Planet America

[flawlssdistortn]

Alright, if I may, here are the main questions raised in this discussion...

[*]Perspective of the war on terror, and Iraq

• What is it about? (culture, ideals, form of government, money, oil...)
  What is the cause of terrorism? (culture, ideals, poverty, religion, oppression...)
  What is the motivation behind American "imperialism"? (ideals, responsibility, money, oil...)
  Does this imperialism extend beyond the scope of the middle east?

[*]What should be done?

• Is America actually doing what you think should be done?
  Is it doing it effectively?

There, just to summarize a bit...

 

[cwjerome]

Yeah I think that's pretty accurate.

Does this imperialism extend beyond the scope of the middle east? Remember, I think American "imperialism" is mostly cultural -and peaceful- in nature. It's the US winning within the world's 'marketplace of ideas'. The so-called War on Terror is the desperate result of a primitive, violent culture waging a real war against America and the principles they despise... principles opposite of theirs, and a threat to their way of life. The "imperialism" is always here, everywhere. The War will go wherever terrorists and those that support them are.

Is America actually doing what you think should be done? For the most part, sure. In a perfect world, Western Civ -lead by America- would be recieved around the globe peacefully. Unfortunately, radical Islamic extremists don't see it that way. It's as simple as it is difficult: Annihilation of the enemy and their means, while helping to establish social systems that foster Western values instead of terrorists.

Is America doing it effectively? I have my ideas on what kind of hurts, and what is especially successful... but for the most part, sure.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: cwjerome
bthorny: The term neocon means nothing to me... I don't know what it means and I don't care.

Well, I'm going to tell you.

Neoconservative

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

What's so funny is that the uninformed kids on AT use it to insult all conservatives. They lump all non-liberals together, and throw at them this "neocon" term, as if it means "ultra" or "whacko" or "fanatical" conservative.

Y'know, we neocons wouldn't mind liberals and PC folks if they didn't take us down with them when they show the weak side to the enemy and invite attack. I'll bet the World Trade Center had as many neocons as liberals in it as it had liberals on 911. This world is just not civilized enough yet to be weak and pliant. It has been only a little over a hundred years since we were fighting indians in America. Our extremely rapid advance in matters of science and technology has built a veneer of civilization over the world that allows people to forget just how new and raw our civilization is. Liberals, come back in a hundred years and the world will be ready for you! Now it is just too dangerous to be weak.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: cwjerome


That's basically what this whole conflict is about. It's the spasms of a corrupt, dying culture that is on the verge of losing in the marketplace of ideas -Islamic extremism- and now they lash out and try to destroy the engine of their destruction. They hate our political system, our economic system, our religions and our culture... and most of all they hate our power. Another bump in the road to Planet America.

I think that their lashing out to destroy the engine of their destruction will:



Succeed under Kerry...

Fail under Bush...

Yeah, Kerry was a warlord in the 70's. I would follow him into battle if I could just keep him ahead of me!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: cwjerome
bthorny: The term neocon means nothing to me... I don't know what it means and I don't care.

Well, I'm going to tell you.

Neoconservative

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

What's so funny is that the uninformed kids on AT use it to insult all conservatives. They lump all non-liberals together, and throw at them this "neocon" term, as if it means "ultra" or "whacko" or "fanatical" conservative.

Everybody fears a fanatic. That keeps us safe.

 

[cwjerome]

One person earlier stated the US will collapse basically under it's own weight. But empires don't die from internal revolts. The British Empire reached its zenith well after America declared independence. It was finally brought down the way most are-- from other empires. Britian sacrificed hers to defeat much more malevolent empires in Germany and Japan. Rome fell from the hordes. The United States defeated the Soviet Empire to become the world's hegemonic giant. Now we face a new empire of sorts- an ideological threat from radical Islamic extremism.

Afghanistan and the Battle of Iraq is one part of this clash. I believe it is a critical part of defeating this anti-civilization. We have made much progress against the enemy financially. We have killed or captured over 3000 Al Qaeda in 102 countries. We are supporting efforts to gather intelligence and battle those who support international terrorism and pose their own threat from the Philippines to the Ivory Coast, from Yemen to Peru. We have forged an alliance with France of all countries to help in Africa, and today our special forces are working together in sub-Sahara. But part of this conflict involves more than that... it includes taking out those rogue regimes that support terrorism and can potentially arm them with unimaginable weapons, and instituting decent democratic governments because the best long term way to defeat the enemy is to create societies where terrorism is not an option. What we've done in Afghanistan and Iraq is a testament to our strength and will. By letting it fail, we will doom those people to continued oppression and damage our chances of destroying a truly evil empire.

 

[imported_Condor]

It is truly an evil empire and that evil empire loves for us to see it as fragmented. Something on the news tonight. Kerry apparantly wants to handle terrorists as criminals. This is where the fragmentation works for them. While the civilized world tries one cell, the others and apparently disassociated ones continue to attack. That is the real danger in Kerry becoming president. He will try to act as if these murderers are civilized. They don't bear the burden of civilization and to win this we must shed it as well. Kerry somply can't do that!

 

[Infohawk]

The only people who want America fragmented are the red state terrorists. They attack anti-war protestors; they imprison anyone who has different views; they blow up government buildings (OKC); they still elections; they break alliances with our allies. They tried to break up the Union in the 1860s, now they're trying again.

 

[cwjerome]

Um....
Yeah.

The radical Islamic extremists and their allies cannot defeat us... and I think they know that. Your guy's points are true in that they can make it so we defeat ourselves. The only wedge is ourself. Nothing the enemy can do could prevent us. It's our relativist, subjective, politically correct mentality that will doom our efforts to failure. By not believing in our principles and having a clear, strong moral certainty we will come up short. By not properly structuring the rebuilding of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, we will not finish the job. By not continuing the firm strategy of killing them wherever they hide, facing rogue governments and changing them if necessary, we will not finish the job.

I am certain the Islama-fascist movement will eventually be wiped from the earth, just like German imperialism and Soviet communism. The issue is will it take 20 years or 100 years? Will it cost 50,000 dead or 50 million? I believe that our being assertive now will make it shorter with less loss of life.

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Um....
Yeah.

The radical Islamic extremists and their allies cannot defeat us... and I think they know that. Your guy's points are true in that they can make it so we defeat ourselves. The only wedge is ourself. Nothing the enemy can do could prevent us. It's our relativist, subjective, politically correct mentality that will doom our efforts to failure. By not believing in our principles and having a clear, strong moral certainty we will come up short. By not properly structuring the rebuilding of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, we will not finish the job. By not continuing the firm strategy of killing them wherever they hide, facing rogue governments and changing them if necessary, we will not finish the job.

I am certain the Islama-fascist movement will eventually be wiped from the earth, just like German imperialism and Soviet communism. The issue is will it take 20 years or 100 years? Will it cost 50,000 dead or 50 million? I believe that our being assertive now will make it shorter with less loss of life.

There are nearly 1 billion (I believe, could be off) muslims in this world. IF they all fall under your definition of Islamic-Facism, is it legitimate to kill all of them?

 

[cwjerome]

It's a pretty sketchy question. First I don't think it possible, or even probable that 5% would fall under my definition. Second, I don't think it necessary to kill all of them to destroy the threat. Third, the best way is to catch it early like we're doing now and promoting Western changes in those cultures that need it most.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

The weak still need the strong, and the strong still need an orderly world. And more than ever, there's a need for the efficient and well-governed to export stability and liberty... and open up export and growth. The benign American empire today doesn't resemble the old style colonization of the past: it's a voluntary, cultural empire that brings great benefits to those who participate. Some are involved more than others, but the radical Islamic extremists actively hate the American empire, and wish to destroy it because it's a threat to their ultimate hopes- an Islamic Empire.
...
The winds of WC blow from America, and this makes us a target to those that oppose Western universals like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Cwjerome, you can get off your damn high horse, "professor." This quote is only a small portion of the neoconservative propoganda you've been spewing all discussion. Goebbels could not have done better. Where do you get the nerve, the arrogance? Every statement you make eloquently paints a picture of a strong, noble, country of freedom at war with a twisted, evil, culture, bent on the subjecting the world to islam and allah. You have it all worked out, don't you? Every detail, every facet of our global events. I don't think you wanted a discussion, only a chance for you to spread your conservative drivel. Oh, you sound well spoken, and you sound educated (ivy league i'll bet). That is exactly the problem. You live in this comfortable existence, watching tv on how dark and horrible the world is over there, and debating philosophy and politics with your buddies over a cappacino... And so you presume to have a clear, objective, view of the world, and to know what's best for people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't have an opinion, or don't have ideas. But you have not shown any proof of your perspective and have not really addressed any of my reservations. You just answer every post with more flowery and vivid descriptions of your view (which i gathered by the end of the first page). Your problem is that you are too sure of yourself, and will not acknowledge any one else's ideas. You know American values and ideals are better for everyone else. People like you who are quick to label your critics as "anti-military, anti-CIA, anti-intelligence"... basically "anti-America", you are promoting fascism, not democracy.

