Most Republicans think west and Islam are in fundamental conflict

[Homeland Security]

Homeland, a question for you. Do you think we would cause more terrorism against us by pulling out in most areas (thereby leading to collapse and dangerous extremists likely taking over) or do we cause more terrorism through long-term settlement and expansion (thereby being a common enemy that locals can unite against?)

I'm guessing both are roughly equal, with the former being cheaper at least, at the moral cost of mass slaughter of innocents.

I think that if Arabs weren't standing on top of vast quan ies of the cheapest, most easily extracted petroleum in the world, we'd give about as much a about them as we do sub-Saharan Africans. I think our presence there dating back from well before the "War on Terror" has to do with maintaining stability in the delivery of that petroleum to our European allies.

So I refute the premise that the impact on terrorism is the most germane thing to the discussion. The discussion is whether the U.S. interest in the European economy is worth the expense and bother of the everlasting military presence in the region; terrorism is part of that bother. That's what I'm not sure of.

[Latarian Milton]

christians & muslims cannot co-exist and only one side will survive with the other's death

[LnGrrrR]

I think that if Arabs weren't standing on top of vast quan ies of the cheapest, most easily extracted petroleum in the world, we'd give about as much a about them as we do sub-Saharan Africans. I think our presence there dating back from well before the "War on Terror" has to do with maintaining stability in the delivery of that petroleum to our European allies.

So I refute the premise that the impact on terrorism is the most germane thing to the discussion. The discussion is whether the U.S. interest in the European economy is worth the expense and bother of the everlasting military presence in the region; terrorism is part of that bother. That's what I'm not sure of.

I don't really think that "terrorism" is the reason we're there either. But which of the two (pulling out/staying forever) would cause more long term damage to US interests? (Note: For the purposes of this discussion, let's leave out the realpolitik of having to stay there to ensure access to oil.)

[Homeland Security]

I don't really think that "terrorism" is the reason we're there either. But which of the two (pulling out/staying forever) would cause more long term damage to US interests? (Note: For the purposes of this discussion, let's leave out the realpolitik of having to stay there to ensure access to oil.)

Take out the realpolitik of oil, and just deal with terrorism, and I think long-term pulling out is the better option. There's no point in nation-building. I have no idea why people think that you can shortcut a civilization through 1000 years of history by sticking your military in there for 10 years. That makes about as much sense as saying, "Carving this sculpture of David from solid rock is taking too long. I know, I'll just tie a bunch of C4 to it!"

Yes, it will embolden the Muslims, and there will be attacks in the short term to gauge how weak we really are.

Respond with massive force. On civilians. They'll get the message. That's the only way they ever get the message. Then they'll quiet down for an age until they get the urge to test us again.

Oh, "decent people" will feign outrage, but since my oft-stated plan for America involves killing 2 million people domestically, why would I give a about that?

[Latarian Milton]

iranians are fine people and they could be a better ally to us than saudi arabia who's basically a nonen y in the middle east, at least their's no fundamental conflicts between US and iran but the problem is, between iran and israel there is. most persians hate israelis like they owe them money and that's beyond me, and the US has been used by them jews as a shield. the US congress & senate have been in control of jewish majorities so it's understandable tbh

[Borat Sagyidev]

None of this matters. China will let this whole west vs islam cold war rage on while they pass everyone up, until they finally decide to destroy everyone else and claim what is rightfully theirs.

It will happen. They're smarter are most importantly many times more dedicated. Oh. and they have a population of about 1 billion and growing.

You fools are arguing like a bunch of insects on a dinner table getting ready to get squashed.

[Latarian Milton]

I don't really think that "terrorism" is the reason we're there either. But which of the two (pulling out/staying forever) would cause more long term damage to US interests? (Note: For the purposes of this discussion, let's leave out the realpolitik of having to stay there to ensure access to oil.)

its a tough call imho as both have hurt US interests plentifully. israel is like a spoiled kid who bullies the neighbors everyday and always wants to start fights with them pugnaciously, and you know they'll need US to rescue their asses everytime a real fight is started.

[symple19]

haha

Homeland Security is awesome

[symple19]

dp

[Clipper Nation]

haha

Homeland Security is awesome

Extra Stout should drop the terrible Lakerfan troll and just roll with Homeland Security full-time, tbh.....

[boutons_deux]

There has been much more Muslim-Muslim conflict in the last few decades than Christian-Muslim conflict.

Libya-Egypt
Libya-Tunisia
Algeria-Morocco
Iraq-Iran
Iraq-Koweit
Pakistan-Afghanistan
Syria-Iran vs Lebanon
Saudi Arabia - Bahrain
Morocco-Western Sahara

Then add in all the Arab spring internal revolts.

Then add in all the Sunni-Shiites battles and tensions.

The "Christian" - Muslim conflicts have mostly US/UK oilcos grabbing oil in Muslim and other countries.

US/UK vs Iran (Mossadeq, Khomeini)
US/UK vs Iraq and US helping Iraq vs Iran

So the Muslim-vs-Christian religious war is mostly bull , inflamed by Israel and AIPAC agitators, and by US/UK oilcos propaganda screen for grabbing oil.

the religious Israel-vs-Muslim of course is there, but Israel isn't Christian

[boutons_deux]

Boykinism is the New McCarthyism

Boykinism, in contrast, makes its impact felt abroad. Unlike McCarthyism, it doesn’t strike fear into the hearts of in bents on the campaign trail here. Attracting General Boykin’s endorsement or provoking his ire probably won’t determine the outcome of any election. Yet in its various manifestations Boykinism provides the kindling that helps sustain anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world. It reinforces the belief among Muslims that the Global War on Terror really is a war against them.

