View Full Version : Is there a solution?
Please don't make this a diatribe about what WON'T or ISN'T working...
The problem is that there is growing number of Islamic radicalist who hate America, the West, Christianity, etc....
The islamicists have carried out numerous deadly attacks against America, it's military and its interests over the past 20 years.
These people that hate America don't have physical or national boundaries, their stronghold is certainly the Middle East, but they have toe-holds now in Western Europe.
Their stated goal is our cessation of being (basically a genocidal orthodoxy).
Assuming most of us don't want to be exterminated...What should we do about this?
boutons
11-28-2005, 11:59 AM
The US can reduce its dependency on ME oil, which is the sole justification for US presence and war on ME soil, esp Saudi Arabia, which the jihadis consider to be a defilement of their Holy Land by infidel dogs, giving them a basis for jihad.
Why don't they openly hate on China? They are certainly infidels, and they buy nearly as much oil as us.
Beerjitsu
11-28-2005, 12:34 PM
Why don't they openly hate on China? They are certainly infidels, and they buy nearly as much oil as us.
China doesn't have troops on Middle Eastern soil...at least I don't think they do. And THAT seems to be the bone stuck in the craw of most of the extremist nutbars.
Backing away from the oil crack pipe (like the oil corporations will ever let THAT happen) to the point where we could withdraw all our troops and tell the "friendly" nations "hey you gotta fend for yourself...you've got nothing we need anymore" would certainly go a long way towards getting us out of the bullseye. But we'd still be demonized for our support of Israel and for the perception that our culture is infecting theirs (movies, TV, etc).
IMHO the only real way the problem could be fixed is if they fix it themselves. If the ruling classes over there stop providing an atmosphere where extremism can take root and flourish. The moderate Islamists need to take back their religion from the nutjobs who are perverting it.
IMHO the only real way the problem could be fixed is if they fix it themselves. If the ruling classes over there stop providing an atmosphere where extremism can take root and flourish. The moderate Islamists need to take back their religion from the nutjobs who are perverting it.
So should we not do anything & simply wait (hope) for them to come correct?
spurster
11-28-2005, 01:05 PM
I think there are a variety of reasons why violent Islamic demagogues are anti-US. To say that all of them want genocide is an oversimplification.
In my view, the longer the US occupies Iraq, the more terrorism is inflamed. We are not too long before Afghanistan reaches this point as well. The only long-term way this is going to work is if these countries stamp out their own terrorists.
I think a divide-and-conquer approach is needed. Most of them do want freedom, rights, democracy, prosperity, though separation of religion and state seems to be beyond their comprehension. They see the US as supporting and enriching tyrants and ignoring human rights when it suits our purposes. Our policy ought to be to turn this group against terrorism and ultimately have them work actively against terrorism.
As a simple example, sending Bush's mouthpiece Karen Hughes to talk to them was worse than useless. Who is going to believe a loyalist from any Administration, especially with a US and the President are all-good, all-the-time message? They start off thinking of the Iraqi "information" minister. A better approach would be to send American Muslims to tell them what it's like in the US, the good and the bad, the diversity of religion and opinion, that if you attack the US we are against you, too.
So, you are saying, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and let American Muslims negotiate.
Do we respond if we are attacked again?
ELp...
You think Bin Laden is the key? Kill him, alls well that ends well?
JoeChalupa
11-28-2005, 01:28 PM
Killing OBL will not stop terrorism..if anything it will make him a martyr and increase the hatred.
The only solution is a miracle by which all religions learn to live in peace.
boutons
11-28-2005, 01:31 PM
"Do we respond if we are attacked again?"
Of course, but ONLY if we know where to respond.
I supported going after Taliban and Al Quaida in Afgahnistan.
But so far, responding (Afghanistan, Iraq) or not responding (US Embassy/Iran(Repub chickened out), Beirut Marine barracks(Repubs chickened out), the Cole(who did it?)) is showing the same lack of results.
"Do we respond if we are attacked again?"
Of course, but ONLY if we know where to respond.
I supported going after Taliban and Al Quaida in Afgahnistan.
But so far, responding (Afghanistan, Iraq) or not responding (US Embassy/Iran(Repub chickened out), Beirut Marine barracks(Repubs chickened out), the Cole(who did it?)) is showing the same lack of results.
