the sacrifices we are shouldering and the suffering we are inflicting will have any beneficial result.

Oh, and one other thing--the people who are capturing and killing our forces in Iraq aren't terrorists. We don't have to like them, but if you're taking lethal action against an occupying army you're not a terrorist, even if you don't march up in broad daylight and start shooting.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So Jack, to deal with your Dubya-hate, if the US had never gone into Iraq, do you think we would be safe from terrorists?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The issue of President Bush's competance as a leader and the rational for invading Iraq, monumental as they be are side issues. We were attacked on 9/11. Now I may be a liberal, but if some homie pulls alongside, flashes his gang sign and pops a few caps from a sideways held handgun I hardly stop driving in the nieghborhood I grew up in. Sorry, but I also don't talk to him about social inequality, the reconquista or legalising marijuana and tagging as street art. My response, which actually happened was to deposit the mass and momentum of my soon to be junked anyway Volvo 240 wagon in a vague replication of Colonel Hatch's formulas against a lowered Honda.This would have been the demanded reply of Gore too, though I have doubts as to his military competance as a brief Saigon Army Journalist bettering our National Guard fighter ace. When President Roosevelt spoke after Dec 7th we still went through the motions of a vote for war. I know it was unanimous, save one nay. I've never been able to research who that was, or their rational.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> When President Roosevelt spoke after Dec 7th we still went through the motions of a vote for war.


Exactly.

And, having cast these votes, the US responded to this sneak attack perpetrated by the Japanese Imperial Navy by ... invading _Europe_.

Would the 1940s equivalent of today's Jack McCullough have complained of a lack of proportional, symmetrical response? Would he have said that it's "logical to attack the source of the invasion" but "completely illogical" to turn to Germany instead?

I guess the global conflict in 1941 was larger than the one incident on Dec. 7, even though it was big, dramatic and flashy.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Would the 1940s equivalent of today's Jack McCullough have complained of a lack of proportional, symmetrical response? Would he have said that it's "logical to attack the source of the invasion" but "completely illogical" to turn to Germany instead?


The "1940s equivalent of today's Jack McCullough" would probably have had no qualms about the US response in 1941. It is unaccurate to say, as you do, that the US responded to Pearl Harbour by "invading Europe". They responded by attacking Japan, as was logical.

Then Germany declared war on the US (not the other way round) and ultimately the US intervened against them too (about 2 and a half years later).

To my knowledge, Iraq did not declare war on the US in 2003 as Germany did in 1941, so that your comparison is rather faulty.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Would the 1940s equivalent of today's Jack McCullough have complained of a lack of proportional, symmetrical response?


You may have noticed that by 1941 Hitler and Japan were allies, Hitler had already rolled through much of Europe and made no secret of his intentions. By 2003 Hussein wasn't even in control of all his own territory, his military was a shell of its former might (not that impressive even ten years earlier), and he was pretty much the enemy of the force that had hit us in 2001.

Isn't five years of failure enough?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Isn't five years of failure enough?


I don't consider not having a terrorist attack in five years a failure...we should fail so badly for the next five. 

What we have learned from history is quite simple actually:

1. Diplomacy does not work with terrorists.
2. Terrorists see the U.S. political process and partisanship as a real weakness and discuss this in the intercepted messages we have.
3. We must be eliminate this enemy pure and simple.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> I don't consider not having a terrorist attack in five years a failure...we should fail so badly for the next five.
> 
> What we have learned from history is quite simple actually:
> 
> ...


Ah, but you forget, Jack already told us many of them are not terrorists!



jackmccullough said:


> Oh, and one other thing--the people who are capturing and killing our forces in Iraq aren't terrorists.


And remember, Israel started the war with Hezbollah and Palestine homocide bombers are freedom fighters, panties on your head are worse than having your head sawed off......


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> I don't consider not having a terrorist attack in five years a failure...we should fail so badly for the next five.


Okay. Where's bin Laden?

I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West&#8230; I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"

"The handful of assets we have have given us nothing close to real-time intelligence" that could have led to his capture, said one counterterrorism official, who said the trail, despite the most extensive manhunt in U.S. history, has gone "stone cold."

What's happened in Afghanistan?

"The Afghan Taliban is better organized today than it was in 2001," says Gannon, "they have more recruits [and they] have been able to take advantage of the lawlessness, the criminal gangs, and the corruption in the government."

Taliban Resurgence Restricting Women's Freedoms In Afghanistan
https://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/09/logan-afghanistan/



Artisan Fan said:


> What we have learned from history is quite simple actually:
> 
> 1. Diplomacy does not work with terrorists.
> 2. Terrorists see the U.S. political process and partisanship as a real weakness and discuss this in the intercepted messages we have.
> 3. We must be eliminate this enemy pure and simple.


In part, I agree. That's why we should have kept going after bin Laden in 2002.

What is your evidence that we can simply "eliminate this enemy", even if we can agree on who the enemy is?

This is probably too subtle for this kind of discussion, but it seems likely that even in these times it may be pretty hard for the extremists to convince people to blow themselves up to kill Americans. It might help if by our actions we can make it less, not more, likely that they will want to do so. Bush's crusade doesn't seem to be helping, does it?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Bush's crusade doesn't seem to be helping, does it?


Yes, it is the US waging a war of religion, not the jihadists.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> It is unaccurate to say, as you do, that the US responded to Pearl Harbour by "invading Europe". They responded by attacking Japan, as was logical.


No, the agreement reached at the Arcadia Conference in late December 1941 and early January 1942, attended by Roosevelt and Churchill, was that the US would make Europe a priority over Japan. But I misspoke when I said that the US invaded Europe first. In fact, the US first sent troops to North Africa (as part of the Europe First strategy). North Africa is not in Japan, either.



> You may have noticed that by 1941 Hitler and Japan were allies, Hitler had already rolled through much of Europe and made no secret of his intentions. By 2003 Hussein wasn't even in control of all his own territory, his military was a shell of its former might (not that impressive even ten years earlier), and he was pretty much the enemy of the force that had hit us in 2001.


... and Hussein had a much bushier moustache than Hitler did, and Hussein hated dogs although Hitler liked them, and the differences go on and on and on ...

None of which bears on the DNC talking points _du jour_ that you recited for us earlier, to wit: that the US response in Iraq was so very, very wrong because it was directed toward a country that was not behind the 9/11 attacks.

The unstated assumption behind this line of rhetoric is that the sum total of the US response to Islamic terror ought to be perfectly symmetrical -- that it ought to begin and end with 9/11.

It's easy to see why this position was selected by the DNC -- it is pithy, easily digested. It's perfect for television, in other words. Because the 9/11 attacks were, like Pearl Harbor, big, dramatic and flashy (and better yet, televised!), it is very easy to get people to focus on it to the exclusion of all else. Such is the nature of propaganda in a democratic government, I suppose.

My larger point, however, is not that Iraq is (or was) something I remotely support. I do not. You do not need to trot out the line about 5 years of failure. It was a failure _ab initio_, and I was opposed to it, just as I have been opposed to just about everything Bush has done as president. But the basis for my opposition to the war is not the same as yours, which, in my view, is excessively pragmatic. The DNC crafted this pragmatic position for the purpose of condemning _Bush's_ war, while not condemning the other wars that Democrats have supported and the ones they will be supporting if a Democrat is ever president again.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Phinn said:


> None of which bears on the DNC talking points _du jour_ that you recited for us earlier, to wit: that the US response in Iraq was so very, very wrong because it was directed toward a country that was not behind the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> The unstated assumption behind this line of rhetoric is that the sum total of the US response to Islamic terror ought to be perfectly symmetrical -- that it ought to begin and end with 9/11.


It's a lot easier to make up things I said and respond to them, than to respond to my actual points, isn't it?

I'll make it very simple: If someone attacks you, and you don't want him to do it again, you go after him, and keep going after him until you catch him, kill him, or otherwise make sure he can't attack you again. If you get distracted, and pick a fight with someone else, it might undermine your efforts to go after the guy who originally attacked you, and that might leave him in a position where he can attack you again, which you presumably don't want.



Phinn said:


> It's easy to see why this position was selected by the DNC -- it is pithy, easily digested. It's perfect for television, in other words. Because the 9/11 attacks were, like Pearl Harbor, big, dramatic and flashy (and better yet, televised!), it is very easy to get people to focus on it to the exclusion of all else. Such is the nature of propaganda in a democratic government, I suppose.


This position was not selected by the DNC. So far as I know, nobody has taken the position that, as you put it, "the sum total of the US response to Islamic terror ought to be perfectly symmetrical -- that it ought to begin and end with 9/11." Many of us have taken the position that we needed to respond to Islamic terror, and that two things that have made our response to Islamic terror less effective than it could have been are that the war in Iraq diverted resources that were needed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and that the war in Iraq has created more enemies than we would otherwise have had.

To clarify another point from your above-quoted statement, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with a "response to Islamic terror" because Iraq had nothing to do with any Islamic terror that was ever carried out or threatened on us.



Phinn said:


> My larger point, however, is not that Iraq is (or was) something I remotely support. I do not. You do not need to trot out the line about 5 years of failure. It was a failure _ab initio_, and I was opposed to it, just as I have been opposed to just about everything Bush has done as president. But the basis for my opposition to the war is not the same as yours, which, in my view, is excessively pragmatic. The DNC crafted this pragmatic position for the purpose of condemning _Bush's_ war, while not condemning the other wars that Democrats have supported and the ones they will be supporting if a Democrat is ever president again.


I don't think you know my position on the war. I have been on record as saying the war is illegal as a war of aggression; it is also immoral and unprincipled. It is true, though, that even in pragmatic terms, a war that exposes you to greater danger than it protects you from, that increases your enemies, and that is not necessary to protect you from a military threat is a war that is likely to be counter to your interests; even if it is morally justified, which the war in Iraq is not, the fact that it is hurting us more than helping us makes it a bad idea.

I have not condemned all of Bush's wars (I supported the war in Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf war waged by his father), and I will support or condemn other wars waged by Democratic presidents based on their merits at the time, rather than based on the party in power.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, it is the US waging a war of religion, not the jihadists.


This is not true, because they put a bomb in one of the towers while Clinton was president.

On other matters lots of democrats voted for the war in Iraq. Biden tried to get Clinton to take out Sadam.

