March on the walls of Rome?
Ahem. I'm a hardcore Athiest. But in the name of human civilization (And this comment will get me flamed, and possibly a vacation, but after reading that statement from Al Qaida...)
Fvcking try it you uncivilized bastards. Try taking over one of the most important cities in the world. It's taken far better people than muslim extremists to take it out.
Ahem. I'm a hardcore Athiest. But in the name of human civilization (And this comment will get me flamed, and possibly a vacation, but after reading that statement from Al Qaida...)
Fvcking try it you uncivilized bastards. Try taking over one of the most important cities in the world. It's taken far better people than muslim extremists to take it out.
In case you've fogotten, in the first Gulf war, as part of a real coalition that included the active participation of several Islamic nations, we went into Kuwait to remove the invading Iraqi army. We also had backing and active support from the majority of the Islamic world when we went into Afghanistan after Al Qaeda and their Taliban protectors in direct response to their attack on us on 9-11.
You must be one of the two or three remaining whack jobs that either didn't get the memo or chooses to ignore it -- The invasion of Iraq was predicated on nothing but LIES! THAT was the catalyst that has turned so much of the Islamic world against us. That was the unilateral work and direct responsibility of the lying, messianic, meglomaniac Bushwhacko administration. :|
They lied to the American public and the world about why they launched a useless, elective war that has killed tens of thousands of people, and they spent us into trillions of dollars of debt that will remain a burden on our society for generations to come. They did so while offering continuously shifting alleged reasons for this actions:
- There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
- There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
- There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
- There were no long range rockets.
- There were no WMD's.
- They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clark, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clark also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
- They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 300,000 - 400,000 troops to do the job.
The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
If only his idiot son could read!
See above, Pabster. You're wrong on both counts. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
The reasons for us to leave Iraq are-
a. we aren't accomplishing anything useful. And there's no possibility that we will. What we are doing right now is exactly like the last few years of Vietnam. Wasting time, lives, and money, for no purpose at all.
b. it isn't our job to take care of Iraqis. When we leave Iraq will be a mess, but that's not our problem.
c. we can't afford to stay there, even if we were accomplishing something, which we aren't.
Making "extremists" happy, doesn't have anything to do with why we should leave.
People who WANT us to stay in Iraq, keep using the argument that people who want us to leave, want to do so because the terrorists won't be mad at us anymore. But that isn't an argument that people who want us to leave actually make, it's a giant fiction created by people who want us to stay in Iraq.
a. we aren't accomplishing anything useful. And there's no possibility that we will. What we are doing right now is exactly like the last few years of Vietnam. Wasting time, lives, and money, for no purpose at all.
b. it isn't our job to take care of Iraqis. When we leave Iraq will be a mess, but that's not our problem.
c. we can't afford to stay there, even if we were accomplishing something, which we aren't.
Making "extremists" happy, doesn't have anything to do with why we should leave.
People who WANT us to stay in Iraq, keep using the argument that people who want us to leave, want to do so because the terrorists won't be mad at us anymore. But that isn't an argument that people who want us to leave actually make, it's a giant fiction created by people who want us to stay in Iraq.
Thats what we have done for the past 6 years. We have let Bush do whatever he wants, without questioning him. He has not had good results though. His advisers are very strong and he listens to them - the bad part is that they are the attack first, diplomacy second crowd. Usually, this kind of approach does not solve problems, but only increases them.
As for Al-Qaida in Iraq, there could be some. But of course, people are going to label all muslims one way, or all christians one way. Its either black or white. This is more complex than that. You have to look at the whole picture and realize that where we are today is because what happened in the past. There is a reason why certain muslims are blowing themselves up. These people do not have F-18s to kill mass amounts of people, but they do have low level type bombs to do some damage. They do not have armored vehicles or M1A2 Abrams to protect themselves, so they do what they have to do - hide in buildings, wear civilian clothing to protect themselves. I don't think the term good guys vs bad guys applies anymore.
Actually, it is probably not his fault, but thanks for attacking him anyway. That seems to be the way around here. People's views change based on all kinds of factors, particularly information. The more information a person is being fed one way or another is likely the way he will turn out to be, or he can question that information and go the other way. Take the easy way or the hard way. Not talking about anyone here in particular.
Where do you get this silly notion that only 1% of muslims are radicalized? Many surveys have shown radical beliefs in very large portions of the population.
Example: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248
Maybe so, but how many are willing to pick-up an AK and RPG and/or die for their beliefs? Probably a very small sub-set, yeah?
OMG!!!! HE JUST CALLED THE POPE A MORON!!!
Quick! All of you worthy Christians go and burn Mosques!!
See -- I just took it out of context.
You don't need more than a small sub-set when the larger population either a) directly supports the sub-set through various means (financial support, political support, etc.) or b) is indifferent to the sub-set's violence and stands aside.
Similar to the situation with the IRA in Ireland.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
You don't have to deploy ground troops to deal with them at that point now do you? Pretty sure that is why we have an Air Force.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Good point. I'd say the sub-set is who we need to worry about short-term. The Muslim population at large is who we're supposed to be winning the hearts and minds of in the long term. I'd suggest that the Administration is pretty good at the former, and downright lousy at the latter. And I know we're not dealing with the most reasonable, logical group of people here, but we need to make significant progress in both areas if we are to arrive at anything resembling a "win" in the Middle East region.
The right wing has a problem common to many of its followers - it's human nature, but stronger among that view.
When a group wants to hate another, they often don't realize it, but they find themselves finding things to hate again and again.