Other than Iraq (where we are the aggressor), where have we been attacked on the magnitude of the barracks or the Cole, much less 9-11, since we invaded Afghanistan?
I think there are a variety of reasons why violent Islamic demagogues are anti-US. To say that all of them want genocide is an oversimplification.
...
I didn't say it. Haven't we heard the Jihadist's leaders say this multiple times?
How did it work out for Europe when they let the German's take care of their own radicals? An inspired (and especially violent) minority can have a profound effect on policy. The parrallels are valid, and ominous.
spurster
11-28-2005, 01:56 PM
So, you are saying, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and let American Muslims negotiate.
Do we respond if we are attacked again?
I think I will be misinterpreted no matter what I say. I won't be able to come up with a perfect comprehensive policy, but it would include:
Stop torture. Follow your own laws.
Support human rights. Deal with tyrants if you must, but give vocal support and what you can to who they oppress. By God, support religious freedom even maybe in Saudi Arabia.
When attacked, relentlessly pursue the attackers and whoever harbors them.
Have major players who might have a clue what Islam is, understand the MIddle East point of view (not the same as agreeing), and can talk to them.
Beerjitsu
11-28-2005, 02:00 PM
Killing OBL will not stop terrorism..if anything it will make him a martyr and increase the hatred.
The only solution is a miracle by which all religions learn to live in peace.
Wouldn't that be wonderful? Sadly, it would pretty much require rewiring the brain of every human on earth though. As long as their is belief in ANYTHING (a religion, a political ideology, whatever) there are going to be people who will take it to an extreme, to the point that anyone who does NOT believe as they do is not only wrong...but evil. It's just the way the human animal is.
And poverty (there's LOT'S of money in the Middle East...but it's in the hands of a very few) takes that extremism and whips it up to a point that merely getting on TV and denouncing the "infidels" isn't enough.
Not to sound like a socalist (which I am very much not) but I've read several theories that, if the wealth were "redistributed" (god I hate that word) a bit to raise the standard of living across the board in the region, the type of extremism that finds violence a viable solution to further one's agenda might have a harder time taking root. Not to mention improving their educational system. Thoughts?
Guru of Nothing
11-28-2005, 02:04 PM
mtv in the middle east
when those kids grow up they'll be sucking kevin federline's dick like the rest of our asshole 'tweenies'
Sadly, that is a pretty good working definition of freedom.
The (alleged) torture began AFTER they attacked us. This indicates (at least to me) that they will attack us even if we aren't torturing them, or occupying any of "their" countries (btw - Iraq was not held by Jihadists; Saddam's was a secular tyranny)
Do you believe that the US (at least the last couple of administrations) had nobody that understood middle-eastern politics. Ambassadors, etc...
Obviously our Sec. State has not been Muslim - but I'd be willing to bet there have been some people with perspective in some rolls.
I believe that evidence suggests that "supporting religious freedom" may make them hate us more, and not less.
Not to sound like a socalist (which I am very much not) but I've read several theories that, if the wealth were "redistributed" (god I hate that word) a bit to raise the standard of living across the board in the region, the type of extremism that finds violence a viable solution to further one's agenda might have a harder time taking root. Not to mention improving their educational system. Thoughts?
I think you are on to something.
No socialism, however.
Nothing distrubutes wealth quicker, or to more people, than capitilism
boutons
11-28-2005, 02:14 PM
"Nothing distrubutes wealth quicker, or to more people, than capitilism"
The anti-proof of that total bullshit being the USA itself, where wealth is being increasingly concentrated in a fewer % at the top, the middle is being hollowed out by crushing household debt, skyrocketing health/education costs, stagnant real income over the past 25 years, while the percentage of poor is increasing.
I didn't say it spread wealth evenly. I said it spread wealth quicker. It mainly does so by creating it quicker. Economics 101. Even your most liberal Harvard prof. wouldn't disagree. Not a controversial statement, please don't make it so.
BTW, Boutons, I can only assume you are ultra-rich. One of the elite few, as I am. Otherwise, how could we afford these computers?
boutons
11-28-2005, 02:38 PM
101
nobody has to be ultra-rich to buy a PC. A lot of people, all classes, spend more on their TVs and washer/dryers than on their computers.
Hey, you are the one who said we are a divided nation - rich or poor, not me.