Bush should have finished obl before even thinking about going into Iraq. The only Military man he had walked out - Colin Powell, because Bush listened to the wrong people about war, which is why we are doing so bad. Bush foolishly refused to listen to men Reagan choose to listen to, and Reagan is way smarter than Bush. Bush only has plan A- no B, C, D, E ,F and even G. T'is a shame, he could have done much better.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> If someone attacks you, and you don't want him to do it again, you go after him, and keep going after him until you catch him, kill him, or otherwise make sure he can't attack you again. If you get distracted, and pick a fight with someone else, it might undermine your efforts to go after the guy who originally attacked you, and that might leave him in a position where he can attack you again, which you presumably don't want.


Although easily understood by simpletons, this theory is not always true. See above re: Japan.



> the war in Iraq had nothing to do with a "response to Islamic terror" because Iraq had nothing to do with any Islamic terror that was ever carried out or threatened on us


Then the following people have a LOT of explaining to do:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the *threat* posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is *the greatest security threat we face*."
-- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and *grave threat to our security*."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D-WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. *He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.* It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... *He presents a particularly grievous threat* because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... *So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real* ...
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Then the following people have a LOT of explaining to do:


You've identified something we agree on.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Wayfarer said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is the US waging a war of religion, not the jihadists.
> ...


I do believe you might have missed my use of irony. Note please, my careful juxtaposition of "crusade" with "jihadists" as way of a hint.

Regards


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2006)

My (probably less then) 2 cents on the matter:

-If we withdraw from Iraq, we will neither be more or less safe then we are now. Terrorists will always want to attack others over differences in their beliefs. Terrorism has been going on for a long long time, and you can not stop it completely.

-It seems like some (most?) attacks in Iraq now are more Sunni vs Shia. There are many groups of people blowing things up in Iraq, and Al-Queda is only a small minority. Most are either ticked off ex-Saddam people or religous fanatics looking for payback (Sunni vs Shia). You could get rid of all the AQ people in Iraq, and probably not notice a decrease in attacks.

-Our current course of action does breed a lot of resentment in the Middle East, which makes a perfect breeding ground to produce more terrorists. How much any policy US govt policy change could effect this, I don't know.

-Since Terrorists are not a nation-state, you cannot treat them as a nation, and declaring "war" on them doesn't relate to declaring war on a true nation.

-The US cannot stop all terrorist attacks on our soil. It is just impossible to stop everything. Sooner or later, if someone wants, they will commit another terrorist act here. The best we can do is try and prevent most, and protect importatant point locations (planes, power plants, govt buildings, etc...). You can't stop someone from walking into the local mall with a vest of explosives and blowing him/herself up.

-Bush and his administration have taken advantage of 9/11 to a lot of stuff that I believe is wrong and illegal, and then accusing any dissenters of being "traitors" or "unpatriotic". Things like illegal wiretapping, secret torture prisons, redefining what torture is, screwing up iraq without any plans. The president is not above the law, no matter what Bush and Yoo think. 

-Why is it that anytime you criticize Bush, you become a "Clinton-lover"? I am a republican, voted for Reagen, Bush41, and Bush43 (first time). I never have liked Clinton, but since I disagree with Bush, I am automatically a Clinton-lover. Where did this polarization come from? 

-It is disgusting that this country even debates about what is or isn't torture, and that people support it becuase they would do it to us. In WWII, Japan performed hideous experiments on POW's (and Chinese), and starved many other to death. Did we do the same to Japanese POW's? Of course not. "He did it, so I can do it too" is not a valid reason. 

Sorry for the long rant...but the biggest disappointment is that we have lost our ability to disagree with each other, while still respecting the other person.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the *threat* posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> -- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
> 
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is *the greatest security threat we face*."
> ...


You should read these quotes in proper context, then perhaps you'd have some 'splaining to do as well 

-spence


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And, having cast these votes, the US responded to this sneak attack perpetrated by the Japanese Imperial Navy by ... invading _Europe_.
> 
> ...


The U.S. was already supporting England and the USSR before hostilities began in December 1941. The Lend/Lease act had been passed, and the United States was already sending war materiels to our allies.

Adolph Hitler committed the gravest of errors by declaring war on the U.S. Hitler did not have to declare war, since the Japanese had made the first hostile act, by attacking Pearl Harbor. Hitler was only bound to act with Japan, if another country had declared war on Japan or Italy first.

The global conflict had already heated up, into epic proportions, because the Germans had invaded the USSR, they were bombing England, they had moved into the Balkans, Italy had already overrun Ethiopa; the Japanese were poised to invade southeast Asia; had invaded Manchuria... The list goes on.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Then the following people have a LOT of explaining to do:





Spence said:


> You should read these quotes in proper context, then perhaps you'd have some 'splaining to do as well
> 
> -spence


Ah the old "context argument." Pols always use this to get out themselves out of a pickle. They said what they said. I think the statements they made speak for themselves. I actually agree with everything they said and I think if they have any explaining to do it is why they are singing a different tune now. It is the mark of a child to jump on the bandwagon and cheer something on and then to change your mind because the situation no longer suits you. They knew what they were saying. If a contextual perspective was necessary then those that said it and voted for the resolution to use force provided that context with their vote. Yea or nay requires no context. There is no wiggle room or spin.

Since you bring up the proper context would you care to explain it for us?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I do believe you might have missed my use of irony. Note please, my careful juxtaposition of "crusade" with "jihadists" as way of a hint.


Don't know the orgin or all the history of the word Crusade. But my mind does come up with trying to take over the middle east, back in history, and Billy Graham, and I believe the word has been used a number of times with no religious purpose.

I'm very sure Bush flunked history in school. With Karl Rove beside him he should never have used the word Crusade. Even children think of Christains against Islam with the word crusade. So, with Bush talking up peace with the Muslims and then he uses the word crusade- what a blunder.

Billy Graham used the word quite a bit different. It seems like the frontier Cavalry out West used the word, too, but not sure they even used it.

The Crusades of the Middle East, back a few hundred years ago, were in my opinion anti-Christain, because there is nothing in the New Testament that even hints to do that.

I think Iran was/is a bigger threat than Iraq. So, what are we doing in Iraq?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> The Crusades of the Middle East, back a few hundred years ago, were in my opinion anti-Christain, because there is nothing in the New Testament that even hints to do that.
> 
> I think Iran was/is a bigger threat than Iraq. So, what are we doing in Iraq?


How can you be sure he flunked history? Do you know him? Quizzed him? Had dinner with him where the topic came up? People who mock and ridicule others with no basis or substance do so because they lack an argument.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that the crusades of the middle ages were in the New Testament. The Judeo-Christian Holy Land was being occupied and it had to be liberated. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to preserve the heritage and basis for modern western civilization. The muslims were invading Christian lands and enslaving the people and the west fought back.

As for Iran, would you be in favor of a full scale invasion of Iran? I ask this because you say that you think Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> No, the agreement reached at the Arcadia Conference in late December 1941 and early January 1942, attended by Roosevelt and Churchill, was that the US would make Europe a priority over Japan.


Okay let's try again. Your whole point is that invading Iraq as part of a "war on terror" is akin to invading Europe when it is Japan that attacked the US in 1941. I will not even begin to discuss it on the grounds that Japan and Germany were formal allies whereas Iraq and Al-Qaida had no formal links (and the existence of any link is, to put it charitably, debated).

I will not do that because that comparison falls apart even before we reach that point. In 1941, the US was not attacked by Japan only. It was attacked by Japan *and* Germany. Japan attacked physically US forces in Pearl Harbor with no formal declaration of war (as had been their custom in previous wars). Germany formally declared war on the US 4 days after that.

Let me underline that part since you overlooked it in my previous post: it is Germany that declared war on the US, not the other way round. Any comparison with Iraq 2003 is moot from the very beginning.


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

Garfield said:


> My (probably less then) 2 cents on the matter:
> 
> -It is disgusting that this country even debates about what is or isn't torture, and that people support it becuase they would do it to us. In WWII, Japan performed hideous experiments on POW's (and Chinese), and starved many other to death. Did we do the same to Japanese POW's? Of course not. "He did it, so I can do it too" is not a valid reason.
> 
> Internment camps.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 29, 2006)

lee_44106 said:


> Garfield said:
> 
> 
> > My (probably less then) 2 cents on the matter:
> ...


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Etienne, I am curious...

I hear the left refer to the 2003 Gulf skirmish as an invasion or act of aggression on the part of the US and the UK.

What I don't understand, and perhaps you can help me, is this...
At the end of the gulf war, the coalition who had just pulverized the Iraqi armed forces agreed to a ceasefire under very clearly spelled out conditions. The conditions were unambiguous.

Iraq failed to meet a single obligation under that ceasefire agreement and constantly played games while every intelligence agency in the west and even Hussein himself said he had and was developing WMD's.

Now... While I am not a big fan of the UN and am generally of the opinion that global warming is caused by the bloviating of it's members... The argument is always that we should have allowed the UN to handle it.

What's forgotten is that we did.
Iraq's government was allowed to remain after the Gulf War as a condition of the ceasefire but with certain obligations that were not ambiguous or negotiable. Iraq did not meet the terms of that agreement.

Just prior to the resumption of hostilities there was another UN resolution passed. It said quite firmly that unless Iraq immediately lived up to each and every obligation under the previous dozens of resolutions the decision would be removed from them and the provisions would be enforced by the coalition forces.

One more time, Saddam sidestepped, cajoled, lied and delayed and after a a decade of getting by with it I'm sure he figured he could get away with it again.

Bad call.

I'm not sure what the right solution is but to describe what happened in 2003 as a war of aggression or invasion by the US is just not accurate.

In the meantime, Iran has become a very dangerous force in the region, they are racing to develope nuclear weapons and have a president who has repeatedly mentioned a strong desire to wipe one his neighbors off the map. The US has been hands off, allowing the European powers and the UN to handle this "The right way". How's that going over the last three years?

Not sure what the state of Iraq's WMD development was in 2003 but I'm pretty certain that other than a few low tech terrorist operations it is pretty clear that there is no national program now and Iraq is not a threat to it's neighbors.

It's easy to say 'this is the wrong way', I have yet to hear anyone say what the right way is.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Okay let's try again. Your whole point is that invading Iraq as part of a "war on terror" is akin to invading Europe when it is Japan that attacked the US in 1941.


The point I was making was in rebuttal to the proposition advanced by Mr. McCullough, and echoed by the PR personnel at the Democratic Party's headquarters, that the invasion of Iraq was not justified by the attacks of 9/11 (due to the lack of links, as you say).

As I said, this position depends on the unstated assumption that a war, such as Iraq, is justified only if it consists of a symmetrical response to attack. Many Democrats, considering the party affiliation of FDR, once argued quite the opposite when the time came to send troops to North Africa in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

And, just so we are clear, Germany's declaration of war on the US was not an attack. The bombing of the Pacific fleet was an attack. But it presented FDR with the political opportunity to join the war _in Europe_, as he had been itching to do, and as he had openly sided against Germany as early as September 1940.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Don't know the orgin or all the history of the word Crusade. But my mind does come up with trying to take over the middle east, back in history, and Billy Graham, and I believe the word has been used a number of times with no religious purpose.
> 
> I'm very sure Bush flunked history in school. With Karl Rove beside him he should never have used the word Crusade. Even children think of Christains against Islam with the word crusade. So, with Bush talking up peace with the Muslims and then he uses the word crusade- what a blunder.
> 
> ...


WA:

I do believe your Dubya-hate is preventing you from comprehending things here. Let me break down the chain of events with some explication.

1) A known liberal here, Jack M. used the word "crusade" in relation to the war in Iraq.
2) I commented in an ironic manner over this proposition, attempting (albiet with apparent little success) to allow the reader see the fallacy in Jack's proposition.
3) You made a statement of unclear meaning to me.
4) I tried to make a neutral post to indicate to you that perhaps you should re-read the posts.
5) You have now launched into full Dubya-hate mode.

I hope this clears the chain of events up and to further clarify my meaning, I found it specious to propose Dubya is in the middle of a religious war when indeed, many muslims have declared a religious war on the West.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Don't know the orgin or all the history of the word Crusade.....*I'm very sure Bush flunked history in school*....the Crusades of the Middle East, back a few hundred years ago,


By the way, it would seem you did not score that well in history either, unless you are about to make the case that the 13th century was "a few hundred years ago". If memory serves me correctly, the last crusade in the Middle East was led by Edward I about 1270-1280.

Edit: Yup, 1291 was last date of any Xtian rule in the Middle East: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade If you take time to read that, you will note crusades elsewhere up until 500 years ago, but none in the Middle East after Edward I's last one.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> How can you be sure he flunked history? Do you know him? Quizzed him? Had dinner with him where the topic came up? People who mock and ridicule others with no basis or substance do so because they lack an argument.


There have been a number of things Bush has done that caused me to think he doesn't know history.

About WWII, we were going to be in that fight both east and west, anyway. So I don't know why the argument here.



> I don't think anyone has ever argued that the crusades of the middle ages were in the New Testament. The Judeo-Christian Holy Land was being occupied and it had to be liberated. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to preserve the heritage and basis for modern western civilization. The muslims were invading Christian lands and enslaving the people and the west fought back.


I didn't think the Middle East was ever Christian, but a mixed bag. I agree with taking back the lands, such as Spain, that Muslims invaded, being Spain was "Christian", anyway.



> As for Iran, would you be in favor of a full scale invasion of Iran? I ask this because you say that you think Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq.


Before we went into Iraq, because of Bush Jr., I was more concerned with what I was reading about Iran. A full scale invasion? No. Strategic invasion? Yes. Isreal did that a few years ago, if I remember correctly, or perhaps they did it to Iraq.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> WA:
> 
> I do believe your Dubya-hate is preventing you from comprehending things here.


I voted for Dubya twice. I dislike Bush- not hate him. And he did use the word Crusade more than once.

The war with some Muslims is no doubt, but in Iraq? Iraq wasn't the problem. Saddam is to greedy for power to share with obl. The UN failed with Iraq.

The war with obl maybe could have been cleaned up in Afghanistan. There are lots of terrorist groups in the Middle East and were not fighting them all in Iraq, are we?

I don't understand Muslims. There are two different groups of Muslims. The Islam religion allows murder- the way they are killing each other, because all you have to do is say "They broke a rule so, the holy book says we have to kill them." Where is the end?

As far as history I haven't read much history in 30 years, more of less. And, no I didn't fail history. But Bush has still made historic blunders.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

At the end of the day the crux of the issue with regards to Iraq and the greater GWoT is a difference of opinion on strategy. One camp believes that the events of 9/11 were an isolated event conducted by a asymetrical enemy that can be isolated and destroyed by traditional means via solid police work and diplomacy. The 9/10 status quo mindset if you will. The other camp goes a step further and pursues preventative military action in order to cut off at the pass threats that while in some cases not fully materialized pose dangers to global security. Thus the war for Afghanistan can be characterized as the war of retribution for the last attack and the war in Iraq as the war to prevent the next attack. 

You can decide to believe like some do that Saddam did not pose a threat to the US and the world in general. That he was contained, bankrupt and had limited power. He was boxed in mysteriously by a Oil for Food Program that has proved to be every bit as corrupt and counterproductive as the agency for which it was created. Was limited to the AQ Khan network for nuclear capability and secular in a sense that he wrote $25,000 checks not $100,000 to martyrs blowing themselves up in Israel not to mentioned harbored known terrorists such as Yasin, Zaraqawi, and Abu Nidal. But I think the record indicates that when giving the chance Saddam at heart was an opportunistic tyrant, aligning himself with actors and events that helped ensure his survivablility. In the post-9/11 world it would be politically irresponsible giving what we know about him to allow his reign to continue.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> I voted for Dubya twice. I dislike Bush- not hate him. And he did use the word Crusade more than once.


So let me understand further. You voted for someone twice, that you both dislike and seem to think is of suspect intelligence? Either that is a very poor _ad hoc_ rescue by a liberal trying to make their criticism seem legit or you sir have described yourself to be of very dubious judgement.

Also, I made no propositions regarding Dubya's use of the word "Crusade". If you would simply go back and read this thread with comprehension, you would see (or maybe not) why this line by you is a red herring and not in context.



WA said:


> As far as history I haven't read much history in 30 years, more of less. And, no I didn't fail history. But Bush has still made historic blunders.


Then might I suggest you check your facts so you do not look so ill informed in the future? Really sir, when one is calling another an ill informed or of little education, it is most important not to demonstrate one's self as such.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

With all of this talk of crusade and taking the President's words at face value I wonder if these same folks believe we should offer the same approach to our enemies. This from Fouad Hussien, a radical Jordanian journalists with ties to Zarqawi and Al Qaeda's senior leadership.



> In 2005, Hussein produced what is perhaps the most definitive outline of Al Qaeda's master plan: a book titled "Al-Zarqawi: The Second Generation of Al Qaeda." Although it is largely a favorable biography of Zarqawi and his movement, Hussein incorporates the insights of other Al Qaeda members-notably, Saif al-Adl, the security chief.
> 
> Hussein observes that Al Qaeda's ideologues have studied the failure of Islamist movements in the past and concluded that they lacked concrete, realistic goals. Therefore, he writes, *"Al Qaeda drew up a feasible plan within a well-defined time frame. The plan was based on improving the Islamic jihadist action in quality and quantity and expanding it to include the entire world."*
> 
> ...


From this are we to conclude that we should just leave them alone and act as if they aren't really serious about following through with their plans for world domination?

Source:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

whnay:

I can only speak for myself, but when someone states their goal is to hurt or kill me, I have always taken that at face value and found no need to look for hidden meanings. However, I do admit I am a simple fellow, incapable of the mental gymnastics required to hold the POTUS accountable for every utterance yet be willing to discount someone repeatedly saying, for instance, "It is my goal to wipe Israel off the map."


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Phinn said:


> The point I was making was in rebuttal to the proposition advanced by Mr. McCullough, and echoed by the PR personnel at the Democratic Party's headquarters, that the invasion of Iraq was not justified by the attacks of 9/11 (due to the lack of links, as you say).
> 
> As I said, this position depends on the unstated assumption that a war, such as Iraq, is justified only if it consists of a symmetrical response to attack. Many Democrats, considering the party affiliation of FDR, once argued quite the opposite when the time came to send troops to North Africa in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 
> And, just so we are clear, Germany's declaration of war on the US was not an attack. The bombing of the Pacific fleet was an attack. But it presented FDR with the political opportunity to join the war _in Europe_, as he had been itching to do, and as he had openly sided against Germany as early as September 1940.


Not to put too fine an edge on your argument, Phinn, but the Germans had already sunk the USS Reuben James before the onset of the German declararation of war. USS Reuben James, DD245, was sunk on 31 October 1941 by German submarine U562. She was on convoy escort duty, and was escorting a convoy to Iceland out of New Foundland, when sunk, losing 115 crew members.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> Do I believe there is a chance in the immediate future for peacful coexistence in the Middle East? I don't believe I'll see it in my life time.


There will never be peace in that part of the world. If there was peace, everybody would have to get jobs. I don't think they'd enjoy that nearly as much as endless feuding.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

pendennis said:


> Not to put too fine an edge on your argument, Phinn, but the Germans had already sunk the USS Reuben James before the onset of the German declararation of war. USS Reuben James, DD245, was sunk on 31 October 1941 by German submarine U562. She was on convoy escort duty, and was escorting a convoy to Iceland out of New Foundland, when sunk, losing 115 crew members.


Indeed and I think you could make the convincing legal argument that actions by the Saddam regime such as the plot to assassinate GHWB and the SAM campaign against air sorties after 1991, to name but a few, constitute formal acts of war.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> the Germans had already sunk the USS Reuben James before the onset of the German declararation of war. USS Reuben James, DD245, was sunk on 31 October 1941 by German submarine U562. She was on convoy escort duty ...


You mean the ship that was ordered to insert itself between German warships and cargo ships that were carrying ammunition being delivered to their enemy?

But we were "neutral." Right. Makes perfect sense. Delivering ammunition in a war zone.

I believe Woodrow Wilson used a similar policy to get us into WWI. FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson. He learned well, it appears.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> I hear the left refer to the 2003 Gulf skirmish as an invasion or act of aggression on the part of the US and the UK.


Well, "the left" in the US maybe, but I think that opinion is rather more widespread in the political spectrum in the rest of the world.



> What's forgotten is that we did.


...and it worked. The arm inspections may have been fooled a couple times in the 90's. But as far as I can tell in the early 2000's they were working. Apart from a few very dubious reports (Nigerian uranium anyone?) anybody who gave the reviews an unbiased look pretty much knew in 2003 that Hussein had no nuclear program left, and not much in chemical capabilities.

At the time I personally favored an Iraq invasion not because of WMDs (I was convinced, as proved to be the case, that there were none), not because of links to Islamist terrorism (Iraq had few, if any, such links). I favored it just because it would be one dictator less, and that's always good to have. Maybe he would not have been my first choice (that would have been Myanmar I guess), but I applauded nonetheless. It turns out I was wrong.



> Just prior to the resumption of hostilities there was another UN resolution passed. It said quite firmly that unless Iraq immediately lived up to each and every obligation under the previous dozens of resolutions the decision would be removed from them and the provisions would be enforced by the coalition forces.


It appears you are talking about resolution 1441. If so it seems you are misinformed about it. That resolution did not say when and how compliance to its conditions was to be judged. Actually, by march 2003, the Iraqi government had pretty much complied to its terms, as was underlined by the UN mission in Iraq. That judgement was contended by the US and a row erupted over whether that failure to comply, according to the US, entitled them to a military intervention without another resolution.



> In the meantime, Iran has become a very dangerous force in the region, they are racing to develope nuclear weapons and have a president who has repeatedly mentioned a strong desire to wipe one his neighbors off the map. The US has been hands off, allowing the European powers and the UN to handle this "The right way". How's that going over the last three years?


It might have been different if US forces were not tied in a neighbouring country following their intervention. But the truth right now is that the US "has been hands off" because they cannot really do anything else. I don't know if diplomacy will prove effective in that case, but it would have been nice to have other options for a country where nuclear programs are not a fiction.



Phinn said:


> Many Democrats, considering the party affiliation of FDR, once argued quite the opposite when the time came to send troops to North Africa in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.


As I stated earlier, your historical comparison is moot, though. First, of course, Germany and Japan were allies and Germany was alredy at war, a striking difference with 2003.

But more fundamentally, I have to oppose to your claim that "Germany's declaration of war on the US was not an attack". I don't know on what you base your judgement, but in my view, when a country declares war on you and has started submarine warfare against your convoys and escorting fleet, that is pretty much an attack.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> There have been a number of things Bush has done that caused me to think he doesn't know history.


Like what? Please be specific when you impune someones intelligence.



> I didn't think the Middle East was ever Christian, but a mixed bag. I agree with taking back the lands, such as Spain, that Muslims invaded, being Spain was "Christian", anyway.


The middle east was Christian as soon as the Emperor Theodosius declared it as such in the 4th Century. It may have been a mixed bag but it was also the birthplace of Christianity. I suppose we could consider the U.S. a mixed bag but the predominant religious roots are in the Judeo-Christian tradition.



> Before we went into Iraq, because of Bush Jr., I was more concerned with what I was reading about Iran. A full scale invasion? No. Strategic invasion? Yes. Isreal did that a few years ago, if I remember correctly, or perhaps they did it to Iraq.


Iraq's reactor was a single above ground reactor. Iran's program is different and thanks to the ever watchful and vigilant IAEA much more mature. Furthermore Saddam was not a fanatic. He may have been a murderous tyrant but he was also a practitioner, albeit a bad one, of realpolitik. The Iranians are fanatics and I'm afraid like a hornets nest one cannot just whack it with a stick in order to settle it.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> As I stated earlier, your historical comparison is moot, though. First, of course, Germany and Japan were allies and Germany was alredy at war, a striking difference with 2003.


Your stating it doesn't make it so. You can come up with all sorts of differences all day long. Such is the nature of historical analogies -- all are imperfect, since history never repeats with such particularity.

But the analogy was chosen for a narrow purpose, for which it is well-suited -- to highlight the fact that the rhetoric chosen by the Democratic Party since 2003 to oppose the war in Iraq is pitiful. The Democrats are unable to stake out a truly principled opposition to the war in Iraq, considering that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration, and the aggressive challenge to Hussein's WMD programs was at the top of the talking points among Democrats up through 2002.

The Democratic Party CONTRIVED its opposition to the war in Iraq in order to put a stop to a string of political successes that the Bush Administration had won at that point in time. The Democratic Party has NEVER had a principled opposition to the war in Iraq, but merely chose it as the big issue of the moment at the time when the Party Faithful decided it was time to pick an issue -- any issue -- on which to challenge Bush. They had to ACT as though they offered an alternative to Bush, and the war in Iraq was as good as any other issue over which to pick a fight.

The party rhetoric has demonstrated this hollow, craven, opportunistic motive ever since.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Phinn said:


> The Democratic Party CONTRIVED its opposition to the war in Iraq in order to put a stop to a string of political successes that the Bush Administration had won at that point in time. The Democratic Party has NEVER had a principled opposition to the war in Iraq, but merely chose it as the big issue of the moment at the time when the Party Faithful decided it was time to pick an issue -- any issue -- on which to challenge Bush. The party rhetoric has demonstrated this hollow, craven, opportunistic motive ever since.


Exactly! This is what happens to politicians when they forget when to stop playing politics. Part of it too is that they've allowed themselves to be hijacked by the ideological left.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Etienne... do you really think the US has no ability to solve the problem of Iran's nuclear problem because of the assets that are involved in Iraq?

Really?

The course being taken with Iran at present is laughable - all it has done is to further embolden them as they get closer and closer to having both the warheads and the delivery vehicles required to threaten every nation in the region, but especially Israel who they've already decided needs to be removed from the map.

Once the capability is there my bet is that the other countries will look on while Israel reduces their WMD program to smoking rubble and then the world will say that Israel was too harsh and that when Iran said Israel needs to be destroyed they didn't REALLY mean it.

Meanwhile, the other countries will breathe a sigh of relief since they did not have to do it.

That's irresponsible IMHO.

As to whether it could be accomplished in about 5 days without a single ground troop and without a single one of the assets currently in Iraq? It would be easy.

Do you think diplomacy will prevent an Iranian nuke? 

The left seems to think the right likes war. Not really.
It's more that the right tends to believe that if you HAVE to fight you should not wait until it is too late. History is filled with instances where diplomats tried in vain to get a dictator with ambitions of conquest to play nice. I can't think of many instances where that worked but I agree that it would be very nice.

As to your contention that Iraq had complied with the ceasefire terms, shooting at coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone is a strange way to demonstrate cooperation.

Another thing people are already beginning to forget is that the decisions and plans that resulted in the 2003 ouster of Saddam were made in 2002. I think those decisions need to be judged in the context of 2002. In 2002 the idea of a state that would be willing to provide WMDs for an attack on the US was not one that many people were willing to tolerate.

I'm not sure how the decision will look in 20 years, unfortunately, it had to be made shortly after the attacks of 9/11. 

Does anyone believe that any nation would be willing to finance, arm, aid or offer asylum to anyone who attacks the United States? If we're going to look at this through the lens of hindsight then we also need to consider what effect the last 5 years have had on anyone who might think you can hit the US and get away with it. Just a thought.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

To your last point Chuck, I believe the dismantling of the AQ Khan network and Lybia's WMD program are positive reactions to our actions in Iraq.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Phinn said:


> You mean the ship that was ordered to insert itself between German warships and cargo ships that were carrying ammunition being delivered to their enemy?
> 
> But we were "neutral." Right. Makes perfect sense. Delivering ammunition in a war zone.
> 
> I believe Woodrow Wilson used a similar policy to get us into WWI. FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson. He learned well, it appears.


USS Reuben James was just one of many U.S. ships to pull convoy duty, pre-December 12, 1941.

Yes, ammunition. Also food stuffs, clothing, etc. for civilians whom the Nazis were attempting to starve into submission.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Once the capability is there my bet is that the other countries will look on while Israel reduces their WMD program to smoking rubble and then the world will say that Israel was too harsh and that when Iran said Israel needs to be destroyed they didn't REALLY mean it.
> 
> . . .
> 
> As to whether it could be accomplished in about 5 days without a single ground troop and without a single one of the assets currently in Iraq? It would be easy.


Easy? You mean you think we and/or Israel know exactly where these weapons are and how they are stored? And that Iran didn't learn from Iraq that if they put all their eggs in an unprotected basket they will get hammered?

Maybe Iran is as stupid and unprepared as you imagine they are, but there is no evidence to believe that. Wishing won't make it so, unlike the general conservative outlook.



Chuck Franke said:


> Do you think diplomacy will prevent an Iranian nuke?


I think it's clear that everything the United States is doing is making it obvious to Iran that they need nuclear weapons. Bush talked about eliminating Hussein, Hussein was essentially defenseless, and now he's history. Now Bush and his cronies are talking about how we need to get rid of the people running Iran. If you were running Iran, wouldn't you want nuclear weapons to protect yourself against the next invasion?

Oh, and about diplomacy? Iran approached us in 2003 to talk. Bush said no. Not no, but here are some things we would talk about. Not no, unless you take certain steps first. Just no. Bush's idea of diplomacy is to demand that the other country do what we want.



Chuck Franke said:


> The left seems to think the right likes war. Not really.
> It's more that the right tends to believe that if you HAVE to fight you should not wait until it is too late. History is filled with instances where diplomats tried in vain to get a dictator with ambitions of conquest to play nice. I can't think of many instances where that worked but I agree that it would be very nice.


This is just false. There was never any reason to think we HAD to go Iraq to fight Hussein. Putting HAVE in capitals doesn't make it true.



Chuck Franke said:


> As to your contention that Iraq had complied with the ceasefire terms, shooting at coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone is a strange way to demonstrate cooperation.


Apparently you've forgotten that the UN inspectors were in Iraq, and were getting cooperation, before they were ordered out by the United States. And their report has been confirmed by the facts that we now know to be true: the weapons and weapon programs just weren't there. They just plain didn't exist.



Chuck Franke said:


> Another thing people are already beginning to forget is that the decisions and plans that resulted in the 2003 ouster of Saddam were made in 2002. I think those decisions need to be judged in the context of 2002. In 2002 the idea of a state that would be willing to provide WMDs for an attack on the US was not one that many people were willing to tolerate.


Thanks for the news. So apparently you admit that your boy Bush and his pals were lying well into March, 2003, when they kept saying that the decision to invade had not yet been made.



Chuck Franke said:


> I'm not sure how the decision will look in 20 years, unfortunately, it had to be made shortly after the attacks of 9/11.


This is just a lie. No matter how many times you or anyone else repeats it, the invasion of Iraq had nothing--nothing--to do with the attacks in 2001. There is no reason to believe that delaying a month, a year, or a decade before invading Iraq would have had any harmful effect on our security. In fact, it would have enabled us to leave our Special Forces in Tora Bora, and maybe actually gotten bin Laden.



