Dare I say....

[Tulkas12]

We might be getting somewhere in the war against fundamentalist Islam?

In the last two weeks we have seen the death of Zarqawi. We have seen Al-Queda back off of a plan to attack NYC subways. It seems our allies in the mid-east have begun to infiltrate these orginizations, and maybe, just maybe, we are getting somewhere.

Now I know most of the people I know are against the Iraq war and our general meddling in the mid-east. I also know most of these people are short-sighted and hated Reagan for getting in the USSR's face as well. I haven't been afan of Bush for awhile, mainly due to domestic sending, but his foreign poilicy has always been fairly solid if not honest imo.

We should stay in Iraq for at least 50 years. We are getting somewhere and better yet we are gaining better intelligence as each year passes by.

Burn and flame me as you like, the only real disagreement is if one sees the exact oppostie version of history. By being there now, we are saving the world the wrath of what would happen if we just stood and waited for these people to get strong.

 

[ainwood]

Burn and flame me as you like.

Moderator Action: Not a good idea.

BTW - what do you actually want to discuss here? Its certainly not phrased as a discussion topic.

 

[tomsnowman123]

We might be getting somewhere in the war against fundamentalist Islam?

In the last two weeks we have seen the death of Zarqawi. We have seen Al-Queda back off of a plan to attack NYC subways. It seems our allies in the mid-east have begun to infiltrate these orginizations, and maybe, just maybe, we are getting somewhere.

Now I know most of the people I know are against the Iraq war and our general meddling in the mid-east. I also know most of these people are short-sighted and hated Reagan for getting in the USSR's face as well. I haven't been afan of Bush for awhile, mainly due to domestic sending, but his foreign poilicy has always been fairly solid if not honest imo.

We should stay in Iraq for at least 50 years. We are getting somewhere and better yet we are gaining better intelligence as each year passes by.

Burn and flame me as you like, the only real disagreement is if one sees the exact oppostie version of history. By being there now, we are saving the world the wrath of what would happen if we just stood and waited for these people to get strong.

Bleh. Iraq was a wrong war, impeach Bush, get out troops out. That's my position. War is not cool, and Iraq hadn't attacked us. Stop meddling in the Middle East, Isreal included, and maybe the terrorists won't hate us as much. I don't see why staying in Irq for 50 years is a good thing, that's a huge drain on money and resources.

 

[Sidhe]

Exactly Tomsnowman, directly attacking terrorism makes the hate you more, and increases terrorist attacks; did you notice several bombs went off after Zaqarwhis death that killed many iraqis? Right on? that really struck a blow, one man dies and his adherents blow up 60 or so Iraqis, good for us, winning the war on terror by throwing oil on the fire? More war anyone?

 

[Tycoon101]

?!? (Insert introbang ) What are you talking about? What does this war have to do with Islam. I believe that the war has gone well, but we are not fightig Islam.

 

[Tulkas12]

Exactly Tomsnowman, directly attacking terrorism makes the hate you more, and increases terrorist attacks; did you notice several bombs went off after Zaqarwhis death that killed many iraqis? Right on? that really struck a blow, one man dies and his adherents blow up 60 or so Iraqis, good for us, winning the war on terror by throwing oil on the fire? More war anyone?

I veiw this as a false argument. Sure it is true that action is always follwed by reaction. This is the way that these fundamentallists are. We are a calming influence in the area and we, by our very presence, discourage the reprisal attacks. If you think it is us that are causing this cycle, and of course regarding Zarqawi you would be correct, but in general you'd be wrong. This reprisal stuff is part of human nature, but it is very prevelant in Muslim societies. I point to the beginings of the civil war in palestinian controled Isreal. It isfalling into dismay, not because of Isreal, but because they can't get along with each other for any length of time.

The Ottoman's ran their empire with an iron fist as have any ruler in this area in general since the fall of the Ottoman empire. The only stop to this is reaising of a middle class and therefore general education. This process is a non-starter w/o our(the west in general) presence. Crying over spilt milk is not needed in this thread please.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm sorry but fighting terrorism has never worked and it never will, all it does is increase recruitment amongst those involved, politicises people and increases terrorists numbers when people are killed on their side and genrally makes a morass of the whole area, if the US wasn't their they'd most likely fall on each other, but if they weren't there in the first place a hell of alot of Iraqis would still be alive and terrorism in Iraq would be practically non existant. I just don't understand this hawkish insistence on war being a great way to destroy terroirsm if you actually produced an example that proved this I'd say fair enough but it's just your opinion. Here's one that proves that peace seems to solve the situation: Northern Ireland.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I'm sorry but fighting terrorism has never worked and it never will, all it does is increase recruitment amongst those involved, politicises people and increases terrorists numbers when people are killed on their side and genrally makes a morass of the whole area, if the US wasn't their they'd most likely fall on each other, but if they weren't there in the first place a hell of alot of Iraqis would still be alive and terrorism in Iraq would be practically non existant. I just don't understand this hawkish insistence on war being a great way to destroy terroirsm if you actually produced an example that proved this I'd say fair enough but it's just your opinion. Here's one that proves that peace seems to solve the situation: Northern Ireland.

