MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem ISN'T primarily what we have done in the past. The problem is the mullahs themselves, and their warped beliefs and intentions, and their actions towards implementations of their visions of pan-Middle-Eastern theocracy (to be led by them, of course). The problem is that they hate infidels. The problem is that they are ideologically living in the 7th century--and that they are trying to forcibly impose the 7th century values on the 21st century.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. My bad. I thought in some of the other posts you had acknowledged that the bad we had done has contributed to the problem. I was wrong, it seems that in your view our foreign policy mis-steps have not contributed to the middle east problem and the turning of the middle east against the US.

You are wrong about that, and need to re-think it.

[ QUOTE ]
The mullahs also wish to destroy Israel, who has never laid a hand on them; and they intend to rule the entire Middle East with their form of fanatical theocracy if only they can somehow manage to accomplish it.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Two points here. The Mullahs hate Israel and want to destroy it. Agreed. What does that have to do with us? Israel wants to control the lands all the way to the Jordan River. What does that have to do with us?

The Mullahs and OBL want to rule the middle east and perhaps create a caliphate from Pakistan to all of Morrocco. Perhaps. But as off three years ago all the terrorists had was a bit of Afghanistan. They had legitimate grievances against us for supporting the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, for supporting the tyrannical rulers of the House of Saud and the Egyptian despots.

Our failure to deal with these foreign policy directly led to the widespread growth of anti-americanism in these countries and to the 9/11 attacks. These issues also gave OBL a platform and of course the 9/11 recruits.

Now, we have a large (the size differs according to who you talk to) segment of the Iraqi population with a grievance against us and thus the continuing insurgency. And dont think that this is only a Sunni issue. There is plenty of trouble in the Shia south as the British troops there have found out and Muqtada is still as anti-American as we come. So, our foreign policy mis-steps continue.

Now we have anti-American sentiments in the Pak Madrasas, the Afghan warlords and Talibans, and a segment of the Iraqi population and of course all of Arabia and Egypt.

Dropping a nuke on Qum or Tehran will only add that country;s populace (which is still not anti-American) to the list of populations that OBL can count on continue the Jihad and building the Caliphate.

We are helping create the Caliphate by a one-sided support in the middle east conflict and by invading foreign soils.

[MMMMMM]

I will try to clarify (and simplify) once again.

Western involvement has indeed contributed to some of the problems in the Middle East, but the much deeper problem is Middle Eastern 7th-century-type thinking and the host of resultant problems stemming from it.

We need to stop Iran from getting nukes, first and foremost. That doesn't mean we need to nuke Tehran, but it does mean doing whatever may become necessary.

Even if we did nothing at all in the Middle East, and removed all Westerners from the region, the fanatical mullahs would not slow their march towards spreading theocracy. And the jihadists would not relent in their efforts to re-establish a caliphate and rule the entire Middle East under sharia, and from thence to wage jihad on the bordering infidel populations.

The biggest problem is their thinking, not our actions (although again I'm not saying Western actions have not been contributing factors to some extent).

This is one reason (amongst many) why it is essential to establish democracy in Iraq and to have it catch on and succeed. With a more liberal, empowering political system, Middle Easterners can gain greater proserity and personal freedoms and may be more tempted to shun 7th-century totalitarian ideologies. While there is no guarantee the experiment in Iraq will succeed, democracy is what the Middle East desperately needs.

The jihadists and theocrats know how dangerous democracy is to their totalitarian religio-political ideals and systems. This is why they are fighting tooth and nail in Iraq, and why we must do everything in our power to stay the course until democracy succeeds in Iraq, and the Iraqi people become self-empowered enough to effectively deal with the jihadists and totalitarians (who wish to enslave everyone under 7th-century-style sharia and absolutist religious governance).

[ACPlayer]

So, according to you the only actions we can take that will be effective are hardline stick approach.

I suggest that you listen to the Iraqi and their feelings on the occupation.

MoD (brit) poll this month

[ QUOTE ]
Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;


[/ QUOTE ]

The last point is telling, is it not. They feel less secure after the occupation.

We are doing what we did in Iran. Creating an atmosphere where the country will (has) become radcially opposed to the Americans. Driving them ever deeper into a theocracy.

We created the Iranian theocracy and are on the verge of either creating one in iraq or having iraq explode into civil war.

The stick approach does not work. History's lesson.

I suggest establishing diplomatic and more importantly trade relations with Iran. That would be of much greated benefit in the long run. Move in poker is for amateurs.

[ACPlayer]

For even more on that impact of the Iraqi invasion consider this

[ QUOTE ]
But only in the past year has Basra established a reputation as one of Iraq's most radicalised cities, where the most extreme strictures of Islam are enforced by bearded men with automatic weapons.

Since Saddam's fall and Washington's decision to disband the Iraqi army, Basra has very largely become the preserve of militias pledging allegiance to intolerant ayatollahs.


[/ QUOTE ]

[MMMMMM]

78% of the Iraqi population turned out for the recent vote. That indicates that they want democracy.

Yes, there are security problems. Did you expect that there wouldn't be? But some things, like freedom, are even more important than immediate security--as Iraqis showed by turning out to vote (both times) despite the threats of terror attacks.