Chuck Franke said:


> Does anyone believe that any nation would be willing to finance, arm, aid or offer asylum to anyone who attacks the United States? If we're going to look at this through the lens of hindsight then we also need to consider what effect the last 5 years have had on anyone who might think you can hit the US and get away with it. Just a thought.


Bin Laden's gotten away with it.

And Hussein never "hit the US".


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Your stating it doesn't make it so.


What exactly in my statement is the part you claim false. The fact that Germany was already at war in 1941 and allied to Japan? Or the part that Iraq was not attacking anyone nor allied formally (and informal links have been very hard to find) with the analogy to Japan? In any case, although that would render your analogy moot, I still claim that it is not even necessary to discuss that part.



> But the analogy was chosen for a narrow purpose, for which it is well-suited -- to highlight the fact that the rhetoric chosen by the Democratic Party since 2003 to oppose the war in Iraq is pitiful.


That might be why you chose the analogy, it does not change the fact that your analogy is inaccurate. You would have a point if Germany in 1941 had not attacked the US before the US intervened against it. A point I would think false, but a point that could be debated.

As for a discussion of partisan politics in the US, that is beyond what I wanted to discuss, I was merely pointing out why your historical example is badly chosen.



Chuck Franke said:


> Etienne... do you really think the US has no ability to solve the problem of Iran's nuclear problem because of the assets that are involved in Iraq?


Yes, I believe the US has much less ability to do so. You seem very confident in the ability of a few special forces to take care of the problem. If it were that easy, North Korea would not have nukes left...



> The left seems to think the right likes war. Not really.


I don't really care about broad political generalizations actually. I probably do not fit in the American left/right divide anyway.



> As to your contention that Iraq had complied with the ceasefire terms, shooting at coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone is a strange way to demonstrate cooperation.
> 
> Another thing people are already beginning to forget is that the decisions and plans that resulted in the 2003 ouster of Saddam were made in 2002. I think those decisions need to be judged in the context of 2002. In 2002 the idea of a state that would be willing to provide WMDs for an attack on the US was not one that many people were willing to tolerate.


I don't think Iraq did anything of the sort between the time they were given their "last chance" (resolution 1441 in november 2002) and the time the US claimed they had not complied with it (march 2003). According to the UN inspectors there, as far as I can tell, they considered the conditions met. The US chose not to bring the subject in front of the Security Council if I remember correctly.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

and so the debate continues...as history marches forward with little care for the past.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> What exactly in my statement is the part you claim false. The fact that Germany was already at war in 1941 and allied to Japan? Or the part that Iraq was not attacking anyone nor allied formally (and informal links have been very hard to find) with the analogy to Japan? In any case, although that would render your analogy moot, I still claim that it is not even necessary to discuss that part.


I am not saying that your facts are false. I am saying that the factual discrepancies between Germany 1941 and Iraq 2003 are (for purposes of the point that Mr. McCullough and I were discussing) distinctions without a difference. I mentioned the WWII parallel to show that his generalization -- that the Iraq invasion not being justified because Iraq did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks (which is taken straight from the DNC, even if he is not aware of its origin) -- is both overbroad and overly simplistic.

Disagree with me if you will, but the fact that you take such pains to point out that there were concerns that were larger than the mere fact of the Pearl Harbor attack guiding the decison-making process in 1941 only bolsters my point. The existence of concerns that are larger than the dramatic events of 9/11, after all, is precisely the argument of the defenders of the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.

In addition, your entire position is predicated on the proposition that "attack" and "declare war" are interchageable. However, in 1941-42, there was a great deal of controversy over whether to go to war with Europe or Japan first. Clearly, many people at the time thought that the Japanese *attack* and the German *declaration* were quite different from one another, that they could be easily distinguished from one another, believing the Japanese *attack* to be the more significant and urgent, and believing that Germany's *declaration* as something that could (for the time being) be safely ignored. But FDR made the call, for better or worse.

In any event, your use of the word "moot" is incorrect. An analogy cannot be moot. The entire debate is, of course, moot, if you think we are debating whether the US should have invaded Iraq, or if you think I am debating whether the US should have sent troops to North Africa in response to being bombed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Both decisions are in the past and therefore cannot be changed. Hence, the mootness.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I mentioned the WWII parallel to show that his generalization -- that the Iraq invasion not being justified because Iraq did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks (which is taken straight from the DNC, even if he is not aware of its origin) -- is both overbroad and overly simplistic.


Why do you find this so hard to understand?

Bush and his people sold the invasion of Iraq as a suitable response to the September 11 attacks, partly based on clearly bogus arguments about the connection between Iraq and those attacks. Since virtually everybody now knows that the arguments were bogus (which is what many of us in the antiwar movement were saying even before the invasion, and even while too many Democrats were supporting either the war or a resolution that Bush used as a fig leaf for the invasion), it is clear that the supposed connection between Iraq and the attacks did not provide a valid justification to invade Iraq.

So now we can start looking at all the other asserted reasons:

==>Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons? Again, nonexistent and bogus. And this is something we knew at the time, otherwise they would have had no reason to lie about yellowcake from Niger, aluminum tubes that could not be used for centrifuges, phony chemical weapon trucks, etc.

==>Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who deserves to be taken out? This is only a valid justification if it applies to every evil dictator who deserves to be taken out. There are a lot of bad countries run by bad men, and some of them are actually considered our friends. Maybe we can start with Saudi Arabia and work out from there, but the circle gets pretty big pretty fast. It's also only a valid justification if we have a feasible plan to replace him with someone better, and if by doing it we're going to hurt the people who live there a lot less than he would if we let him stay.

==>Saddam Hussein's a threat to world and regional stability, and the fact that he invades his neighbors proves it so we have to get rid of him. Except that we liked it when he invaded Iran. We actually treated him as a de facto ally. That was a pretty destabilizing war, but not only did we tolerate it, we supported it. So then he invaded Kuwait (partially because our ambassador, April Glaspie, told him we wouldn't care too much if he did), and we stopped him, kicked him out of Kuwait (a war that I supported, by the way), decimated his armed forces, and kept him bottled up for over a decade. He still wasn't a nice guy, but he wasn't a threat to the rest of the world, even if he was still lining his pockets out of the oil for food program.

==>We're going to bring democracy to the Middle East, we have to start somewhere, and this is where we're going to do it. Even if this were ever a valid justification to invade any country, if we don't really have a plan to bring about democracy, and the ability to carry it out at a reasonable cost to the people who live there, we have no moral authority to invade any country and overthrow their ruler just to turn them into a democracy. It's also manifest that the United States really either doesn't care about having democracy in the Middle East or doesn't understand what it means. There is a democratically elected government in Palestine, but we don't like what the representatives of the Palestinian people want to do, so we're doing what we can to bring them down, isolate them, and attack their legitimacy. I'm not saying we have to like them,, but don't pretend that we want democracy over there.

So eventually we look at every one of the justifications for invading Iraq, and every one of them turns out to be a lie, to be based on faulty premises or faulty logic, or turns out to be based on grossly inaccurate estimates of the costs and benefits both to the people of Iraq and to the people and interests of the United States.

And then, on top of all that, we learn that the war has diverted forces from our efforts to wipe out the people who actually did attack us, and it has actually weakened our armed forces, and it's cost us many times as much money and blood as Bush and his people claimed it would cost.

And the conclusion to all that is that the war was not justified.

And about sixty percent of my fellow citizens agree with me.

If you don't, on November 7 you have the chance to go out and vote for more of the same, and you should feel free to do so.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Patrick06790 said:


> There will never be peace in that part of the world. If there was peace, everybody would have to get jobs. I don't think they'd enjoy that nearly as much as endless feuding.


I recall sitting in an elective class in Middle East studies in prep school in 1976 and hearing a retired U.S. general who served over there say there would NEVER be peace there. He meant NEVER. And so far he's right. The jist of it, as I remember, are that these are people who know how to hold a grudge.

I'd like to hear politicians from either side tell us the truth for a change: There is no way to stop terrrorism, this is the way of the world now, and invading and occupying other countries may give people the false hope that we are accomplishing something, but we aren't and we never will because the root of the conflict runs much deeper than who is running which country. Of course, who wants to hear that from someone running for office?

So, no, I do not believe we will be free from terrorism if we withdraw from the Middle East entirely. That well already has been poisoned. Nor do I believe we will accomplish ANYTHING by staying there, except maybe making things worse. It's a hopeless hellhole and we cannot improve it. Certainly nothing in the past half-century of trying indicates we will be successful there.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So let me understand further. You voted for someone twice, that you both dislike and seem to think is of suspect intelligence? Either that is a very poor _ad hoc_ rescue by a liberal trying to make their criticism seem legit or you sir have described yourself to be of very dubious judgement.


The Democrates had knowbody good when it came time to vote. Just because Bush is a Republican does not mean he is a good one. Reagan excellent, Ford is much better than Bush Jr.. Bush Sr. is much better, too. Since you blindly vote for Republicans what about Rudy Giuliani who very liberal with morals? And Colin Powell- why do you speak against him (a Republican) and not against Bush? Colin Powell would have run this Iraq war way way different. A bleeding heart liberal just because I don't like some Republicans? What about that liberal woman Bush Jr. appointed for Supreme Court Judge? I'm not that liberal. Nor I'm I as liberal as Ford. Bush Sr. said that a person should vote according to conservative or liberal, not by party- and sometimes I think he is right.

I don't think a person has to be good at history to notice that somebody else is worse.



> pt4u67-


Whacking a hornets nest when it needs it is sometimes the best way, because we can not always change people, cultures, governments, etc.

Another thing- about Christianity- we can't make people into Christians, because it is there choice. If people refuse the message, then shake the dust off of your feet and move on. In history we read where "Christians" were killing people who refused, so those people who were killed could never become a Christian later. Can you think of any place that says Christians can kill people, except during war or self-defence? I think government is required to have capital punishment for certain wrong doings, but even then there can be grace. So, what are your thoughts?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> I am not saying that your facts are false. I am saying that the factual discrepancies between Germany 1941 and Iraq 2003 are (for purposes of the point that Mr. McCullough and I were discussing) distinctions without a difference.


I'm glad you are not contesting the facts, your previous post certainly made it appear to be so. I did get your point. I think you are wrong, and that was what I was explaining.



> Disagree with me if you will, but the fact that you take such pains to point out that there were concerns that were larger than the mere fact of the Pearl Harbor attack guiding the decison-making process in 1941 only bolsters my point.