Agreed totally. Why is war always seen as the best and brightest option for dealing with terrorists? It hasn't exactly worked (Madrid, London). Why bring about death and destruction that only brings about more death and destruction? Stay out of the Middle East, it's not our business anyways.

 

[Tycoon101]

Agreed totally. Why is war always seen as the best and brightest option for dealing with terrorists? It hasn't exactly worked (Madrid, London). Why bring about death and destruction that only brings about more death and destruction? Stay out of the Middle East, it's not our business anyways.

Then how do you intend to deal with them? I would like to know, because I'm completely at a loss on that subject except sending nukes at them.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Then how do you intend to deal with them? I would like to know, because I'm completely at a loss on that subject except sending nukes at them.

Sending nukes at them? WTH?!? That would completely enrage the world.

Stop meddling, stop interfearing (sp?), stop forcing our views on the middle east. Maybe then they won't be so mad at us. I find it hard to believe that they like us more since we went into Iraq.

And, as a side note (middle east policy), reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel, and stop the U.S.' unbalanced financial and military support of Israel while Israel occupies Palestinian lands; end all military aid to Isreal. It's more meddling, and more angering to terrorists.

 

[Tulkas12]

I'm sorry but fighting terrorism has never worked and it never will, all it does is increase recruitment amongst those involved, politicises people and increases terrorists numbers when people are killed on their side and genrally makes a morass of the whole area, if the US wasn't their they'd most likely fall on each other, but if they weren't there in the first place a hell of alot of Iraqis would still be alive and terrorism in Iraq would be practically non existant. I just don't understand this hawkish insistence on war being a great way to destroy terroirsm if you actually produced an example that proved this I'd say fair enough but it's just your opinion. Here's one that proves that peace seems to solve the situation: Northern Ireland.

Ireland was not handled peacefully.

Education is the answer in this case anyways. Our wars in the mid-east was about replacing regimes that were after us (again no crying over being lied to etc. . . its irrelevant to this thread). Our direct presence gets rid of alot of issues that we were having before by playing behind the scenes. We are there in people's faces taking on the situation head on, and its not terrorism.

Terrorism is a fighting tactic not a tangible thing. You can't beat terrorism, but you can handle fanatical Islam. It seems to me that maybe we are finally turning the area around. I realize that the suffering in the area is very high atm, but if we can stop the rollercoaster spread of fanatical Islam, trust me, its worth it.

Maybe you are not familiar with the thinking of these people? I think you know well what their intentions in the area are, as well as what they are as soon as they get the area "settled". We are there to stop them from ever gaining control in the area. Nothing is clear in the fog of war, i just feel taht atm momentum is going our way.

The "get the troops out" strategy would be nothing short of disasterous btw. Why don't you just hand over the mid-east to the worst orginizations seen since the nazis (also terrorists, if you look at their history).

 

[Tulkas12]

Sending nukes at them? WTH?!? That would completely enrage the world.

Stop meddling, stop interfearing (sp?), stop forcing our views on the middle east. Maybe then they won't be so mad at us. I find it hard to believe that they like us more since we went into Iraq.

And, as a side note (middle east policy), reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel, and stop the U.S.' unbalanced financial and military support of Israel while Israel occupies Palestinian lands; end all military aid to Isreal. It's more meddling, and more angering to terrorists.

This(diplomacy) was always the tactic before WWII. Maybe you didn't learn from history, but if we wait for these people, who since the 79 revolution in Iran have continually gained power in the area, you will suffer a pointless WWIII. I feel that WWIII with these people would quickly go nuclear.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Our direct presence gets rid of alot of issues that we were having before by playing behind the scenes. We are there in people's faces taking on the situation head on, and its not terrorism.

Terrorism is a fighting tactic not a tangible thing. You can't beat terrorism, but you can handle fanatical Islam. It seems to me that maybe we are finally turning the area around. I realize that the suffering in the area is very high atm, but if we can stop the rollercoaster spread of fanatical Islam, trust me, its worth it.

Maybe you are not familiar with the thinking of these people? I think you know well what their intentions in the area are, as well as what they are as soon as they get the area "settled". We are there to stop them from ever gaining control in the area. Nothing is clear in the fog of war, i just feel taht atm momentum is going our way.

The "get the troops out" strategy would be nothing short of disasterous btw. Why don't you just hand over the mid-east to the worst orginizations seen since the nazis (also terrorists, if you look at their history).

Yeah, our direct presence has brought a wave of terrorism and suicide bombers to Iraq. Great solution (a crap load of sarcasm please).

We can't beat terrorism, yet Bush has declared war on it? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the goal of war, to, well, win the war?!? Suicide bombers, insurgence, not really seeing a turn around. If we can't beat terrorism, why make such stupid wars over it?

The terrorists think the US is blasphemous, partly beacuse we try to exert our will over the Middle East. Stop now, they won't hate us as much.

I think it's safe to say that insurgence are exerting quite a bit of power over Iraq, and there attacks are main news stories every day. They are known everywhere, and are constantly reeking havoc on US and Iraqi troops. Seems that they have a bit of control. Leave now, before we lose more troops (and same with the Iraqi's).

 

[tomsnowman123]

This(diplomacy) was always the tactic before WWII. Maybe you didn't learn from history, but if we wait for these people, who since the 79 revolution in Iran have continually gained power in the area, you will suffer a pointless WWIII. I feel that WWIII with these people would quickly go nuclear.

Yeah, let's nuke Iran. See how the rest of the Middle East, and the EU respond to that one. Or lets continue to attack them, and only increase their numbers by motivating them to bring in new recruits. Doesn't really seem to be working right now.

 

[The Omega]

We should stay in Iraq for at least 50 years.

That's alot of years.... There's no way we'd stay there that long, even if everyone in America was completely behind the war....

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The terrorists think we are blasphemous because of our comparatively liberal culture to their's.
and the aim, as Bush has stated before, is not to win the War on Terror: that can't happen. The aim is to destroy terrorism at the roots, and as much as possible so that they are no longer a threat to ANYBODY. This means people who finance, harbor, and defend the terrorists are part of the problem, that was the whole aim of the Iraq war in the first place, not oil, not a Middle Eastern Empire, they were hunting down the roots of terror, just as in Afganistan.
True that Iraq has drawn fighters from all over the world, but better they fight them there than here.

 

[Tulkas12]

That's alot of years.... There's no way we'd stay there that long, even if everyone in America was completely behind the war....

We are still in Germany and Japan.

To Tom,

My veiw isn't the same as the administration's talking points, maybe there was some confusion there. In the short term, yes violence is way up. In the long term the majorities in these nations will prevail with our presence. Despite what is perceived the mid-east is not the US hating machine its made out to be. The Sunni minority in Iraq has taken it to what it is now, Iraqis aren't fond of us because we brought to them something that wouldn't have happened until Saddam died. In the long term our enemies were in great numbers well before 9/11 in the area and w/o us directly there, they were only gaining more members. This all goes back to cold war politics in the area and the revolution in Iran. We had no choice but to step in and start to control (and fight back). We must make them realize they and their ideals are not acceptable in the nuclear age.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

With any luck, a new Iraq and Afganistan will follow the same path a Japan, and be a great power, even if an economic one, in the future. and one that is stable as well.

He's right about the Sunnis. They are the ones who are upset about us being there, because they were the ones who were in power when Saddam ruled Iraq. Now that he's gone, they're on equal footing with the Shi'ites whom they have opressed for so long. They hope to scare us out, and when we leave, they'll take over again. This has to happen for them before a stable and capable Iraqi government is in place (hence the insurgency), or else they face the wrath of a revenge-driven Shi'ite majority.

 

[Tulkas12]

With any luck, a new Iraq and Afganistan will follow the same path a Japan, and be a great power, even if an economic one, in the future. and one that is stable as well.

He's right about the Sunnis. They are the ones who are upset about us being there, because they were the ones who were in power when Saddam ruled Iraq. Now that he's gone, they're on equal footing with the Shi'ites whom they have opressed for so long. They hope to scare us out, and when we leave, they'll take over again. This has to happen for them before a stable and capable Iraqi government is in place (hence the insurgency), or else they face the wrath of a revenge-driven Shi'ite majority.

Which is counter-intuitive on their part, because as we stop them from overthrowing the government, we also would stop any reprisal tactice from the Shi'ites.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I just think it's morally wrong to go into a country that hadn't attacked us, and bring about war, death, and destruction. They have a right to be left alone as a country, as do we. We can't just march our way into other countries.