Re: Where to?
 

Your position is almost, though not quite, as ludicrous as 6Ms. His is based on delusions about Islam.

Lets try this:

1. Hypothetically if there are Muslims who want to impose Sharia in the US, turn a blind eye to the terrorists, but themselves neither act on this belief nor directly support those == 6M would have them deported to someplace that he cannot identify.

An immigration freeze from Muslim countries. So a British Muslim is OK but not a Saudi Muslim? A Lebanese Christian is OK (so someone just has to become christian to immigrate.

You cannot police thought. Religion is thought.

2. I was hardly being the Drama Queen. If anything I was just taking 6M -- the king of drama -- position to a logical extension. YOu think a person with evil in his heart if asked would not pledge that he had not evil in heart. Really.

3. On living side by side. This is a natural consequence of economic globalization. We are their markets and they our. We need to do business with them. This is why I support globalization, even though, IMO, it will lead to a reduction of the relative standard of living of the average American worker.

4. Invade Iraq -- what a proven useless exercise in stupidity. We got NOTHING from this invasion. Not one thing. Most people realize that we are less safe because of this. Even politicians are beginning to see this. It make no difference to America if the new govt is a success or a failure. We cannot even define what is success there for this new government. Success for who? Us or the Iraqi or the Shia or the Iranian. Idiotic.

Re: Where to?
 

[ QUOTE ]

4. Invade Iraq -- what a proven useless exercise in stupidity. We got NOTHING from this invasion. Not one thing. Most people realize that we are less safe because of this. Even politicians are beginning to see this. It make no difference to America if the new govt is a success or a failure. We cannot even define what is success there for this new government. Success for who? Us or the Iraqi or the Shia or the Iranian. Idiotic.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know we haven't gained anything from the Iraq war? I think it is still too early to tell. But, Lebanon and Libya and the stronger influence on Syria and Iran seem to be pretty darn good benefits to the war.

How are we less safe? Don't by into that that propaganda no one can say whether we are safer or in more danger. I will reserve my judgement for later. We may never know the benefits that the war has produced.

How can you argue that a democratic society in Iraq is bad for the Iraqi society and the Iraqi people? How can people freed from a tyrannical regime be bad? If that is the case, then move somewhere less democratic.

Please...

-Gryph

Re: Where to?
 

OK. It is too early to tell, perhaps. But todate what have we gained?

I believe we have strengthened Iran's position. It is clear that the SCIRI and Iran are going to be cozying up even more than they already have. The Shia axis that is being formed is likely to make countries friendly to us (like Saudi, Jordan) nervous. Any serious autonomy for the Kurds or if they revolt will make Turkey nervous.

At best, today we can say that the Sunni revolt is contained within Iraq.

I suggest that those saying that we are safer are the ones offering the propoganda. These are all the same who wanted to go into Iraq and now are boxed into maintaining the fiction that this worth it. John Majors told BBC yesterday: "I think it is possibly true that it has made it more potent and more immediate, ". So the threat that has always been there since about the last decade or two has been sharpened not dulled by Iraq according to John Majors. Iraq has not reduced the threat -- becuase Iraq was (now unfortunately this is not so) completely ancilliary to the threat of Al Qaeda.

I am not arguing that a democratic society is bad for Iraq. I am suggesting that it makes no difference to us if the new govt is a success of failure. I am suggesting that there is no metric to define success or failure. I am, also concerned, though not yet convinced that the new Iraq will be more like Iran (that is run as an increasingly Islamic state). There are indications of this already in Southern Iraq with Muslim women and Christian losing out to the fundamentalists. Ultimately, I dont know what we, in USA, will get out of it.

Your invitation to move somewhere less democratic is just idiotic rhetoric. POintless, really.

Re: Where to?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is effective?

All somebody has to do is lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed it would effectively remove ALL the jihadists-- just the avowed ones, of whom they are plenty.


[ QUOTE ]
You have not answered where to ship them off to if they are not naturalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Ship naturalized, avowed jihadists--and their avowed supporters--back to their countries of origin.

[ QUOTE ]
The average muslim is not interested in the fiction of the world wide Koraninc rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Many terrorist leaders, however, ARE keenly interested in precisely that, and have so stated.

[ QUOTE ]
Even the Daniel Pipes article you highlighted shows this to be the case. Misuse by the militant,extremist loons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The militant extremist loons are the Islamist terrorist leaders. All you have to do is PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY SAY to know that this is the case.

Re: Where to?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK. It is too early to tell, perhaps. But todate what have we gained?


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my earlier post: Libya, Lebanon, beginnings of changes in Syria and Egypt. Even radical opponents (Germany, Le Monde, etc) have standed that there has been a domino effect that helped increase the boldness in these areas.