This is not what I said. You use the 1941 example to show that a Democrat president was going after another country that the one who attacked. That is just inaccurate: two countries attacked the US and the US retaliated against them both.

Even if Germany had not attacked the US first, your comparison would still be very debatable of course, given that the links between Germany and Japan in 1941 were real. That's not a mere detail, as you try to claim.



> In addition, your entire position is predicated on the proposition that "attack" and "declare war" are interchageable.


Did you miss the part where I talked about the German naval warfare?



> In any event, your use of the word "moot" is incorrect.


Whatever. English is not my native language. Replace by "inaccurate and pointless" if you want.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Obviously Jack you don't buy into the strategy which is all well and good if the Left has a viable plan to fight this new war, that is of course if you actually believe we are at war with a determined enemy in the first place. I think the American people would like to know concretely what the Left is going to do about it. GET THEM OUT NOW on a gut level does not sit well with the American people who take on a Jacksonian bent in wartime. 

I have yet to hear a clear and determined plan from any Democratic candidate running in 06, or a cohesive message that stands up to the least bit of scrutiny.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> Whacking a hornets nest when it needs it is sometimes the best way, because we can not always change people, cultures, governments, etc.
> 
> Another thing- about Christianity- we can't make people into Christians, because it is there choice. If people refuse the message, then shake the dust off of your feet and move on.


Whacking a hornets nest only enrages the hornets and makes their ultimate defeat more difficult. I used that term because Iran is run by zealots who show no signs of restraint in their dealings with the international community nor do they have any regard for obligations they have entered into. If we hit them we hit them to kill them and nothing short of that. But that's just my opinion.

As for Christianity, I don't believe I ever suggested that that was our ultimate goal! I don't think the goal of the Crusades was to convert the Muslims (unlike the goal of Muslim conquerors). The goal was to liberate the Holy Lands.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> The goal was to liberate the Holy Lands.


No, the goal was to conquer certain lands.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> The Democrates had *knowbody good* when it came time to vote. Just because Bush is a Republican does not mean he is a good one. Reagan excellent, Ford is much better than Bush Jr.. Bush Sr. is much better, too. * Since you blindly vote for Republicans what about Rudy Giuliani who very liberal with morals? And Colin Powell- why do you speak against him (a Republican) and not against Bush?*


Can I just ask where this invented conversation came from? I figure the voices in your head, as I made no such assertions.



WA said:


> I don't think a person has to be good at history to notice that somebody else is worse.
> 
> Another thing- about Christianity- we can't make people into Christians, because it is *there* choice.


Not only does one not need to have a grasp on history it would seem, but basic grammar can fall by the wayside also. Really sir, for someone impugning the educational achievement of the POTUS you have demonstrated your own to be very poor. Maybe it is just me however and *knowbody* else feels that way


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> No, the goal was to conquer certain lands.


Let's say it was. What is wrong with that?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Since we've all wandered far afield...*

As the thread has moved into several entertaining pathways, let me pose another question:

Who here now agrees with me that it is wrong of the West to view this as an action against any particular nation-state and that instead we should be focusing our actions based on the premise that this is indeed a clash between Western thought and a pan-Islamic world? Knowbody? (Sorry, that's too good to resist.)


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> As the thread has moved into several entertaining pathways, let me pose another question:
> 
> Who here now agrees with me that it is wrong of the West to view this as an action against any particular nation-state and that instead we should be focusing our actions based on the premise that this is indeed a clash between Western thought and a pan-Islamic world? Knowbody? (Sorry, that's too good to resist.)


Given the rhetoric used by the Islamists (establishing the Caliphate, re-conquering once muslim lands, etc.) I would have to agree. This is not a territorial dispute. How can it be? Prior to 9/11 I don't believe the West was an "occupier" of any Islamic country. Nine-eleven actually backfired because look at their position now.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Given the rhetoric used by the Islamists (establishing the Caliphate, re-conquering once muslim lands, etc.) I would have to agree. This is not a territorial dispute. How can it be? Prior to 9/11 I don't believe the West was an "occupier" of any Islamic country. Nine-eleven actually backfired because look at their position now.


Pt4:

I first came to this conclusion in about 1992 after spending a year at U of Mich Dearborn. Dearborn Michigan is home to a huge population of Middle Eastern muslims. Even at that time, many of the students had no compunction in relating to people that the goal of Islam was an Islamic world. Oddly enough however, many of the young men proclaiming this by day could be seen trying to score on blonde women at night. Make of that what you will but I always found it interesting.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Pt4:
> 
> I first came to this conclusion in about 1992 after spending a year at U of Mich Dearborn. Dearborn Michigan is home to a huge population of Middle Eastern muslims. Even at that time, many of the students had no compunction in relating to people that the goal of Islam was an Islamic world. Oddly enough however, many of the young men proclaiming this by day could be seen trying to score on blonde women at night. Make of that what you will but I always found it interesting.


Like any populist movement I believe there are degrees of conviction. There are the OBL's and others who are die hard fanatics and must be taken serioustly. Then there are the ones you speak of. They have a romantic view of a "pan-islamic revolution" but where the rubber meets the road they're very western. It helps too when they see how taking that conviction to its ultimate end only gets you closer to the business end of a U.S. made Hellfire missile!

I recall in the mid 90's the militia movement in the U.S. was gaining steam then the government began cracking down, especially after OKC, and its pretty much died down. I think the lesson to be drawn from this actually goes back to the original question. If fanaticism is left alone and not subdued with extreme prejudice it only festers and eventually gets out of hand. I don't think any serious person can argue that if we withdrew we would be left alone.

Suppose the mafia infiltrated a city and began a campaign of killings against those who opposed them. Does anyone seriously think that by leaving that organization alone and withdrawing from enforcing the law against them will result in their diminishment?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I think that rhetoric is being abused for political gain. The number of militants who really believe in Bin Laden's vision is tiny on a global scale. 

The notion that there is a common line of radical Islamic thinking, and then to assume all terror groups share a common goal is a complete distortion of reality and shows zero appreciation for history or cultural differences.

We do not have a clash of civilizations...but the more we talk about a war against such a broad and large population, we will only do more to unite Muslims who share political anger towards Western and oppressive Islamic states.

Which is exactly what Bin Laden so desires. 

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> I think that rhetoric is being abused for political gain. The number of militants who really believe in Bin Laden's vision is tiny on a global scale.
> 
> The notion that there is a common line of radical Islamic thinking, and then to assume all terror groups share a common goal is a complete distortion of reality and shows zero appreciation for history or cultural differences.
> 
> ...


You're right spence; it only took 19 islamic terrorists to kill ~3000 American's on 9/11. The number is not important.

As for the CW that going we're going after a broad population that's absolute nonsense. The President has been very careful about singling out Al Qaeda/OBL apart from the rest of the Arab world going so far as calling Islam a "religion of peace", something I tend to thing is highly debatable. To the contrary there is wide spread evidence that in the "Arab Street" OBL is losing credibility and his stature is shrinking. Great hero warriors afterall don't hide in caves.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> As for the CW that going we're going after a broad population that's absolute nonsense. The President has been very careful about singling out Al Qaeda/OBL apart from the rest of the Arab world going so far as calling Islam a "religion of peace", something I tend to thing is highly debatable. To the contrary there is wide spread evidence that in the "Arab Street" OBL is losing credibility and his stature is shrinking. Great hero warriors afterall don't hide in caves.


By going after I broad population I mean the lumping of all Islamic groups together under a single banner. Hamas, Hezbollah and alQaeda used in the same sentence...

This only serves to further unite and empower those who would stand against us, for political or religious reasons...if Bin Laden's stature is waning, then perhaps it's simply shifting to Iran.

And regarding your last statement, Bin Laden hides in caves because Mohammed hid in caves...to many the symbolisim is not lost.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> By going after I broad population I mean the lumping of all Islamic groups together under a single banner. Hamas, Hezbollah and alQaeda used in the same sentence...
> 
> This only serves to further unite and empower those who would stand against us, for political or religious reasons...if Bin Laden's stature is waning, then perhaps it's simply shifting to Iran.
> 
> ...


They're all terrorist organizations with common goals. Germany and Japan were completely different nations but we fought them the same way. As for Iran I think its a mistake to think they are on the ascent. The government there is being run by the JV squad. They have world opinion largely against them and on each border the "Great Satan" has troops. They have an erroneously enlarged view of themselves right now but I think they have neither time nor space on their side.

As for the symbolism of hiding in caves, that is why the East will never dominate the West. They're content with symbolism, the West is only content with results.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> Isn't that the goal of _any_ evangelical religion--a world where everyone believes as they do? Isn't that why Christians send missionaries all over the globe, and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking at your door?
> 
> The _tactics _are admittedly different, which is not irrelevant. Christians don't advocate spreading their faith by the sword, at least not today; many Muslims still do. But let's not kid ourselves: the goals are the same.


Aye, but you see, I can handle Jehovah's knocking on my door, having my head cut off would not only ruin my day but quite possibly stain one of my MTM shirts


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> They're all terrorist organizations with common goals.


Common goals? Not really...

-spence


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Hmmm. Do you gentlemen really want my opinions on this topic(s)? I'll hold back by just saying we haven't gone searching for a drunken store clerk yet.

M8


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Common goals? Not really...
> 
> -spence


The erradication of Israel. If you parse through their rhetoric that is a common theme between them all.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> The erradication of Israel. If you parse through their rhetoric that is a common theme between them all.


The rejection of Israel is a pretty mainstream position throughout the Middle East, and it's primarily due to political issues rather than driven by the Koran.

Over the past 60 years it's been a device for aurhoritarian rulers, empowered by the industrialized world's need for energy, to keep their people distracted from their own existance.

But even between militant groups there's various levels of passion towards that end, and some groups have softened quite a bit as they take more pragmatic positions. The recognition of Israel's right to exist is clearly a political "chip" that's not to be tossed onto the table lightly.

Today groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are politically empowered to some degree, and in a positions to play those cards. alQaeda certainly doesn't share that position.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> The rejection of Israel is a pretty mainstream position throughout the Middle East, and it's primarily due to political issues rather than driven by the Koran.
> 
> Over the past 60 years it's been a device for aurhoritarian rulers, empowered by the industrialized world's need for energy, to keep their people distracted from their own existance.
> 
> ...