I only assumed since you weren't living in a box, you were rich. I don't really get out much, and mingle with the masses, you know. Not sure how you people live.
You mean the poor have Computers, washers, dryers AND T.V's?!
No wonder you say there is not wealth distribution is this country!
Way to make my point for me!
boutons
11-28-2005, 05:21 PM
way to look like an asshole.
Having a few big box goods, one time purchases, doesn't disqualify a person or family from being classified as poor.
Sure the US poor are a lot better off than poor countries' poor, but by US definition, they are still poor.
gtownspur
11-28-2005, 08:10 PM
And by your definition I should feel sorry for Screach if he happened to live in Malibu because he'd be poor by Malibu standards.
gtownspur
11-28-2005, 08:11 PM
The american poor have hope in this country if they let go of vice and straighten their priorities.
the poor in 3rd world countries don't.
Oh, Gee!!
11-28-2005, 08:18 PM
The american poor have hope in this country if they let go of vice and straighten their priorities.
the poor in 3rd world countries don't.
only rich kids should enjoy the fun stuff; just ask dubya. (snort...snort....)
gtownspur
11-28-2005, 11:28 PM
Ok, since you're half way past dumb and fuck, why don't you propose subsidizing crack to poor urban kids?
Nbadan
11-29-2005, 02:14 AM
Not to sound like a socalist (which I am very much not) but I've read several theories that, if the wealth were "redistributed" (god I hate that word) a bit to raise the standard of living across the board in the region, the type of extremism that finds violence a viable solution to further one's agenda might have a harder time taking root. Not to mention improving their educational system. Thoughts?
Worked for President Clinton, trouble is, nobody in Iraq knows where the Iraq interm government's money from oil sales is located. It's certainly not in Iraqi coffeers.
Nbadan
11-29-2005, 02:30 AM
Please don't make this a diatribe about what WON'T or ISN'T working...
The problem is that there is growing number of Islamic radicalist who hate America, the West, Christianity, etc....
The islamicists have carried out numerous deadly attacks against America, it's military and its interests over the past 20 years.
These people that hate America don't have physical or national boundaries, their stronghold is certainly the Middle East, but they have toe-holds now in Western Europe.
Their stated goal is our cessation of being (basically a genocidal orthodoxy).
Assuming most of us don't want to be exterminated...What should we do about this?
A stronghold is the ME? WTF? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and other ME countries certainly have elements of radical Islamic organizations, but they are far from a strangle-hold on the dominant moderate Arabs. There are millions of Muslims in the ME, Indonesia and other parts of SE Asia, and only a small fraction are Islamic militants.
gtownspur
11-29-2005, 02:40 AM
^Your are naive my freind. BRitish polls showed that 3/4ths of arab population sympathize with the london bombers. In Jordan more than half of the population supported al zarqawi before the bombings, all of palestine and lebanon as well as syria support Hamas.
gtownspur
11-29-2005, 02:42 AM
Worked for President Clinton, trouble is, nobody in Iraq knows where the Iraq interm government's money from oil sales is located. It's certainly not in Iraqi coffeers.
President clinton didn't redistribute wealth. We were still a capatilist country under his office. He even cut capital gains tax, and the rich got even richer under his boom. During his tenure was witnessed the fastest deployment of high tech jobs. Clinton did nothing to stop that, and couldn't do it if he wanted to.
A stronghold is the ME? WTF? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and other ME countries certainly have elements of radical Islamic organizations, but they are far from a strangle-hold on the dominant moderate Arabs. There are millions of Muslims in the ME, Indonesia and other parts of SE Asia, and only a small fraction are Islamic militants.
First, I didn't claim that the Jihadist's were the majority in the ME - I said that was their "stonghold" - meaning they are more established there than any other place in the world.
Do you want to debate that point? :drunk
DarkReign
11-29-2005, 10:31 AM
I wrote a faux-speech by the President.
Basically, stick to our guns. Tell it like it is to the American people and the leaders of the world. Terrorism will not end. But, with that in mind, it is a war we will fight. Any and all countries who do not actively search and remove / destroy said elements will be treated as a combative enemy.
The days of the US "holding your hands" in the search of these criminals is over. If / When it is discovered that a known criminal is in your country, you will be notified, daily updates are required as to the progression of your search. If those updates are not satisfactory, then we are coming to remove them for you, with or without your permission. Got a problem with that? Try and stop us. Period.