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What you want us to do is what we did pre-9/11. Tip toe around and play the PC sham, trying not to anger a violent, hateful culture. Appeasement.

Look, I'm not "sticking my head in the sand" or being "wishy-washy" or any other of that crap Bush is trying to pin on Kerry. I'm saying that people need to start realizing that to fight terrorism, we need to prevent it from happening not only by "killing terrorists" but by being more diplomatic. Yes i know that there are some extremists that hate us for whatever religious or ideological reasons they have. But there are many more that are easily drawn in to this because of our foreign policy mistakes. Our oil agenda, the killing of civilians in Iraq, the prison abuse... The list goes on.

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I could imagine a lesser president not making the hard but necessary choices Bush did after 9/11. I would have actually liked to have been more forceful, and I'm a little disappointed Bush has not lived up to his initial rhetoric after 9/11, but it's in the right direction.

Again the false connection between Iraq and 9/11... Fact: no WMDs, no substantial terrorist connections.
And it is known that Bush had the war all drawn up before 9/11. I don't want to get into what his true agenda was (i've stated oil, and maybe it was personal too), but we accomplished very little on the war in terror by invading. What we have done, is make our relations with the middle east even more tense.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

So true...

 

[cwjerome]

I advocated invasion of Iraq- and I was happy the president agreed with my position. But instead of me justifying it, let me address one of your main concerns: diplomacy.

Diplomacy is great and should be used whenever possible. We are using diplomacy with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which I think is smart. Despite France and Germany not having ground forces in Iraq, they are helping in the "War of Terror" in a myriad of ways, along with dozens and dozens of others, including more than 25 nations in the Iraq coalition. But, there are times when diplomacy is nonapplicable or useless, and a smart person can make those distinctions, because not doing so can cost time, money, and lives.

For too long we played a one-sided diplomatic game of self-immolation. Unless terrorism ceases to be, our freedom and lives is at the mercy of evil. This is why we cannot shirk the awesome responsibility that lies in our hands. Forget about what "has been". Forget about appeasement and avoidance. Those things are what's led us to this point... there comes times when we have to face the cold reality and deal with things in a more forcefull manner as best we can.

A wise man once said 'Even just leaning on a wall will eventually erode it away'. I think the wise man was wrong: you can lean against a wall, and it will never erode away unless you do something else, like hit it. And this is the crux of the problem: how and how much to hit. Keep in mind that not all "walls" are made in the same way: you may be able to convince the British Empire to leave you alone by fasting, but if you sit down and fast in front of a monkey wielding a machine gun, eventually you'll get hit, and neither your fasting gesture nor your death would have made an iota of a difference.

The ideas of those who scream diplomacy are the ideas that have undercut America, and the ideas that promise even more of the same terror and death. We practiced appeasement, which strengthened our enemies. We half-heartedly bombed individual terrorists here and there, but we negotiate with the nations and groups that perpetuate the attacks. We believed that pragmatism- the abandonment of a principled stand- is practical. We are taught that it's wrong to use force for honorable ends. Ideas of moral relativism and egalitarianism were pounded into our heads, causing us to identify our enemies simply as people who have different but equally valid values.

After 9/11 it was all too clear for me. I saw us at a crossroads, and we needed to decide whether we're going to fret over the trivial and pretend things are A-OK, while our enemies plot death under our very noses, OR, are we going to measure up. We can continue to let the intellectually obtuse lead us in inactivity and self-loathing, or are we going to properly engage tyranny, intolerance, and theocracy. I realized we can act like these people are just mis-guided felons who need "correction" and use the criminal justice system, or we can rediscover OUR sense of moral righteousness, and engage the enemy with overwhelming force without guilt or apology. No matter how many bombs we have, we cannot win this battle unless we have the same unbending moral certainty in the justice of our cause that the "terrorists" have. We must not present these people (and groups, and governments) with demands... we must present them with destruction. If we don't, this is another lesson that will be learned only after we have failed, and many more innocent people have died in vain.