[ QUOTE ]


I believe we have strengthened Iran's position. It is clear that the SCIRI and Iran are going to be cozying up even more than they already have. The Shia axis that is being formed is likely to make countries friendly to us (like Saudi, Jordan) nervous. Any serious autonomy for the Kurds or if they revolt will make Turkey nervous.


[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly has Iran position been strengthened? And when are the Saudis and the Jordanians exactly super friendly to us? We tolerate each other for the moment until the time arises for change. A catlyst of this most certainly is a democratic ans free Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]

At best, today we can say that the Sunni revolt is contained within Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is not even a plus in your book?

[ QUOTE ]


I suggest that those saying that we are safer are the ones offering the propoganda. These are all the same who wanted to go into Iraq and now are boxed into maintaining the fiction that this worth it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is propoganda on both parts to say definiatively, but I think reason can take over and you have to say that the world is a better place with one less dictatorship. You have to start somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]

John Majors told BBC yesterday: "I think it is possibly true that it has made it more potent and more immediate, ". So the threat that has always been there since about the last decade or two has been sharpened not dulled by Iraq according to John Majors. Iraq has not reduced the threat -- becuase Iraq was (now unfortunately this is not so) completely ancilliary to the threat of Al Qaeda.


[/ QUOTE ]

So a country that has broken so many of the UN treaties and resolutions and who has shown the willingness to harm American interests. A country that has provide quarter for terrorist organisations, you don't think that this is in some way connected to the Global War on Terrorism?

If you are saying that we should have gone after Al-Qaeda before the Iraqi war, I am in agreement with you. I think we needed to clean them up first. If you are saying Bush's Iraq policy is flawed, I again will agree with you. It could have been better executed, planned, whatever. But hindsight is 20/20...

[ QUOTE ]

I am not arguing that a democratic society is bad for Iraq. I am suggesting that it makes no difference to us if the new govt is a success of failure. I am suggesting that there is no metric to define success or failure. I am, also concerned, though not yet convinced that the new Iraq will be more like Iran (that is run as an increasingly Islamic state). There are indications of this already in Southern Iraq with Muslim women and Christian losing out to the fundamentalists. Ultimately, I dont know what we, in USA, will get out of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad that you think democracy is a good thing in Iraq. Yes, there are going to be a few bumps in the road. That's nation building. Thinks are always darkest before the dawn. We as the US have a hugh vested interest in a free and democratic govenment in the middle east. It will provide the avenue for tolerance and human rights in ther region. It will only add to the education and advancement of the region.

[ QUOTE ]

Your invitation to move somewhere less democratic is just idiotic rhetoric. POintless, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC, I was using the euphamistic "you" not you personally. We have bantered back an forth a bit on these boards and I respect your opposing view to mine. You have well thought out responses and good insights and have made me think. I am sorry if I came across as arrogant or flippant in my response. Please accept my apology for doing that.

-Gryph

Re: Where to?
 

When I say "we," I not only include America but the "Western world" which most definitely includes Britain. Also, if you think America has or had no hand in Saudi affairs you are more clueless than a clue shop fresh out of clues.

You want examples of U.S./Western European foreign policy that initiated American/British resentment by other countries?

Israel
Afghanistan
Most of Africa
Saudi Arabia (I don't know where you get off thinking we aren't the stick behind the soft speaking)
Pakistan
India
Kuwait/Iraq

Do I even need to list countries or should I just go by continent, like South America, North America, ... or perhaps hemisphere.

Your retort is a joke, everyone knows the U.S./Britain has and has had its hands, guns, and strings in every developing country it can possibly exploit until they acquired a means of defense. (Political or nuclear)

Re: Where to?
 

[ QUOTE ]

How are you going to steer them into meeting this objective?
************************************************** ********
Invade Iraq, install a democracy, and hope the new government prospers. If it does prosper then it will be a beacon of light in the Arab world. If the new govt fails, well we're back to where we started from.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a third possibility you left out:

the new government in Iraq fails, but we are not "back to where we started from", we are worse off than where we started.

And a fourth possibility you also left out:

the Iraqi government succeeds/survives, but it does not become a "beacon of light" for the region, and no domino effect takes place.

But even if we do end up with your second possibility, "back where we started from", don't you think that would be an UNBELIEVABLY bad result, considering the financial and human costs?

Ultimately, you and everyone in favor of Bush's Iraq policy are banking on your first possibility: that the new Iraqi government will not only succeed, but also turn the governments in the area into peaceful democracies. There has never been any credible evidence that this is a LIKELY outcome. This domino effect theory was not even the number one reason for going into Iraq, it was a secondary reason which became the revisionist history's primary objective after the WMD proved to be a complete fallacy.

Like you, I truly do hope the domino effect happens, and I would be happy if Bush becomes one of the great Presidents in history because of it. It would more than make up for all the other flaws in his presidency. But unlike you, I have little faith that it will happen that way.

