| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: What I've been trying to say, albeit no so well. |
 |
|
This is an interesting article from newsweek on why we really don't need to be in Iraq. What are your thought?
Small excerpt
Even if we were to vastly oversimplify the terms of the conflict, we'd have to conclude it's the 4 or 5 billion (give or take a few hundred million) of the international community versus 1 billion or so Muslims. And thanks to this process, we of the majority - the international community - are still winning.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082307T.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why be in Afghanistan?
Aren't the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban fighting for the same thing?
They can't overthrow the US government but they can try more 9-11 type attacks.
A main cause - perhaps the main cause of terror is that mideast regimes and elites not to teach hate and incite violence. If they stopped doing it then there would probably be a lot less less terrorists. So it makes sense to get mideast regimes and elites not to do it.
An effective way to fight AQ is to get mideast regimes to take those that support them and lop their heads off or bury them alive. It is not like mideast regimes don't that stuff to their disidents. They are good at it. Mideast regimes are police states they have nearly complete control of what goes on in their countires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And how do you suppose the fiasco in Iraq is pressuring governments to take care of their own back yard and stop preaching hate?
By showing the world America can't make things work in Iraq?
By creating an environment which helps train future terrorists?. No doubt about it, Iraq is the new training ground for Islamic militants.
By overstretching the military to such an extent that I doubt any other regime is seriously worried about an American invasion?
By creating a political situation in which it would be almost impossible to launch a new invasion should one become necessary?
I think there is a reality that no one here likes to readily admit. Everything that Bush has done in this "War on Terror" has actually emboldened Islamic terrorists and militants. This administation has been a disaster in the war on terror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"yawarakaijin"]And how do you suppose the fiasco in Iraq is pressuring governments to take care of their own back yard and stop preaching hate?
By showing the world America can't make things work in Iraq?
By creating an environment which helps train future terrorists?. No doubt about it, Iraq is the new training ground for Islamic militants.
By overstretching the military to such an extent that I doubt any other regime is seriously worried about an American invasion?
By creating a political situation in which it would be almost impossible to launch a new invasion should one become necessary?
I think there is a reality that no one here likes to readily admit. Everything that Bush has done in this "War on Terror" has actually emboldened Islamic terrorists and militants. This administation has been a disaster in the war on terror.[/quote]
I would say you are 90% correct.
At the same time The US took down one enemy Saddam. It scared Khaddafy at least for a short time.
The cold war took 46 years to win.
a war was being waged against the US . Something had to be done.
a lot more needs to be done. Each situation and country is different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogshed
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That was a crappy subject line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: Raw number comparison cannot demonstrate efficacy |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
Even if we were to vastly oversimplify the terms of the conflict, we'd have to conclude it's the 4 or 5 billion (give or take a few hundred million) of the international community versus 1 billion or so Muslims. And thanks to this process, we of the majority - the international community - are still winning.
|
That argument can be refuted, I think, by the character of the resistance. Now, I'm taking as an assumption that it is 4.5 billion versus 1 billion Muslims, although I would argue that its really only 4.5 billion versus 15% of all Muslims in the Middle East. 15% is the figure Daniel Pipes gives for the percentage of Muslims in the Middle East whom he regards as militant radicals in his movie Obsession.
Now, the resistance is existential. They are not motivated by money or greed, but by their very identity, against the West and for extremist Islam. You've heard this from their own mouths: 'Americans are afraid of death, but we love death, that is why we will win.' Its a compelling argument.
If you could put the issue into mere numbers, the Persians would have overrun the Greeks, Alexander could not have conquered as much as he did, Ee Sun Shin would not have sunk much of the Japanese Navy, the Mongols would not have overrun Asia, etc, etc.
Extremist Islam has the right tactics to win their war, when they employ them. Using modern technology, in a classical guerilla-style gambit of using your enemies' weapons against them, the potential for extremists to bring the Western world to its knees is within their grasp. All it would take is a few nuclear weapons, or the release of biological agents. This would not be easy for them, but it certainly is becoming less difficult as time goes on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