If we follow the same sermons that have led to our current situation, then we will continue to sleep while fanatics gut America (and the West). We cannot listen to those who preach this diplomatic siren-song... the "economic and diplomatic pressures" that have failed so spectacularly so far will not help us now. Only when we break out of our paper-tiger past will we eradicate this scourge. I realized that our ass-kissing, moronic, cowardly diplomacy needs to quit letting lunatics around the world dictate how we live. It's as if America's a muscle-bound genius acting like a handicapped retard in an effort not to upset the crowd of dictators, morons, and fanatics. I'm sick of it. It's this weak diplomatic attitude that has fostered such abuse, and it's time to put our foot down. It's time to brush aside the smoke and mirrors and enage these people who want to destroy us.

Pre-9/11, we compromised our interests and values for illusory, short term benefits. We appeased and placated. We didn't want to be seen as intrusive and assertive. I worry that playing the same old diplomatic games -trying to take the easy way out- will backfire and it won't work like it hasn't worked for 30+ years. Diplomacy is fine, and I think we have plenty of it. But it sounds to me like just because some countries have their feathers ruffled we're supposed to play nice and go back to the old ways. That would be irresponsible.

 

[cwjerome]

~~~bump~~~

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Ok, I think there's a middle ground on this issue of diplomacy... Yeah, i kind of made the implication that your idea of foreign policy is at the one extreme - we're right and you're wrong, our ideals should be imposed on the rest of the world, we shouldn't worry about their feelings cause they're wrong anyway, America's a tyrant... Let me clarify that I don't think you stand exactly at that one extreme, i'm just saying you're fairly close and your language has the effect of making you come off like you are. And that's dangerous because while you may know where you stand, others (both foreigners and citizens) may not.

You (rightly so), assume I'm a liberal, but then you take it a step further and think that I am at the other extreme - we should play a game of "self immolation", "shirk our global responsibility" and be isolationist, "appease and placate" in order to avoid conflict and compromise our values, "tip toe around, playing the PC sham..."

I agree that diplomacy should be used whenever possible, and i will agree that at certain times, one must disregard it in order to achieve the greater goal. I understand it's impossible to make everyone "like" us, and that it is a given that we're gonna step on some toes every once in a while. I also believe that as a world power, America has a certain responsibility as a global influence, and that it would be impossible to be isolationist. I agree that we should be firm in our policies and agressive against terrorists.

However, I just think that we haven't been diplomatic as we could have been. We haven't placed enough emphasis on it... For example, the invasion of Iraq has caused a lot of destruction and many civillian casualties. Many arabs are now justifiably angry with the US. (And let's just assume that we invaded because of matters of national securiity). If you want to look at that objective, we secured no weapons of mass destruction, and did not capture or destroy any terrorist cells. All of our accomplishments - freeing the Iraqi people and setting up a democratic government, that was not really the "main objective" of the war, and it was not a main objective on the war against terror. Catching Osama Bin Laden, rooting out more terrorist cells, securing WMDs - those are priorities. So you cannot argue that we had to piss some people off in order to achieve our "higher" goals.

I think Afganistan was necessary, although there were civillian casualties as well, we dealt a huge blow to the terrorist network.

Saudi Arabia? We are not using diplomacy there as you say we are cwjerome. We can't put any pressure on the royal family to hand over, or kick out their terrorists because we originally started a relationship with them based on oil. Saudi Arabia has much stronger ties to terrorism than Iraq ever did, but the US has been unwilling to start trouble with a significant provider of oil. This right here is a blow to our credibility, a contradiction to our "unwavering resolve."

And you talk about 9/11 as a wake up call. Yes, it is a wakeup call, but the call is that we need to realize and understand this new threat. The call is not "let's kick some ass and stop being mr niceguy." I don't think you understand the threat of terrorism. You can't just go around shooting people and blowing sh*t up... The more you do that, the more anger builds and the terrorists will have more recruits. To fight an enemy that is hard to find, that strikes when and where you least expect it, you can't deal with it using direct methods. Invasion is a direct method. Bombing is a direct method. Intelligence and Special Ops is a more indirect method. And diplomacy is the one indirect strategy that you and many others are ignoring.

 

[cwjerome]