You really ought to consider giving the Iraqis a chance--at freedom. After all, it appears to be what they want too (else they would not have voted).

[ACPlayer]

At this point I am all for giving Iraqi's self determination.

When you are occupied by a foreign force, and when the political apparatus in place remains so primarily due to the foreign force, that is not freedom.

The Iraqi's voted in elections that Saddam held too.

The elections mean little until the foreign forces have left and a sustained political system is in place. Whether that political system is democracy or theocracy or fascist is their choice.

The poll, if valid, clearly says that Iraqi wants to be free of the occupation, so they can pursue their own fate at their own hands. Is that likely to happen anytime soon?

I can't tell if your post is sarcastic or just kooky talk.[ QUOTE ]
-Release those who are proven innocent. There have been prisoners there which is proven innocent but which have not been released since the US does not know where to send them. They did not dare to release them at Guantanamo since they were considered to have become a security risk due to the treatment they received. I think they deserve compensation and US citizenship if US cannot find any other place for them

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, none of the detainees at Gitmo are innocent. They may be of little intelligence value because they are low-level fighters, but they took up arms against American troops. If someone's got a link that says otherwise, hook it up. You think we should give these guys US citizenship? How would you feel about giving German soldiers Norwegian citizenship after WWII?

[ QUOTE ]
Stop torture. Wake up, don't become like this you are fighting. Don't flush 300 years of struggle to establish a free, democratic society into the toilet due to a external threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone can agree torture is unacceptable, but there is a huge difference between abuse and torture. Disrespecting the Koran by throwing it on the floor is abusive, but it's not torture. Our enemy beheads people, records the beheading, and puts it on the internet. What happened at Abu Ghraib and at Gitmo wasn't torture.

[ QUOTE ]
-Continue the investigations, but establish juridical processes around it which can stand daylight. Now everything is in a shady light and not many except the American right-wing trust the processes. More open processes could lead to more consciousness about the atrocities some of these groups have comitted/planned and could lead to condemnation from the majority of moslems. In addition, more openness could lead to more information being made available to the investigators.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what kind of court these people could be tried in.

[ QUOTE ]
If these steps were taken, it could be the beginning of making a real functioning anti-terrorism Interpol. Norwegian officers said in a documentary that the communication between different foreign security services operating in Iraq is so bad that they sent their own security officers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this idea but I see no way this could work. Every country looks out for its own intrests often to the detriment of others. I'm thinking of the Italian Red Cross giving aid and comfort to the enemy in Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
At this point I am all for giving Iraqi's self determination.

When you are occupied by a foreign force, and when the political apparatus in place remains so primarily due to the foreign force, that is not freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more free than now than it was under Saddam, and will continue to move towards greater freedom as Iraqis become more capable of handling their own security. To leave now would be negligent given the extent of their lack of preparedness and the extent of insurgent attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
The Iraqi's voted in elections that Saddam held too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on. It's not an election when there is only one candidate[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The elections mean little until the foreign forces have left and a sustained political system is in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that 78% of Iraqis voted is highly significant. Give things some time, jeez.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether that political system is democracy or theocracy or fascist is their choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, and not so simple. But we can save that discussion or debate for another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The poll, if valid, clearly says that Iraqi wants to be free of the occupation, so they can pursue their own fate at their own hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be reading too much into that part of the poll. I have read polls which interestingly show BOTH of the following: 1) that Iraqis don't like the American presence and wish it the occupation was already over, AND 2) that Iraqis don't want the Americans to leave them alone to face the insurgents yet.

[ QUOTE ]
Is that likely to happen anytime soon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on your definition of soon, I'd guess;-) When the Iraqis have a stable and functioning government and are capable of handling their own security affairs, America will probably leave.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It's more free than now than it was under Saddam

[/ QUOTE ]

According to this poll there are many Iraqi's who dont agree with your take. They are a bit closer to the action.

[ QUOTE ]
To leave now would be negligent given the extent of their lack of preparedness and the extent of insurgent attacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Iraqi's dont appear to agree with you. It is after all their life.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, come on. It's not an election when there is only one candidate


[/ QUOTE ]

It is also not an election when you dont know the candidates you are voting for (the case in the first election) or the details of the referendum (the case in the second election).

The voting is just the Mullahs telling the guys what to vote for (mostly). Substitute Saddam for Mullahs from before.

[ QUOTE ]
I have read polls which interestingly show BOTH of the following: 1) that Iraqis don't like the American presence and wish it the occupation was already over, AND 2) that Iraqis don't want the Americans to leave them alone to face the insurgents yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Links of possible. And opinions from WorldNet, etc dont count. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
When the Iraqis have a stable and functioning government and are capable of handling their own security affairs, America will probably leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I see. A clear statement of when they will actually be free.

You need to understand what Freedom means.

[MMMMMM]

I think you are reading too much into those poll questions and answers. But no point arguing about it I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to understand what Freedom means.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you--it definitely DOES NOT mean existing under the heel of a tyrannical regime which would torture and kill you for dissent, or on a whim.