I admit it isnt exactly a solution, but it is proactive. Iraq wasnt known to be a haven for terrorism (unlike Iran), so the reasons for going in were bullshit to say the least. But if Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc cant do it themselves, then we shall do it for them. If we have to break a few eggs to do that, so be it.
Thats my opinion anyway. No more police forces...use the military for what it is...a killing machine. Our troops are not trained policemen, they are trained for war. When they are activated, they should be acting upon their training. When the mission to remove said individuals is done (known targets eliminated from specific regions), they come home. Fast, quick and clean.
Terrorists will know that they are no longer safe anywhere. The US will deliver extreme prejudice inside or outside its own borders. None of this occupying countries crap either...search and destroy missions, at home and abroad at our discretion.
I wrote a faux-speech by the President.
Basically, stick to our guns. Tell it like it is to the American people and the leaders of the world. Terrorism will not end. But, with that in mind, it is a war we will fight. Any and all countries who do not actively search and remove / destroy said elements will be treated as a combative enemy.
The days of the US "holding your hands" in the search of these criminals is over. If / When it is discovered that a known criminal is in your country, you will be notified, daily updates are required as to the progression of your search. If those updates are not satisfactory, then we are coming to remove them for you, with or without your permission. Got a problem with that? Try and stop us. Period.
I admit it isnt exactly a solution, but it is proactive. Iraq wasnt known to be a haven for terrorism (unlike Iran), so the reasons for going in were bullshit to say the least. But if Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc cant do it themselves, then we shall do it for them. If we have to break a few eggs to do that, so be it.
Thats my opinion anyway. No more police forces...use the military for what it is...a killing machine. Our troops are not trained policemen, they are trained for war. When they are activated, they should be acting upon their training. When the mission to remove said individuals is done (known targets eliminated from specific regions), they come home. Fast, quick and clean.
Terrorists will know that they are no longer safe anywhere. The US will deliver extreme prejudice inside or outside its own borders. None of this occupying countries crap either...search and destroy missions, at home and abroad at our discretion.
The equal and opposite approach to: "Pull out and negotiate rationally with them".
Although, DR, it would REALLY piss off the French and Jimmy Carter.
Oh, Gee!!
11-29-2005, 12:43 PM
Ok, since you're half way past dumb and fuck, why don't you propose subsidizing crack to poor urban kids?
they should just let jesus into their hearts. That's probably your solution.
^^^ Actually all they need do is:
1. Graduate High School.
2. Don't get married or have a child before 21
3. Don't be a criminal
4. Get a job
(There's a whole thread about this)
Oh, Gee!!
11-29-2005, 12:48 PM
^^^ Actually all they need do is:
1. Graduate High School.
2. Don't get married or have a child before 21
3. Don't be a criminal
4. Get a job
(There's a whole thread about this)
you're a horrible alter. most alters try to hide their true identity. you're obviously gtown.
Who the hell is GTown?
I am not him.
BTW gtownspur - is that Georgetown, Texas.
Oh, Gee!!
11-29-2005, 12:56 PM
Who the hell is GTown?
I am not him.
sure. :rolleyes
zeleni
11-29-2005, 04:08 PM
^^^ Actually all they need do is:
1. Reinstate the draft
2. Graduate High School.
3. Don't get married or have a child before 21
4. Don't be a criminal
5. Get a job
6. Get the hell of places where you have nothing to do
Oh, Gee!!
11-29-2005, 06:23 PM
^^^ Actually all they need do is:
1. Reinstate the draft
Yeah, I guess the more poor people you send to die in war....
Mr. Peabody
11-29-2005, 06:32 PM
Yeah, I guess the more poor people you send to die in war....
....the less poor people to burden this economy with!
Damn, those "Become a Republican in Just Two Weeks" tapes are really working!
zeleni
01-02-2006, 04:28 PM
....the less poor people to burden this economy with!
Damn, those "Become a Republican in Just Two Weeks" tapes are really working!
well...no.
Poor people will die, and rich people (the republican patriots) would die also. Draft makes fellowship between veterans. I am not a Republican. We got proffesional army a year before I could get drafted and see every day what kind of propaganda is now forced on religious groups for soldiers for money.
Republican? I do not care about the poor when i count the dead. I care only for longer peace between wars.
ps:
Look at point No.6 of my list
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.