I'm not saying you, or liberals... I'm saying WE, our government for 30 years has dropped the ball with these people in this situation. Our diplomacy has failed, and much of the world seems all to happy for us to continue that failed road. And part of diplomacy is knowing that sometimes not everyone you'd like will play our way. Sometimes there will be differences, like with France and Germany. There's no point sacrificing our interests and goals just to please another country. I have developed a bias against France (with justification ), but certainly they are not looking out for what's best for America... they have been antagonistic and difficult for 40 years. The hell with them... they're a good trading partner, but they've never been much of an ally.

You are actually worried about America's reputation in the Middle East!? How very... European. The two great world wars occurred because of Europe's inept leadership and cultural vacuum. For once can they face reality and do something proactive? Listen, they destroyed themself, making the US the center of Western Civilization... so they need to quit being so impotent, stop the whining, and let the United States of America do the hard work that needs to be done... the tough job they are incapable of doing. This keeps up and pretty soon Europe's going to be as irrelevant as the UN (another topic).

Sorry about the tone, but I'm flat sick of Europe's sniveling popularity contest. We saved them, rebuilt them, and defended them... and all some of them can do is threaten us with how our image and reputation is suffering so badly simply because we are sick of the games, and sick of the terror. They're angry because they've never seen a country step up as a leader... they're used to fumbling around and paying for it dearly in the long run. Once again we are being scolded because of our "tone". Once again I will state my position that we're done playing patty-cake with enemies and allies. America will do what needs to be done, even if we have to drag whiners along kicking and screaming. What we do now, the actions we take today, will have collossal effects on where civilization is 50 years from now. We will spill our blood, use our money, resources, time, and effort to make this world a better place even while the morally blind people lecture us to "be nice".

The situation the US -and the world- finds itself in today is the result of multilateralism run amoke, and to make a long story short we are finally becoming the world leader we're supposed to be. Some people around the world may be irritated by this necessary paradigm shift. Too bad for them... Their attitude seems to be that the US should bow to petty jealousies and explain away our every action to any country with a gripe. I know they say those aren't their words, but I'm afraid that is the end result of their beliefs. Basically, they're agitated over our new-found assertiveness since 9/11, and they want us to go back to the old ways... appeasement, diplomatic paralysis, and pragmatic self-strangulation.

Our foreign policy was a parody of warnings followed by more warnings. We encouraged and emboldened enemies. We slept with evil for short-term gains that resulted (as they almost always do) in long term disasters. Toleration and compromise, evasion and accomodation thrived. We were losing to a motley collection of ungrateful "allies" and an international cabal of hateful killers. It was a range-of-the-moment pragmatic diplomacy that created the enemy that we are dealing with now. Today however, we have a sprinkling of something better. More resolve. Less hand-wringing over coalitions and international opinion, or "image". More self-confident, decisive action, employing the necessary tone and force required. We are finally trying to bury the old ideas that we can't be certain of anything, that there are no self-evident truths, nor any immutable facts and that no culture is better than another... that there was no right or wrong, no good or bad. There nearest thing to a "truth" was a "consesus", a constantly changing collective opinion about facts and morality. We are moving away from our moral self-doubt and squeamishness about the "arrogance" (i.e. self-assertion) of defending this country. We are starting to recognize that tyrants and murderers can't be cajoled into becoming benevolent leaders and citizens. We are starting to move away from non-judgemental humility and re-discover our moral and factual certainty.

Overall, I think the diplomacy argument is overblown, and also an attempt to "put the U.S. in its place" by some groups/countries who simply do not want to see (for a variety of reasons, most bad) an assertive America. The only problem is the world NEEDS an assertive America more than ever.

 

[cwjerome]

As far as Saudi Arabia goes, I personally would be more direct, but we need some allies in the area. They have corruption, and certainly the culture is not so good... repressive and terroristic breeding ground. But the leaders are rational enough to deal with.... they aren't madmen or religious freaks trying to get WMDs and bent on destruction. That is a situation where I think we can make diplomatic gains, especially over the longer haul. They are doing things internally, although admittedly weaker than I would like. But the last thing we need there is a rebellion, and making a decent situation much worse. I don't think it's a contradiction; I think each situation is unique and we don't need to be invading every country in the region. I can just imagine invasion of Saudi Arabia and occupation of those Islamic holy cities... the Muslim world would truly go apeshit.

There are many things to consider... oil may play a small role, but to think we just don't want to mess with them because of oil is simplistic. If we were so greedy and oil obssessed, we would have just attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq and got all that nice oil.

 