During the 60's and the civil rights movement, every wild statement by a radical, every riot, every mixed couple led certain people to say "See, there go those black people who want to burn down the United States!" It was all about their own hate not to have a balanced view, but they did not see this.
I think many Americans are unprepared to have any mature relationship with the Muslims. There's a broad combination of ignorance and arrogance which leads them to worry about the Muslims, unwilling to look at the history in any balanced way, finding that the only way they can see to deal with the Muslims is by making the Muslims powerless.
The relations are dominated by 'we can't trust them so we must defeat them' logic, rather than the principled logic where we have to respect their power and societies.
The right also misunderstands the left wing view; many on the left see serious problems in the governments of the Middle East and are open to helping democracy spread. But the left does not trust the republicans to use that issue for anything other than cover for their own selfish agenda for the few. The right interprets that as the left not being willing to do any military action, which is not the case for many on the left, though it is for a few.
When a group wants to hate another, they often don't realize it, but they find themselves finding things to hate again and again.
During the 60's and the civil rights movement, every wild statement by a radical, every riot, every mixed couple led certain people to say "See, there go those black people who want to burn down the United States!" It was all about their own hate not to have a balanced view, but they did not see this.
I think many Americans are unprepared to have any mature relationship with the Muslims. There's a broad combination of ignorance and arrogance which leads them to worry about the Muslims, unwilling to look at the history in any balanced way, finding that the only way they can see to deal with the Muslims is by making the Muslims powerless.
The relations are dominated by 'we can't trust them so we must defeat them' logic, rather than the principled logic where we have to respect their power and societies.
The right also misunderstands the left wing view; many on the left see serious problems in the governments of the Middle East and are open to helping democracy spread. But the left does not trust the republicans to use that issue for anything other than cover for their own selfish agenda for the few. The right interprets that as the left not being willing to do any military action, which is not the case for many on the left, though it is for a few.
No, you're right. Muslims are not all the same. The vast majority (roughly 75-80%) are not radical islamofascists. The problem is, 20-25% of them are (do the math, it is enormous) and worse -- the majority do not speak out against the minority perverting their faith and stirring up the hate for Muslims.
As for the left, I have to agree with GT. They've been hell bent on appeasement for the last 40 years. Look where it has gotten us. You cannot appease those who consider everyone else an infidel and actively work on a daily basis to destroy you. Period. There is no negotiating.
What sickens me is that we've got some liberal Republicans in the Senate now who are more fvcking concerned with the rights of enemy combatants (read: terrorists) than the rights of American Citizens and our soldiers on the battlefield. Jimmy Carter's recent comments vis-a-vi torture and the current Admin policy are disgusting and only further the notion that the left is all about appeasement. It is no wonder that something like 72% of Americans would vote Republican if terror were their sole criteria.
"for the record, right wing does not equal racist."
"It does when you are a modern liberal with Howard Dean at your helm. "
I'm a modern liberal who supports Howard Dean, and I agree that right wing does not equal racist.
So, you're wrong about that Pabster, and about the next thing you say, too.
You argue that there's no dealing with, no 'appeasing' people who are determined to attack you. You are determined to attack those people. And you fail to note any irony that your view makes you someone determined to attack them, who are people who cannot deal with you, cannot appease you, as someone determined to attack them; they must attack you.
It really is dangerous for most of the American public to get involved in issues they know so little about and push policy towards war.
Before you condemn 'them' as people who are simply determined to attack you - projecting your own warped views on to them - remember that we (the west) dominated their countries like Iran for a century for oil, we played jigsaw puzzle for Machiavellian control, we overthrew their democrat leaders for our own puppets, they did not do that to us.
They have serious issues, it's true, but you are in no position to say a word about that until you can see the error of your own side. If there's one side you can say is utterly determined to use violence to dominate and destroy others, the evidence points in our direction more than theirs.
They can be 'dealt with', they can be reasoned with. Not all, but most, just like the US. Oh, but our people don't have guys running around committing acts of violence? Occupy us, give us one hour a day of electricity and 50% unemployment and a lack of clean water and see what happens.
"It does when you are a modern liberal with Howard Dean at your helm. "
I'm a modern liberal who supports Howard Dean, and I agree that right wing does not equal racist.
So, you're wrong about that Pabster, and about the next thing you say, too.
You argue that there's no dealing with, no 'appeasing' people who are determined to attack you. You are determined to attack those people. And you fail to note any irony that your view makes you someone determined to attack them, who are people who cannot deal with you, cannot appease you, as someone determined to attack them; they must attack you.
It really is dangerous for most of the American public to get involved in issues they know so little about and push policy towards war.
Before you condemn 'them' as people who are simply determined to attack you - projecting your own warped views on to them - remember that we (the west) dominated their countries like Iran for a century for oil, we played jigsaw puzzle for Machiavellian control, we overthrew their democrat leaders for our own puppets, they did not do that to us.
They have serious issues, it's true, but you are in no position to say a word about that until you can see the error of your own side. If there's one side you can say is utterly determined to use violence to dominate and destroy others, the evidence points in our direction more than theirs.
They can be 'dealt with', they can be reasoned with. Not all, but most, just like the US. Oh, but our people don't have guys running around committing acts of violence? Occupy us, give us one hour a day of electricity and 50% unemployment and a lack of clean water and see what happens.
I maintain there is no negotiating with terrorists. Period.
To be fair, one doesn't need to know a whole lot on this one. When someone wants you dead and works actively on a daily basis to that ends, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what needs to be done.
We "dominated" their countries? How? By allowing them to build up nuclear arsenals and playing appeaser?
You must have forgotten 9/11.
They can blame their dictators for those unduly conditions. That isn't our fault.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter