Welcome to PatsFans.com

Do the terrorists love the Republican Party?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Nov 26, 2007.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    If we had a Democratic president, I have no doubt the righties would be blaming the drop in attacks on the idea that the terrorists want the Democrats to win.

    I think it's quite possible that the terrorists want the Republicans to win, since the last 8 years have been terrific for them. Not only was the secular Saddam taken out, the radicals in Iran were able to exploit American aggression in ME to elect one of their own. Furthermore, we are losing ground in Afghanistan and terrorists are taking steps in Pakistan. They even scored major victories against our ally Israel in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

    The Republican approach to wiping out terrorism has instead made them stronger and that's a fact. Terrorists love Republicans. Isn't it obvious?

    On the other hand, if we had a Democratic president, and the righties claimed the drop in attacks was a result of the terrorists wanting the Democrats to win, I would point out nevertheless that's a good thing. Whatever the reason the terrorists are laying low in Iraq is good, even if it's because they want the Republicans to win.
  2. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .


    Joseph Goebbels would have loved this kind of talk.


    //
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Yes you will have a drop in attacks in Iraq if there is a Democrat President, instead of attacking Baghdad they will be attacking Baltimore.
    :bricks:
  4. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .... and it will be "Bush's fault".


    //
  5. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Well, if you define hiding in a cave instead of running a country, or getting killed as soon as they show their face instead of travelling with impunity as being "terrific for them" then I agree wholeheartedly!

    Maybe there is some merit to the idea that a policy of preemption and agressively pursuing terrorists increases anti-US sentiment, but we know from such tragedies as 9/11 and the USS Cole bombing that a foreign policy of burying our heads in the sand and hoping for the best does not deter terrorist groups from attacking (and both Clinton AND Bush deserve blame for those policy decisions by the way). As much as you might like to think we'll be more well-liked if only we'd leave everyone alone you are mistaken. The American way of life is an insult to these fanatics no matter what action we take, and they will not decide to leave us alone if we'd just pack up and go home. They need to be weeded out using every bit of technology, human intelligence, and military force we have and be eradicated. I would have to guess that the US having that as a stated goal is not what terrorist groups are looking for, though I'm also definitely NOT of the mind that Al Qaeda is out there rooting for Obama in 2008.
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    I merely think we need a two pronged strategy. Aggressive diplomacy backed by both economic and military power. Bush did not use aggressive diplomacy and has squandered our economic and military power.

    Considering the odds, I think Al Qaeda must feel sort of like the Philly Eagles should feel this morning. They took on giants and made a game of it. I'm sure Al Qaeda feared our military might when it was a threat rather than show of force. Our show of force hasn't gotten us anything yet.
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I doubt they distinguish between Dem and Rep. We're all equal infidels or whatever epitaph they use. Who here could distinguish between a Sunni and Shia on September 10, 2001?
  8. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If the last 8 years have been so great for the terrorists, then why have they not successfully carried out an attack on American soil since 9/11...? What, do you think they're just not trying to...?

    What Patters wants us to believe:

    1) The terrorists were incredibly weak and feeble in 2001 when they carried out the most successful terrorist attack of all time, and

    2) The terrorists are much more strong now when they haven't done squat on American soil in the past 6 years.

    Gotta say I don't see the logic in that.... :confused:
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    (1) We've done in many respects a good job tightening our internal security
    (2) The US mainland is not their prime objective. They are focused on the ME.
    (3) Why come here to kill Americans, when you can do it over there and, not only that, it contributes to your ME objectives?

    They were weak and feeble but hit it big. (On any given day ....) The fact that they couldn't follow up with anything even in the immediate aftermath showed how weak they were. But, weak doesn't mean powerless, and even a single crazy person can do a lot of harm with hard work, imagination, and commitment.

    I don't think they'll use many resources here as long as they can fight us in the backyard of their Muslim enemies, whether that enemy was Saddam or is King Abdullah.
  10. PATRIOTS-80

    PATRIOTS-80 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,786
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    ROFL. Deep down inside you enjoy debating with him, don't you Patters. You just had to respond. :D
  11. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Certainly you agree Bush would deserve some credit for that, wouldn't you..?
    Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding ... !!! Praise the Lord Jesus Christ Almighty, thank you thank you thank you...!!

    You've just summarized the #1 reason I support the war in Iraq..!! Halleluia, Halleluia, Halleluia..!!

    By fighting them over there, they aren't coming to fight us over here!!!!!

    We've shifted the front lines of the War on Terrorism to Iraq instead of New York City and Wash. DC. Terrorists are attacking our fully armed and trained professional soldiers instead of innocent and helpless civilians going about their daily routines. And they're finding our military is certainly a wee bit more qualified and capable of resistance, aren't they..?

    It took them about 4 years to kill the amount of Americans in Iraq as they killed here in 1 single day. And they suffered far greater casualties over there as compared to over here. It is no longer 3,000 dead Americans for 19 dead terrorists.
    Amen, brother, and I hope you are absolutely right in that statement.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2007
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    TV Beheadings
    Gassing women and children
    New Best Seller in the middle east "How To Beat Your Wife"
    If a women gets Raped, they "Whip The Women"
    Prostitutes get "Stoned To Death In Public"
    Thieves have hands amputated
    Women not allowed to drive or ride in the front seat of the family car.
    Women have to cover their faces (Hillary should be made to do this)
    Why do we never see pictures of Dogs or Cats in the middle east (do they eat them)
    Why is the subject of Dogs or Cats never mentioned, do they hate them?
    Have The Dixie Chickens ever held a concert in Iran.
    Has Madonna ever held a "Crotch Rubbing Concert" in Iran.

    If Bush has kept the Head Hunter Bombers out of America will we ever know about it?

    THEY'RE NOT ALL BAD
    :bricks:
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Of course, no person is a complete failure.

    They've killed 4,000 Americans in Iraq and 10s of 1000s of Iraqi civilians, and they've turned us into a pariah state and used that as a means of recruiting and increasing their ranks. (In fact, some say they are gaining on us in Afghanistan.) I don't know why that makes you happy. The idea is to save American lives, and it's no more possible to defeat terrorists through war than it is to defeat murderers. Furthermore, as a result of taking out Saddam and destroying Iraq, we also destroyed Iran's biggest enemy, allowing Iran to devote its resources to developing nukes. Your view is shortsighted, and I think you should place more value on our troops. Just because someone signs up and is prepared to die doesn't reduce the meaning of their death.
  14. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It doesn't make me happy, but here's the flaw in your reasoning: If we hadn't have gone over there, do you think that after September 11 then they would have just left us alone..? Like, September 11 was it and once they finished that, they would have stopped attacks on American civilians..?

    If we hadn't have done what we did, we would probably be suffering a September 11th style attack on an annual basis. I don't know why this makes you happy and why you want to help terrorists slaughter innocent American civilians here at home. To each his own, I guess...
  15. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    They were routed in Afghanistan, and are being routed in Iraq, they're not making a game of it at all. Our military, rather than being just a show of force like you suggest, is a pretty clear real threat to the fanatics that are dying in large numbers every time they engage US forces in battle.

    We currently use the 2-pronged strategy you suggest, what most Democrats are suggesting now is a 1-pronged approach: Cut and run, meaning we talk a good game about fighting terrorism on a global scale, but when things get tough we pack up and leave them free to do what they want. Back to the original point of the thread, do you honestly think a terrorist would prefer someone elected in 2008 that says we're staying in Iraq until the country is settled and extremist groups can't seize hold, or someone that says we're leaving ASAP, consequences be damned?

    I can understand disagreeing with going into Iraq in the first place, but the fact is we're there now, and if we leave now won't it make the situation much, much worse than it already is?
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Actually, there have been reports that they and their allies are making great progress in Afghanistan and control up to half the country.

    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Taliban_Afghanistan/2007/11/26/52280.html

    They are also committing more acts of violence in Pakistan, and some believe they are working with Iran somewhat. Yes, there appears to be some progress in Iraq (but only in terms of violence), but it's probably too early to tell. At any rate, if they wanted Saddam out, they succeeded. If they wanted Iraq splintered and severely depressed to create a climate for extremism, they have not yet failed. The current state of Iraq surely supports severeral of Al Qaeda's objectives. One of their stated objectives was to make the US spend so much money, the US could not sustain the war a optimal levels.

    We are not using diplomacy, except to a limited degree. As far as cutting and running, a nation has to act in its own interests. If you want to insult Reagan by saying he cut and run from Lebanon that's your right. But, I assume you are merely playing politics with that tired old phrase so will only apply it to the Democrats. We are not going to win the war on terrorism by seeding the ground with tragedies that will haunt families and communities for decades to come. Someone in Iraq who lost a child due to this war is just as likely to forgive the US as someone who lost a child in 9/11 will forgive Al Qaeda.

    I believe they don't care, but I honestly believe that the war on Iraq has turned a relatively rag tag group into a legitimate international organization. I don't think Al Qaeda was terribly strong prior to our invasion, but now, for anyone who hates the Unites States, Al Qaeda must seem attractive. I think on 9/11 they got all the breaks, but the fact that they couldn't follow it up, even before we had more security in place tells me they weren't all that strong.

    We're the raison d'etre that the extremists use to justify their misdeeds. We are the cause celebre that they use to recruit others into their ranks. When we leave (which should be done in an intelligent way), real progress towards peace will be made, though there will certainly won't be an immediate end to violence.
  17. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I do believe Reagan cut and run from Lebanon, and I do think it was the wrong move. I'm not using the phrase cut and run lightly, that is really their game plan right now. Pull US troops out of Iraq and create a power vacuum. If we do that, and the next major attack on US soil comes from planning and funding from a terrorist regime that rises in Iraq, it would be unforgiveable. Just as if Iran is allowed to make a nuclear weapon and decides to use it it would be unforgiveabe that we stood by and did nothing because the UN didn't feel like doing anything about it (their solution to every world problem by the way).

    You're right the situation in Afghanistan right now is not good, I hope to see NATO up its troop levels and continue their recent offenses against Taliban and other extremist elements there.

    I disagree with your assessment that Al Qaeda has been empowered by US policy since Sept 11. At that time they were a major international terrorist group, not a ragtag bunch as you say. Their numbers are still supposedly not back to the levels they were at before 9/11, they have no command structure to speak of, and their funding has been drastically cut. Granted, there is still a lot of work to do, and they are attempting to regroup and strengthen. To me, all the more reason to continue having a strong presence in the ME, and promote a policy of preemption.

    To diplomacy, I can't see examples where we could find a diplomatic solution (although it is the end of the day, so I might just be a little slow right now). We can't negotiate with terrorist groups, there's nothing to compromise on, unless we go ahead and change the US over to an oppressive theocracy! We ARE trying diplomacy with Iran and Pakistan, and the results have not been great. What else should we be doing diplomatically?

    And yes, anti-American feelings are a good recruiting point for AQ, but we didn't do a damn thing to those Saudis that flew planes into the WTC on 9/11 and they still wanted us dead.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2007
  18. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to type all that.
  19. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    And after all the trillions of dollars we have sent to Saudi to buy their oil....



    //
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    You may believe it was the wrong move, but cut and run implies cowardice, while I presume you believe that Reagan made a strategic decision. Am I wrong? Do you think those who favor leaving Iraq are afraid, or do you think there is a legitimate argument for leaving Iraq, whether you agree with it or not?

    The main reason to pull out of Iraq is that our presence is an organizing tool for our enemies. If we pull out, it doesn't mean we have no involvement, it means that we work behind the scenes and aid our allies in economic ways as well as military ways. We will continue to have a responsibility to Iraq, since we're the ones who created the mess. But, the best way for that country to heal is for the people of that country to come together, and I don't think that will happen as long as the US is there.

    Our efforts to stop terrorism are failing. Since Bush's foreign policy, both N. Korea and Iran have made significant progress with nukes; Osama has not been caught; we have not won in Afghanistan; there are more attacks in Pakistan; and Iraq is hardly a victory. Our current strategy is making the world a more dangerous place and making our enemies stronger. We need to fight terrorism and fight it aggressively, but as I've said all along, war is no more likely to wipe out terrorists as it would wipe out murderers or rapists. War in fact fuels terrorism by giving them a cause to rally around.

    It was Reagan who started the mess in Afghanistan, yet too many righties continue to advocate the same approach. At this point, I don't know what the answer is in Afghanistan.

    Ragtag is certainly an understatement, but I don't think Al Qaeda was the threat then that it was today. I think they hit it big on 9/11, and the fact that they followed up with nothing anywhere shows that they lacked depth and numbers. I think they are stronger today then they were in 2001, but maybe weaker than they were a year or two ago. At any rate, I think anti-Americanism is general is a more powerful force today in many parts of the world and that will feed violence down the road unless the United States develops a more sophisticated foreign strategy, one that relies on carrots but keeps the stick in view.

    We can use diplomacy to splinter our enemies and build formidable coalitions. We can use it to help impoverished areas improve economically so that people are less desperate. We should be working very hard through the UN and our allies to build strong coalitions and better strategy ways of combatting terrorism. I think the key to defeating terrorism is international police work, education, pressing bad countries (like Saudi Arabia) to reform, etc.

    There will always be madmen and criminals, no matter how hard we try, but the goal should be to isolate them and not turn them into heroes against an overarching, dishonest big bully who kills willy nilly. Let's remember that most of the media in the ME does not present a western perspective, so people there do not see Al Qaeda and the US in the same black and white terms that we are convinced of.
  21. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    And that is PRECISELY what the U.S. under Bush has been doing all along (once they got the hang of how to deal with the cowardly pos terrorist insurgents). The *people* of Iraq -- not the gov or the U.S. agents -- the people of Iraq are turning away from supporting and/or hiding the criminal element. It's not easy to do, since these criminal thug insurgents will not hesitate to kill anyone who turns them in. But more and more, the people *know* who their real friends are, and it surely isn't the insurgents, it's the U.S.


    //
  22. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ah Patters, you assume the worst of me! I didn't mean to imply cowardice when I used the term cut and run, but maybe something like immediate withdrawal would be more appropriate. It would be a strategic decision in both cases, but I think the wrong one, and in the case of Iraq the consequences could be dire if we get it wrong. I definitely see that there is a legit argument for pulling out now, namely that resolving the situation is not worth another American life. I disagree with that view, but sure, I understand and respect that point of view.

    I wish Iraq was at the point where this would work, but unfortunately the situation there is still to volatile for troops to leave. Sectarian violence and re-emergence of AQ in Iraq would occur pretty quickly after we leave, back to the way it was pre-surge, which was a mess.

    A lot of work still to be done, but there have been a number of positives too, I definitely wouldn't say we are failing. What about: Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, destroying the effectiveness of Al Qaeda's command structure, kills/captures of many AQ terrorists, destruction of AQ training camps in Afghanistan, stopping funding of terrorist organizations through freezing assets, removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, no major terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, Libya giving up their weapons program and coming into compliance after seeing the way the wind was blowing, etc.

    Well, you could argue that it was soviet agression that originally started the trouble, but yes, I can understand why you would say that, since our support of basically terrorists warring with the USSR led to the current situation. I would think continued strikes against the re-organizing Taliban/terrorist elements there. At least in Afghanistan we are working with a multinational force, and have more support from the global community in our efforts (well, actually the UN has again been totally ineffective, but at least they say they are supportive).


    It sounds good, but I don't see examples of how we can do this where we aren't already trying. Do you have something specific in mind? We are right now doing all we can diplomatically to resolve the problem with Iran, and getting nowhere. Work with the UN? We are, but there are no results.

    Exacly, the media in the ME will present the US as the western devil no matter what we do. That's really my point, that it would be great if we could leave Iraq, make nice, and build pro-US sentiment in the region, but it isn't the reality of the situation. They hate us, and will continue to hate us no matter what we do. Efforts to appease them are only seen as weakness by an enemy, not the efforts of a friend.
  23. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    The diplomacy crowd just doesn't get it. You can't rationalize with madmen. How do you get countries who stone rape victims to death, to understand, and apply our perspective to problems inside their region? The diplomacy crowd are a bunch of Candylander's who just don't live in the Real World. The way I see it, you have two directions you can go in. One, isolate yourself and not get involved with other countries, or get involved at the absolute bare minimum, which would mean trade for what you need, while ignoring any human rights violations, or egregious acts committed with said nation. The second direction is to concern ourselves, and thus meddle, while suffering the subsequent repurcussions. There is no middle ground here.
  24. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    I think by announcing a pullout date, it would force all sides in Iraq to get down to business. Al Qaeda would remain a force to contend with, but the other groups do have an interest in building a workable nation. There would probably be some initial violence, but I don't think there would be the type of enthusiasm that fighting the infidels creates. I don't see peace coming as long as we are there.

    Libya is the one positive outcome of the WOT. But, the Taliban are roughly as strong as they were and also more entrenched in their political positions. We have killed many terrorists, but I think we have created many more. Removing Saddam was a bad idea. He was in his 60s, he had no WMDs, containment was working and could have been made to work better, and until we removed him we had lost no lives in Iraq. The terrorists have reorganized their funding by shifting money outside of our control. Iran did that a few years ago. Obviously, not everything Bush has done has failed. Again, Libya's change is good news, many of our efforts in protecting the homeland are also good. Although there have been no attacks since 9/11, it's not like attacks on US soil were common, and I don't believe our foreign policy has served to protect us, though aspects of our domestic policy have done so (a little overzealously IMHO).

    I felt at the time that the Soviets were far better than the Taliban, and we should not not gotten involved.

    Had we concentrated all our efforts in targeting Al Qaeda, we would be in a far stronger situation. Now, the radical religious elements in Afghanistan have pretty much locked themselves into an anti-American position. I think we waited too long to deal with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the situation is now terribly complex.

    I think aggressive diplomacy gives us access to intelligence, allows us to develop human relationships with influential individuals, and enables us to shape perceptions. For instance, if we had tried hard, perhaps we could have won support from a greater number of individual religious leaders and even built them up into being a presence in the ME. I think economic aid, carefully targeted, could have provided us with additional allies. By brining people together and building coalitions, we could have leveraged our strengths through intermediaries, such as Norway, the UN, Jordan, Egypt, and others. We very much failed to leverage our strength in that way.

    There are a great many Arabs who want to like us. The average person does not hate the United States, but in the face of horrific news, many of them turn against us. Look how many Americans hate Arabs and Muslims because of 9/11. I think you have the same type of phenomenon in the ME, and the only way to change that is to engage in constructive diplomacy and economic aid. Police and intelligence would also certainly be necessary, but in the end it's human relations, not bombs, that will decide the course of events.
  25. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Won't a timetable just let terrorists know exaclty when it will be safe to come back out of hiding? Why not bide your time and wait until we're gone?

    Interesting you were on the side of leave the Soviets to take Afghanistan without supporting the rebels. I was too young then, I never really thought there was much talk of that as an option back then. Learn something new every day.

    I think we dealt pretty well initally with Afghanistan, but now terrorists are re-organizing there and it will be important to stop their progress. I don't think its a case of not enough resources available at this point, since NATO and I think UN forces are involved, not just the US.

    I'm still not seeing your point on diplomacy. We do currently work agressively behind the scenes to drum up support and effect positive change, its just that those efforts have by and large not borne fruit.

    Really our back and forth here boils down to one major argument, the use of force to combat terrorism creating more problems than it solves. I see your side, that we drum up anti-American sentiment when we use force, I just think that since we already know that not using force leads to disasters like 9/11 we need to make the judgement that if we don't actively fight them on their turf, they'll be making plans to come here and fight on ours. Its a case, to me, of the old cliche those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
  26. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    I think a timetable is a way of bringing it to them, and they would risk a terrific backlash if they overreacted. If they are ostensibly fighting for the Muslim people, then they will have a hard time justifying attacks against civilians after the US leaves. While some of them are classic psychopaths, others are more intent on forming a religious state and might engage in negotiations of some sort.

    I think religious radicals are nuts and wouldn't mind seeing them brought under control. I remember reading about how the Taliban took a Soviet POW, skinned him and poured salt on him, killing him in that horrific fashion. The Soviets, as bad as they were, were always better than the Taliban, and the Taliban helped give rise to the radicalism that empowers Al Qaeda.

    We did a good job initially, and if we hadn't gone into Iraq we might have been able to actually achieve victory in Afghanistan. Now, I think it's too late. I think the enemy has grown in sophistication and is blending into the civilian population with great success. But, there are a lot of technologically advanced countries that want to grind us down, and it's quite possible that our military industrial complex (as Eisenhower called it) wants to maintain a state of permanent war because it's so profitable.

    We've made so many enemies. We don't work behind the scenes. Only now, more than 6 years into his term, is Bush actually pursuing peace in Israel. He is much too late. I can't think of one major diplomatic achievement by Bush, even from a conservative point of view. Even in N. Korea, all he succeeded in doing was giving them in effect a green light for 6 years before he enacted the same sort of agreement that Clinton gave them.

    We are repeating history. Go back and look at the Muslim-Christian wars. Look at Colonialism, the Inquisition, the Roman Empire. What's going on between us and the Muslim world has been going on for centuries. The only way to break the cycle, I think, is by using our brains, not our bombs. There are and have always been peacemakers. Peace carries risks, too, but it does not leave carnage and resentment in its wake.
  27. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    For two sides to use brains, each has to have one. You can't rationalize with primitives. Unfortunately, middle eastern civilization has not matured the way the west has. Please explain to me how you negotiate with people who stone rape victims to death, and hang homosexuals in their capitals main square? Like I've said before. We have two choices. We either isolate ourselves from the world, and it's problems, or we continue to meddle, and suffer the consequences. The fact of the matter is that people won't isolate themselves, and therefore we find ourselves in the situation we have today.
  28. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    I think I do understand them. AQ is not so much savage as fighting with the tools at its disposal. If doesn't have the weaponry that we have, so it's forced to fight a different kind of a war. We can fight a "civilized" war and create "civilized" rules only because that serves us, but in the end both of us are killing many innocent people in the name of our cause. AQ is clearly made up of at least two factions, one which is radical religious, the other which is psychopathic. I think if the US left, Muslim religious leaders could make some headway with some of the extremists and our absence would make it more difficult for them to recruit and rationalize their actions. We need to leave in an orderly way, and preferably with some sort of plan to prevent a vacuum from forming, i.e., get some Arab troops into Iraq to help maintain the peace.

    Work with mainstream religious groups and identify reforms that would make it more difficult for the radicals to recruit. Address those issues that should be addressed, such as work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Although the radicals would not like a resolution, a resolution would undercut them.

    The reports out of Afghanistan are it's going bad, and I think the situation is growing increasingly complex. By some estimates, the Taliban now control half of the country. Perhaps it can be turned around, but it won't be easy. As I said, I don't know what the solution is there. Iraq is more clear cut, I think, at least at this point.

    He should have aggressively pursued the Clinton plan from the start, rather than made all sorts of accusations that N. Korea used to justify pulling out of the agreement. And even after they pulled out, he should have been far more active in diplomacy -- he waited much too long.

    Radical regimes are responses to radical events. Thus, 9/11 helped secure the radical Bush regime, as well as the radical regime in Iran. Fear is a great tool for madmen. While Bush is far more civilized than Ahmadinejad, Bush has used war as his main vehicle in his foreign policy. We need to stabilize the situation and see if more level headed people get the upper hand. As long as people feel they are vulnerable to attack, they'll give power to their military and their radical leaders. Ahmadinejad is a direct result of Bush's war on Iraq. Prior to him, they had Rasfanjani, who was relatively moderate.
  29. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,226
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    I know I've jumped into the middle of this debate and haven't read all the post completely. But I think the "terrorists" love Neo-Cons because they can count on getting a knee-jerk reaction from them,instead of a a measured response I.E. Bush 1. That isolated Iraq,surrounded it and destroyed most of its army, Bush 1 knew that if he went to Bahgdad that the consequenses wouldn't be worth it. The policies now in effect only exasterbate the situation,and were stuck in Iraq for years.To Bin Laden et. al. it doesn't matter if its a democrat or rebublican in office,if Gore had been president during 9/11 we still would have attacked Afganistan,and gone after OBL,but I believe we wouldn't have divided our forces between Iraq,and Afganistan and probably have caught OBL by know having concentrated the troops we now have in Iraq in Afganistan. For those who say dem's are weak on defense just look at FDR WW11, Truman WW11,and Korea and Kennedy who went after Castro and took us into Vietnam Its a lie about dems being weak on defense. Further proof what president,from what party pulled us out of Lebanon and started the whole ME mind set that the US can't stand casualties? I give you REAGON the GOD of the Rep. party but still a Rep. not a neo-con. IF Reagon were if office I doubt highly doubt we'd be where we are today. No the terrorists don't love the rep. party they love Neo-cons, it helps their recrutment drives.
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2007
  30. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    Rasfanjani was powerless, and the council that runs the country is not. Guess what, they still hung homosexuals in public. I love how people can be so naive. I've said many a time that I wouldn't be in Iraq if it were up to me. Clearly invading Iraq has more than ruffled some feathers in that region. That being said, I'm not going to revise reality like you do, and make the world out to be some heavenly peaceful place prior to GW. The bottom line is that it was not, and never has been in my lifetime.

Share This Page