-ptmusic

Re: Where to?
 

[ QUOTE ]

You want examples of U.S./Western European foreign policy that initiated American/British resentment by other countries?


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me...So you would have a problem with any interaction with a foreign country. You're an isolationist?

[ QUOTE ]

Israel


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, bad policy to help a country where every country around them wants them to be blown out of existance. Now if you want to have a real conversation about Israel and how we should support them in creating a free state of Palestine. I'm all for it...Oh what we are encouraging a free Palestinian state and the Israelis are pulling out. Dang I suppose you think that was poor meddling too. President Carter is a real jerk for trying to bring peace over there...

[ QUOTE ]

Afghanistan


[/ QUOTE ]

What? When have we established a puppet government or killed their leaders. We only invaded their lands after they harbored people who ATTACKED the US. Don't be so naive...

[ QUOTE ]

Most of Africa


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about the British, you got me there. The did make a mess of things. But again, brings to mind the old adage, "You can blame your parents for how you are, but you can blame yourself if you stay that way."

[ QUOTE ]

Saudi Arabia (I don't know where you get off thinking we aren't the stick behind the soft speaking)


[/ QUOTE ]

What? You must be joking. We have a business relationship with the Saudis and they get money from us and we get oil from them. The problem we have is that we haven't influenced their government enough we just did business with the devil. How can they be a puppet government when the same family has been in power from the 1920s? When have we ever killed their leaders and invaded their lands without being invited? REad you history books again...

[ QUOTE ]

Pakistan
India


[/ QUOTE ]

The British again. See my note on Africa...

[ QUOTE ]

Kuwait/Iraq


[/ QUOTE ]

What? Are you joking again. Look at history buddy...

[ QUOTE ]

Do I even need to list countries or should I just go by continent, like South America, North America, ... or perhaps hemisphere.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have more traction in you argument here...Nicaragua comes to mind.

Point - xniNja

[ QUOTE ]

Your retort is a joke, everyone knows the U.S./Britain has and has had its hands, guns, and strings in every developing country it can possibly exploit until they acquired a means of defense. (Political or nuclear)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is a joke. You have yet to explain a case where we have "invaded their land, killed their leaders and set up puppet governments" in the Middle East. I'll give you that we have done that a few times in South America, but we have largely made that right. They also haven't attacked us.

-Gryph

Wakey wakey
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're pointlessly splitting hairs and you know it.
The basic point is essentially correct and you know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is more than nit picking - and you know it.

The West fed and bred the radical Muslims of Eurasia for more than a decade. This was the work of the original Alzheimmer prez, Ronald Reagan and his Warriors Against Godless Communism. The West (or shall we just say the United States) created the monster of radical Islam.

After World War II, the main, if not exclusive terrorist threat towards the West, came from the two political extremes, the Right and the Left -- in Europe, in Latin America, which is grudgingly part of our West, and to a lesser extent the US. There was no religious fundamentalist threat in the horizon! (The seemingly religious divide in Northern Ireland is more complex and arguably nationalistic.)

So, after ten years and more of Western love for the freedom fighters of Islam that dog turns around and bites you hard in the ass. And continues to bite yer ass for the last decade or so!

Well, sorry but it was your dog all along.

So if you wanna post nonsense and wolf-cries about the "islamic threat", knock yourself out but you are two decades late: the Left has been warning yer ass about the extreme danger of using those loonies against the native leftists and the supposed "Soviet threat".

Re: Where to?
 

OK. So your method is not effective in stopping a lying Jihadist. We agree.

What do we do with avowed Jihadists who are not naturalized but born here, like the young fellows in Britain who were, I understand, born in Britain. We cant jail them for thinking can we? should we?

Right, the terrorist leaders are the ones misusing the Koran. I have never denied this and I completely agree with that viewpoint. They are using the gullible to be cannon fodder for their views. We have proved woefully unsucceful in finding the one man that Bush vowed he would hunt down. One part of the effective strategy must be to reduce the supply of bullets for these guys. We have to figure out why these guys become soldiers in this war. Any ideas, other than the virgins put forth by the soundbite right wing media.

So, why do these guys become soldiers. I believe that the big reason is that the muslim feels, rightly or wrongly, that they are under attack from the west and Israel. They believe that the west is taking their land for Israel in Palestine, cutting them off from economic prosperity in Iran, Syria by sanctions, and sullying their homeland with troops razing cities like Fallujah, commiting atrocities in the prisons, etc.

Address those causes. Get the population engaged. Show that we can deal with Israel and Palestine as equals and unbiased. Dont just chat to Sharon, make him act.

Extremists Christian leaders dont find much traction in the US as long as our economy is strong. Now with the middle class getting squeezed they are beginning to find some traction. Human behaviour often comes back to economics.