If its a mainstream view that Israel should be erradicated then what does that say about the Arab/Muslim mainstream? As for the different groups regardless of what you say they still want the erradication of Israel. As for SOFTENING their stance? The passion of their views gives way only because they lack the means! I don't see any softening from Hamas or Hezbollah, unless you consider launching rockets into civilian populations and kidnapping soldiers a softening of sorts. I suppose they've come a long way from killing Olympic athletes, hijacking jets and throwing American Jews overboard from ships. As for political empowerment, in the middle east it is achieved through the barrel of a gun. I would argue that in certain countries they have always been politically empowered because they had the largest armed presence.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> We do not have a clash of civilizations...


This is one of those occasions where I hope I am totally wrong and someone else is 100% correct. However, all data seems to indicate otherwise. The burned down Danish embassy and all the deaths associated with that, the murder of Theo Vangaugh, the riots in France.....they all tend to support my fears however.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> They're all terrorist organizations with common goals. Germany and Japan were completely different nations but we fought them the same way.


A more apt analogy is Hitler and Stalin. We could have decided that it would be wrong to ally with Stalin because it would have undercut our "Global War on Totalitarianism", but it would have misunderstood the fundamental divisions between the two, and it would have undermined our interests.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> If its a mainstream view that Israel should be erradicated then what does that say about the Arab/Muslim mainstream?


Rejection isn't eradication. Aside from the fringe I don't believe the mainstream Muslim in the Middle East wishes for Israel to be eradicated, or would support such ends, but that's not to say they feel unresolved political inequality which is exacerbated by violence on both sides.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> This is one of those occasions where I hope I am totally wrong and someone else is 100% correct. However, all data seems to indicate otherwise. The burned down Danish embassy and all the deaths associated with that, the murder of Theo Vangaugh, the riots in France.....they all tend to support my fears however.


The clash of civilizations rhetoric is too quick to lump most Muslims in with the fringe, when we need to be dividing the good from the bad.

I think it's more accurate to describe it as a global insurgency that is mostly disconnected and fueled from various issues and means. Today, there's little productive pathway for many Muslims to vent, which leads to violence.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Rejection isn't eradication. Aside from the fringe I don't believe the mainstream Muslim in the Middle East wishes for Israel to be eradicated, or would support such ends, but that's not to say they feel unresolved political inequality which is exacerbated by violence on both sides.
> 
> -spence


Hamas considers the state of Israel to be an "occupation." They want a palestine that reaches to the coast. No sir, they don't only reject but actively work to eradicate. If I reject your premise that's one thing, if I actively seek to slay you than I've gone beyond rejection. And the notion of "violence on both sides" is just inaccurate. Every major war Israel has been involved in since 1948 has been as a result of invasion. The cycle of violence argument you make is not true because it assumes that at any given time either side is responsible for starting hostilities and in this case it has always been one sided.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> A more apt analogy is Hitler and Stalin. We could have decided that it would be wrong to ally with Stalin because it would have undercut our "Global War on Totalitarianism", but it would have misunderstood the fundamental divisions between the two, and it would have undermined our interests.


I agree with this completely. I was referring in my original post however to the notion that Hamas and Hezbollah are different in their goals and therefore should be treated differently which is something I don't agree with.

Hitler was a fanatic whose vision was untempered and felt his goals could be accomplished in his lifetime. In a way he was apocolyptic. Stalin, as brutal as he was, was I think more rational and had a longer term vision for communism. All stalin wanted, as what all the Czars before him wanted, was a buffer between himself and the West.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> The clash of civilizations rhetoric is too quick to lump most Muslims in with the fringe, when we need to be dividing the good from the bad.
> 
> I think it's more accurate to describe it as a global insurgency that is mostly disconnected and fueled from various issues and means. Today, there's little productive pathway for many Muslims to vent, which leads to violence.
> 
> -spence


Are you stating that is was only "fringe" elements involved in the murder, destruction, etc. that occured over the cartoons?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Today, there's little productive pathway for many Muslims to vent, which leads to violence.
> 
> -spence


Oh well then that makes everything Ok I guess. Let's see: you feel betrayed by your government, the Jews control everything, Americans are fornicating in the streets, you can't get a job because your dictator is busying himself with adding to his fleet of Bentley's and downing Louis XIII while watching girls gone wild the live version so lets go "martyr" ourselves and in the process take out as many innocents as we can.

The trouble is when someone does try to vent they get killed by the mob, or have a price put on their head like Salman Rushdie. The inability to vent is no excuse for violence.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Hamas considers the state of Israel to be an "occupation." They want a palestine that reaches to the coast.


And they've also been softening ever since they assumed some real political power and now are accountable for their actions.



> Every major war Israel has been involved in since 1948 has been as a result of invasion.


Well, I'll just leave that at your opinion.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I agree with this completely. I was referring in my original post however to the notion that Hamas and Hezbollah are different in their goals and therefore should be treated differently which is something I don't agree with.


We can apply a common tolerance (or lack of) for common behavior, but if the root cause of their motivation isn't the same, it may not make sense to apply a common policy all around. IMHO those who just say their hatred for Israel is the root cause are just reverting to an old cop out.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Are you stating that is was only "fringe" elements involved in the murder, destruction, etc. that occured over the cartoons?


I think they are somwhat different issues. Like the violence surrounding Rodney King was related to racisim in a way...but there was also a lot too it beyond that.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> We can apply a common tolerance (or lack of) for common behavior, but if the root cause of their motivation isn't the same, it may not make sense to apply a common policy all around. IMHO those who just say their hatred for Israel is the root cause are just reverting to an old cop out.
> 
> -spence


The root cause of their motivation is the existence of Israel. Its not as though they would not have sprung up anyway and Israel just happended to get caught in the crosshairs. They HATE Israel. Its not really that complicated. Sometimes the answers are simple, as in this case. There is no negotiating with them. They don't want anything else than to see Israel wiped out! So its not a cop out, its the answer. It's their purpose for existing. If there were no little boys in the world there would be no Boy Scouts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> I think they are somwhat different issues. Like the violence surrounding Rodney King was related to racisim in a way...but there was also a lot too it beyond that.
> 
> -spence


No, they link directly to my thesis of, as you put it, a clash of civilizations. That a few cartoons could cause death and destruction in so many locations is just one example of Western culture and values coming up against that of Islam. You can accept that or not, it is no big deal if you do, however I would just caution you against a career in political cartoon satire in a muslim nation.

So, was that all done by "fringe" elements or not?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Oh well then that makes everything Ok I guess. Let's see: you feel betrayed by your government, the Jews control everything, Americans are fornicating in the streets, you can't get a job because your dictator is busying himself with adding to his fleet of Bentley's and downing Louis XIII while watching girls gone wild the live version so lets go "martyr" ourselves and in the process take out as many innocents as we can.


Yes, that does sum things up quite nicely 



> The trouble is when someone does try to vent they get killed by the mob, or have a price put on their head like Salman Rushdie. The inability to vent is no excuse for violence.


I guess one must decide if this really is a lower level problem, and if it is then what might we do to help let off some steam. Just preaching good morals and personal responsibility isn't going to help matters much.

-spence


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Still have yet to have a response to my post...what is the alternative gentlemen?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> I guess one must decide if this really is a lower level problem, and if it is then what might we do to help let off some steam. Just preaching good morals and personal responsibility isn't going to help matters much.
> 
> -spence


There I agree with you. I think we need to do more to foster independent thought and use our leverage over many of these governments to loosen the reigns. We need a middle east PR push to rival that of the cold war. The trouble is the culture of the middle east seems to respect power over ideas (I emphasize seems). I think for that reason the big stick has to always be on hand and visible.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Whacking a hornets nest only enrages the hornets and makes their ultimate defeat more difficult. I used that term because Iran is run by zealots who show no signs of restraint in their dealings with the international community nor do they have any regard for obligations they have entered into. If we hit them we hit them to kill them and nothing short of that. But that's just my opinion.


Sometimes I think it is better to knock out something, such as bomb making abilities, and hope and wait for enough time that maybe a new government will develope. Once in awhile a bad government out does itself and the power they had they loose and another group takes over. Other times a government needs to be removed, so full scale military operation.



> As for Christianity, I don't believe I ever suggested that that was our ultimate goal! I don't think the goal of the Crusades was to convert the Muslims (unlike the goal of Muslim conquerors). The goal was to liberate the Holy Lands.


Thanks for reminding me of a few details I forgot there.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So let me understand further. You voted for someone twice, that you both dislike and seem to think is of suspect intelligence? Either that is a very poor _ad hoc_ rescue by a liberal trying to make their criticism seem legit or you sir have described yourself to be of very dubious judgement.


It sounds like you calling me a liberal or very dubious judgement. I voted for Bush because I wanted judges like the ones that became Supreme Court Judges that he appointed. I voted for Bush because I wanted SS payments into private accounts- not by government handout. I voted for Bush because I wanted somebody who would go into Afghanistan like after 9/11 the with careful consideration because somebody did something to us- not pre-emptive, such as Iraq. What Democrate could persuade the rest of the Democrates to do the things I wanted Bush to do? So, yes I had real reasons to vote for Bush- but I still do not approve of everything he has done.

You want to talk about higher education and perfect grammar? How come I run across Ph.D's that have perfect grammar, don't really know the subject they got there Ph.D in, but know how to please teachers, so they got a Ph.D, which means a number of Ph.D's who don't qualify to have a Ph.D, who are handing out Ph.D's to people who don't qualify to have a Ph.D? What is a Ph.D? Somebody who knows a bunch of theroies, not which theroies are true and which are false. Sounds like the Blind leading the Blind to me. I've seen children who have a better grasp on a subject than the some people with a Ph.D in that subject. It seems to me if you have a Ph.D you should know more than just gab.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Wayfarer said:
> 
> 
> > So let me understand further. You voted for someone twice, that you both dislike and seem to think is of suspect intelligence? *Either that is a very poor ad hoc rescue by a liberal trying to make their criticism seem legit or you sir have described yourself to be of very dubious judgement.*
> ...


Hay, their's know flys on ewe!



WA said:


> You want to talk about higher education and perfect grammar? How come I run across Ph.D's that have perfect grammar, don't really know the subject they got there Ph.D in, but know how to please teachers, so they got a Ph.D, which means a number of Ph.D's who don't qualify to have a Ph.D, who are handing out Ph.D's to people who don't qualify to have a Ph.D? What is a Ph.D? Somebody who knows a bunch of theroies, not which theroies are true and which are false. Sounds like the Blind leading the Blind to me. I've seen children who have a better grasp on a subject than the some people with a Ph.D in that subject. It seems to me if you have a Ph.D you should know more than just gab.