[GrGr]

I think wjerome's position can be summed up quite succinctly:

Our Values Kick the Shiit Out of Theirs :roll:

 

[cwjerome]

Yeah that pretty much somes it up. :roll:

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
As far as Saudi Arabia goes, I personally would be more direct, but we need some allies in the area. They have corruption, and certainly the culture is not so good... repressive and terroristic breeding ground. But the leaders are rational enough to deal with.... they aren't madmen or religious freaks trying to get WMDs and bent on destruction. That is a situation where I think we can make diplomatic gains, especially over the longer haul. They are doing things internally, although admittedly weaker than I would like. But the last thing we need there is a rebellion, and making a decent situation much worse. I don't think it's a contradiction; I think each situation is unique and we don't need to be invading every country in the region. I can just imagine invasion of Saudi Arabia and occupation of those Islamic holy cities... the Muslim world would truly go apeshit.

There are many things to consider... oil may play a small role, but to think we just don't want to mess with them because of oil is simplistic. If we were so greedy and oil obssessed, we would have just attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq and got all that nice oil.

Ok you and I both agree that 9/11 was a wakeup call and that Saudi Arabia is a repressive and terrorist breeding ground (after all, most of the highjackers were Saudis). Bin Laden was a Saudi. So were his family members that were allowed to get the hell out when all other US flights were grounded.

Now let me get this straight... You think it was right to let Saudi Arabia "deal" with their terrorist problem internally, which is "admittedly weaker than you would like." Meanwhile, you think it was a good idea to invade Iraq, which was only maybe thinking of getting WMDs, which might later get into the hands of terrorists. You don't see a contradiction there?!?!

You think each situation is unique? I'll tell you what's unique here - Bush was itching to invade Iraq since the moment he stepped into office, and we're certainly not gonna invade Saudi Arabia because we already have an oil agreement worked out with them.

One more thing - the Muslim world ALREADY IS GOING APESH*T.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

bump!!

 

[cwjerome]

We are talking the correct path with SA. They are not state sponsors of terrorism and the leadership is pragmatic. They have anti-terrorism efforts, and they have had successes. I don't think you realize what would happen if we invaded SA. Not only would the world be thrown into a bad recession, but you're talking about the US occupying the stomping grounds of Muhamad and the two most sacred cities in Islam. We're talking clusterf*ck X quagmire = virtual WWIII. I have heard of no serious arguments for attacking SA and for good reason. I could easily see other Arab or Muslim countries falling into rebellion and instability... the costs definately outweigh the benefits.

As far as Iraq goes... we were wrong about WMDs, but it was not a mistake to attack in my opinion. I don't want to veer into a 'defense of Iraq' argument, but I think Iraq presented itself as a situation were the costs DID NOT outweigh the benefits... and the benefits may just turn out spectacular.

The bottom line is, radical Islamic extremists are at war. We need to properly address that reality, and part of that includes taking it to them and trying to establish an environment in that region that doesn't breed such evil by re-structuring some societies and pressuring reforms over time in others.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

I think you missed my point. I didn't say we should invade Saudi Arabia. I'm saying that to invade Iraq before dealing with Saudi Arabia is like trying to mop up the floor before you stop the sink from overflowing. And you're gonna say that none of the Saudi oil money has sponsored terrorism? C'mon have a little imagination!! There was certainly enough of that when all this stuff about WMDs was going on.

Look, "evil" is not gonna stop breeding in Iraq just cause it's got a "democratic" government. The place is in turmoil. You cant even walk down the street without the chance of getting shot or blown up by either the resisting Iraqis or the US soldiers that can't even tell where or who they are. Give me one location in the country that is safe. If we can't even hold an election in our own country without some huge controversy over counted votes (florida), then how do you think Iraq is gonna do it.

 

[cwjerome]

Iraq has a long road ahead of it. I'm not looking at it being a 'little America' in one year... I see it being a Turkey in about 4-5 years.

I'm not denying Saudi influence on terrorism, but it deserves a different strategy. The last thing we need is the Royal Family to lose control... control that is somewhat tenuous already. I would be a little more forceful, but then again I don't know all the behind the scenes. The best thing that could happen is SA officially recognizing Israel and its right to exist, like Jordan and Egypt. That would be huge in so many ways, and also help in the reforms and cracksdowns that must be taking place internally there for years.

It's a prudent route, because frankly, Iran is looming as a more immediate threat.