Boykinism confirms what many Muslims are already primed to believe: that American values and Islamic values are irreconcilable. American presidents and secretaries of state stick to their talking points, praising Islam [19] as a great religious tradition and touting past US military actions (ostensibly) undertaken on behalf of Muslims. Yet with their credibility among Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis and others in the Greater Middle East about nil, they are pissing in the wind.

As long as substantial numbers of vocal Americans do not buy the ideological argument constructed to justify US intervention in the Islamic world—that their conception of freedom (including religious freedom) is ultimately compatible with ours—then neither will Muslims. In that sense, the supporters of Boykinism who reject that proposition encourage Muslims to follow suit. This ensures, by extension, that further reliance on armed force as the preferred instrument of US policy in the Islamic world will compound the errors that produced and have defined the post-9/11 era.

http://www.thenation.com/print/artic...ew-mccarthyism

Two large, powerful groups, the military and "Christians" MUST absolutely create external foes to demonize and hate, to justify their own existence, which of course always ends a call for more money for themselves. Communism down, Muslims up.

[Wild Cobra]

Any of you visit the YouGov site?

What a crock of . They only report about 75% of their questions. They are either throwing out results they don't like, or the other questions are to set a particular mindset for the answers.

[TeyshaBlue]

That doesn't even matter. It's an online poll. It's ing worthless.

[cheguevara]

you, you sniveling piece of . Point to where I said anything about WWIII, mother er.

You can't argue against what people who know anything actually say, so you construct strawmen so you can stay secure in your little world where you can maintain your illusion of enlightment without ever actually having to expend the effort to learn anything.

You ing leftists don't know about anything. The best thing for the world is to exterminate you. I would love to laugh in your face as I watch you slowly die.

Point me to where I said anything defending the war in Iraq, ing moron.

"only the US can save the world from armageddon"

ing idiot, you talk about black and white when all your pitiful piece of mind is capable of doing is pigeonholing people into two sets of opinions, red or blue. Most of the you're lmaoing I don't even believe in.

What I primarily believe in is a world where you and your kind suffer and die and those who remain alive celebrate your death. I don't give a about the outcome of elections or any of the other you subhuman slime consume yourselves with. The Muslims are an ancillary bother.

e-tantrum

[RandomGuy]

I'm pretty confident that I understand the ramifications of pulling back .

I don't think anybody really does. As smart as you are, no one can see much beyond the 2nd or 3rd order consequences.

If you want to think you do though, that is your business, I guess.

[RandomGuy]

Respond with massive force. On civilians. They'll get the message.

"we're stupid"

Ceding moral authority makes you weaker. If your solution were really workable, chechnya would be subdued by now.

Fascists don't tend to understand that.

[TDMVPDPOY]

iranians are fine people and they could be a better ally to us than saudi arabia who's basically a nonen y in the middle east, at least their's no fundamental conflicts between US and iran but the problem is, between iran and israel there is. most persians hate israelis like they owe them money and that's beyond me, and the US has been used by them jews as a shield. the US congress & senate have been in control of jewish majorities so it's understandable tbh

no fkn , thats why i was pissed about my leaders speech at the UN the other day....fck israel pre-emptive sugar coating bull words, how many more lives does the west coalition needs to sacrifice for the zeonists who are thinkn for their own personal agenda...

[mercos]

Their are some fundamental conflicts between western culture and middle eastern culture. We are a more secular society with a belief in things like freedom of religion, press, speech, etc, while the middle east is still ruled by religion. We can co-exist, as we have done for centuries. Ultimately, the middle east will become more like us. People forget that even the west was once dominated by religion.

[Homeland Security]

"we're stupid"

Ceding moral authority makes you weaker. If your solution were really workable, chechnya would be subdued by now.

Fascists don't tend to understand that.

The strong man creates his own moral authority.

[Homeland Security]

I don't think anybody really does. As smart as you are, no one can see much beyond the 2nd or 3rd order consequences.

If you want to think you do though, that is your business, I guess.

Not only do I see the future, I see all possible futures.

[boutons_deux]

"We can co-exist,"

bull . As long as US/UK keeps busting into. occupying, bombing, murdering in Muslim countries (it's why They Do Hate Us), no peaceful co-existence possible.

[z0sa]

I agree. Not all of Islam, but the vast majority of its fundamentalist sects. They act like a bunch of animals when it comes to free speech and equal rights for women - just that simple. Their way of living is incompatible with the future of this planet. Ultimately they will be forced to change.

[boutons_deux]

I agree. Not all of Islam, but the vast majority of its fundamentalist sects. They act like a bunch of animals when it comes to free speech and equal rights for women - just that simple. Their way of living is incompatible with the future of this planet. Ultimately they will be forced to change.

IT'S THEIR COUNTRY.

Democracy is ed in USA. USA has no business imposing "democracy" on THEIR COUNTRIES, nor making their countries safe for US/UK exploitation of resources.

[z0sa]

IT'S THEIR COUNTRY.

Strawman. I never said it isn't.

Their lack of respect for women's rights and free speech is disgusting.

Democracy is ed in USA. USA has no business imposing "democracy" on THEIR COUNTRIES, nor making their countries safe for US/UK exploitation of resources.

I agree you're ed. In the head.