Hay, awl that is whot ewe call a read herring.

It does not change the fact that when you make some lame accusation concerning Bush failing "history" (as yes, there is this course at HBS called "history" one must pass) and then show your total lack of historical knowledge, you greatly weaken your credibility to make said accusation. Further, when you are impugning the education and intelligence of an HBS graduate and the POTUS, it would serve one well not to make egregious and repeated errors in your grammar. For instance, it is quite clear, through multiple posts, you do not seem to have a grasp on "there, their, they're". I usually do not pick apart grammar as we all make typos or edit on the run and post a mistake. However, given the context and the repetition, your lack of alacrity in reading and writing has become apparent and valid fodder as you continue to criticize that of someone with a good education and now the entire academic establishment, as apparently we have Ph.D.s running around that do not know (vs. no!) how to tie their (not there!) shoes.

Regards


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Your right about my grammar and spelling. You would think that the educated who made all of this would not have put in so many duplicate words.

People say that there are not many errors in my speech. But when it comes time to typing, which is slow, words are left out. Thier, there, and they're- I don't think of the spelling when thinking those words, and sometime the grammar rules confuse me. So when typing... I'll have to look in a grammar book again.

Like you, I have interest and non interest in everything. Grammar is something you have a bigger interest in than I do. I think with pictures more than words sometimes. Which is one reason why I come here- clothes. And another is feeling, such as comfortable clothes. The subject of government is about where it should be and shouldn't in my life. You can be an illiterate and dress like a dream, and, as some, with a Ph.D, never figure out how to look good in clothes. We all have skills and lack skills. I wish I could write like Liszt, Chopin, Tchaikovsky and so on- another way of thinking. Not with words, but sounds. If you are a words person, then spelling and grammar should come easily to you. But, would you do so well in a world of pictures or sounds for major communication? Or, would you always be on the outside, being good with words, how would you fit in? Minds are not wired all the same. Mozart wrote music at 5 better than I can write music ten times his age. So what is failure? I guess we all have a different idea. The things I spend most of my time doing require no grammar. If you spend all day with written words, then grammar and spelling is almost unforgettable for most people. I noticed printing companies have proof readers. You being good with words, grammar, spelling, and me with art; I guess we see things differently. You probably jump into a page full of words. Whereas me? I jump into the visual world of art. The ideas are told in shapes, colors, lines, shades and so on. 

Hope my grammar and spelling is good enough for you to understand what I wrote above.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> The root cause of their motivation is the existence of Israel. Its not as though they would not have sprung up anyway and Israel just happended to get caught in the crosshairs. They HATE Israel. Its not really that complicated. Sometimes the answers are simple, as in this case. There is no negotiating with them. They don't want anything else than to see Israel wiped out! So its not a cop out, its the answer. It's their purpose for existing. If there were no little boys in the world there would be no Boy Scouts.


But it's not like these groups were formed in 1947...if memory serves me correct it was the mid 1980's and the tit-for-tat violence has really been extreme since 2000.

Certainly the rejection of Isreal's creation is a motivator, but to say that precludes all negotiation is silly...everybody in the region knows Isreal isn't going to vanish...there is no military option that will bring a hard solution.

Recognition by extremist groups is a chip that's tossed about every so often, even by Iran a while ago...makes me wonder if it's all a bunch of hot air.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So, was that all done by "fringe" elements or not?


I think it was exacerbated by fringe elements...but this is no different than Bin Laden's MO. Leverage existing rage and humiliation in the mainstream to push your personal goals.

Certainly more freedom of speech is something we should work to encourage in the Islamic world. Are we doing anything about it, or just pointing fingers and saying "look at those freaks!".

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> The trouble is the culture of the middle east seems to respect power over ideas (I emphasize seems). I think for that reason the big stick has to always be on hand and visible.


But this is also the problem with Iraq, we've really abused the stick while offering little carrot.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> But it's not like these groups were formed in 1947...if memory serves me correct it was the mid 1980's and the tit-for-tat violence has really been extreme since 2000.
> 
> Certainly the rejection of Isreal's creation is a motivator, but to say that precludes all negotiation is silly...everybody in the region knows Isreal isn't going to vanish...there is no military option that will bring a hard solution.
> 
> ...


They formed in the 80's because the Arabs finally realized that they couldn't beat them in a conventional war. As for negotiating, how does one negotiate with an entity whose goal is the other's destruction and even though many Arab governments realize that they can't just make Israel vanish that doesn't seem to slow them down in funding terrorist groups who are certainly still trying.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> I think it was exacerbated by fringe elements...but this is no different than Bin Laden's MO. Leverage existing rage and humiliation in the mainstream to push your personal goals.


So if it was only exacerbated by the fringe, then you are inferring non-fringe, better known as "mainstream", took part in the killings, burnings, etc. Therefore, you have yourself agreed to my thesis, this is indeed a conflict of cultures. QED.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

spence,

1. while these groups formed in the 80's, they are built on a backbone of groups formed in the 30's - as a matter of fact, the first armed faction of hamas adopted the name of a unit that was formed in the 1930's, and allied itself with the nazis. the arabs of palestine and the surrounding areas embrases terror from the very first contact with modern zionism more than 120 years ago. 

2. hamas and hizballah have, hard wired into their consitutions, a demand for the destruction if israel. (actually, so does the plo, but they keep claiming that they took it out). pretty much all of hte arab states are now dedicated to the destruction of israel as a jewish state - even the peace initiative of the saudis basically demands that israel open up its borders to palestinian immigration, effectivly destroying the jewish nature of the state. 

3. sorry, but you are deluding yourself as to the nature of mainstream islam. yes, there are pleanty of muslims who are against violence and terror and looked at the danish cartoons with anger but no violence. maybe there are millions of such muslims. but they are still a tiny minority. don't forget that.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Back to the title question. People with ants in there pants have got to bother somebody. The Muslims have a number of people with ants in there pants. 

I really hope it is only a few.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Back to the title question. People with ants in there pants have got to bother somebody. The Muslims have a number of people with ants in there pants.


LOL WA, well put! There is something we agree 100% on!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*More proof...*

More proof this is a world wide clash of cultures:



> "(_Pope_) Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," he said (_Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of the ruling political party of Turkey_). "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as (Adolf) Hitler and (Benito) Mussolini."


Can you feel the love?



> "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.


So say we're intolerant I swear to Allah, I will kill you!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Ahhhhhh....

Ever hear Al Sharpton on the nightly news shows? Sounds pretty similar to me 

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Ahhhhhh....
> 
> Ever hear Al Sharpton on the nightly news shows? Sounds pretty similar to me
> 
> -spence


Explain to me exactly how please.

Edit: Oh yes, since you are on this thread again, no rebut to the above: re: if "fringes" exacerbate it, who are they inciting but the moderates?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Explain to me exactly how please.
> 
> Edit: Oh yes, since you are on this thread again, no rebut to the above: re: if "fringes" exacerbate it, who are they inciting but the moderates?


It's just like Sharpton to latch onto issues he can expliot to pander to his constituency be they valid or overblown.

Issues like the cartoons, and now the Pope's comments etc... are being used to enrage moderates because there are many who feel threatened by the current course of events.

The Islamic conspiracy theorists are certainly playing this up as another "crusade" and the lack of objective media in many Islamic states allows this kind of thinking to flourish, and taint more open societies as well.

Bascially it means we're being watched very closely. This isn't to say we must always tread lightly, but we should spend our chits wisely.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> It's just like Sharpton to latch onto issues he can expliot to pander to his constituency be they valid or overblown.
> 
> Issues like the cartoons, and now the Pope's comments etc... are being used to enrage moderates because there are many who feel threatened by the current course of events.
> 
> ...


I do not think you are quite getting my points.

1) Freedom of speech and a free press are ingrained in Western societies and probably two large factors that helped bring about our many freedoms. Each case I have mentioned specifically has muslims decry free speech and/or a free press. These events specifically have muslims, and moderate ones at that, calling for muzzles.

2) Even Sharpton does not call for jihads and beheadings. In each case many muslims, moderate ones at that, called for action anywhere from death to, again, muzzling the press.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> More proof this is a world wide clash of cultures:


They sure are a sensitive bunch aren't they. I love how in the article the Egyptian Islamic analyst is quoted as saying that this is way worse than the Danish cartoons as if to cast aside the whole fiasco from earlier this year to focus on the insult du jour. As I recall there were massive demonstrations in the streets and calls for beheading anyone with an "Ø" in their last name. If this was the response to something not that important I'd love to see the response to this one.

The more and more they throw tantrums the more and more they seem like little children. No wonder these countries can't seem to get it together and start living in the 21st century.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*More love....*

For those still not feeling the love behind the thought this is a clash of cultures....



> Islamic leaders around the world issued more condemnations of the pope's comments...





> "You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) *and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks* and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab...





> The anger recalled the outrage earlier this year over cartoons depicting the prophet published by a Danish paper. The caricatures, which Muslims saw as insulting Muhammad, set off large, violent protests across the Islamic world.


I'm sorry, but having my neck chopped would just ruin my day.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

"How dare you say we're violent, off with your head."


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I just keep thinking that Islam and the west are on a collision course and WWIII is on the horizon.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*No clash of cultures here....*

Yes, I can clearly see the Muslims in Turkey value free speech as our Western heritage enables us to:



> Employees of the state body that organizes Muslim worship in Turkey asked the authorities on Tuesday to open legal proceedings against Pope Benedict XVI and to arrest him when he visits the country in November.


Regards


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

1900 was an interesting time. In 3 years two brothers successfully fullfilled the dream of Daedelus and flew. The eradication of ancient diseases began and we dared to operate on the human heart and brain beyond trephanation. We finished the century landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. But what was the pivotal event that defined the 20th century? It was, by majority agreement WW2. Now we are at the beginning of a new century and millenium. Historians actually look back and will say this age started in that year and ended in this. This looming confrontation, and I have concluded it is, between Islam and 'The west' is coming. That it may, or may not be remembered as another mere McDonalds 'super sizing' of a B.E. colonial war compared to; ie global warming and the final destruction of our natural world or the rise of totalitarian( political) communist China becoming preminent through ( economic) capitalism as the pivotal event is still unknown. The 21st century may very well be when a bespoke dressed Michael Rennie lands in SOCAL looking for Andy as a worthy contact. WE DON'T KNOW. I do know this is an old conflict with historical reference points of what happened before, and what WORKED. We have more important issues to let this 'get in our face' one more wasted day.


----------

