So the US should appease its enemies?
This is why we need an asshole in the White House. To save the American people from themselves.
If by "substantiated" you mean 100% non-religious, non-anti-conservative non-anti-Bush, and 100% of what you already decide you believe in, then no.
But if you consult anyone with a political military background, all they need to do is point to a history book.
Since when did American marines and weaponry become so advanced that we can subdue an entire country and its people in a short and uneventful time frame?
It doesn't work that way. Wake up.
Let me rephrase
not to appease them
but give them a voice, to let them know they are being heard, without them having to resort to guerilla tactics and terrorism to be heard.
Is that better?
That last statement is re ed though.
Exactly. It does not work that way. Either this nation deals with threats to its national security or it goes back to the bipartisan policy of the prior three decades of trying to wish this particular threat away.
Re ed is doing half of the job and not pressing forward.
Only a warmonger looks at continuing a war as pressing forward.
A peaceful politican could just as easily label a withdrawal and political (not physical) action as moving forward as well.
But at what point does the cost of defending this national security outweigh the benefits?
I think we've passed that point, especially when we hear about this insurgency possibly lasting 10-15 more years.
Honestly Marcus, do you want us to be at war that long? Is it that important to you for us to destroy a country and set up a government of our chosing? What will it take for you to realize we need to get out of there and find other nonphysical ways to dealing with this 'threat' ?
?????
Another brilliant reply by you CBF, that's why the answer was directed to and adult and not to you.
and with that, I would have to say
owned.
?????
Another brilliant reply by you CBF, that's why the answer was directed to and adult and not to you.
okay im a kid but you're still an american disgrace with "i never admit mistakes nor change my mind about anything" tattooed across your swashbuckling face
When the other option is appeasement and wishing the threat away, sure, it is pressing forward.
A peaceful politican could just as easily label a withdrawal and political (not physical) action as moving forward as well.
Worked in '75, didn't it?
Sometimes "peace" doesn't work.
So when does the threat end? It isn't an imaginary threat, as we've seen over the course of the last few decades.
What peaceful method was not attempted from the early 70s through 9-11-01?Honestly Marcus, do you want us to be at war that long? Is it that important to you for us to destroy a country and set up a government of our chosing? What will it take for you to realize we need to get out of there and find other nonphysical ways to dealing with this 'threat' ?
murderous, criminal is doing the wrong job, th ewrong war, wrong country, lying about it, while the real enemies run free.
It seems that any war is the "wrong" war as long as the president is a Republican. Most of us need something more than that rationale.
marcus i said i didn't mean appeasement, so using that to defend your point is meaningless
You still didnt answer my question. How long till the costs outweigh the benefits? In your opinion, how many years or how many lives will it take for you to realize being bogged down in Iraq is costing alot of money and lives?
You did say once you weren't a hardcore neocon didnt you? Because they tend to be chickenhawks....
pre-emptively striking a weaker state on false intelligence and not announcing any major foreign policy changes leads me to believe this war is unjust
not the idiot son-of-an-asshole president we have
Good point, it doesn't end with what we are doing. Marcus those radical head muslims are foaming at the mouth over what we're doing over there because its adding more fuel to their jihad fire.
do you think they'll have more or less recruits to insurgent and terrorist regimes if their houses and familes and work places have been destroyed by american artillery or fire?
If we had a decent policy the threat will never 'end' but it would be alleviated and would never reach the potency required to take drastic actions such as limiting freedoms and murdering loads of iraqis.
Please correct me if I'm taking this out of context and am interpreting it wrong... but are you suggesting that because no one predicted a prolonged and sustained insurgency, no one bothered to think of a plan to deal with it?Are there substantiated pre-invasion arguements from any source predicting a prolonged and sustained insurgency and a means of dealing with it?
They were pissed at the US before the war. Now they are attacking those of their own faith who don't agree with them.
Would the US rather fight its enemies on their own turf or in lower Manhattan?
You wrote it.
So the US should give up and not deal with the threat because it might cost something? You know what costs something? Not taking the threat seriously and shying away from doing something about it today. We saw how well that worked over the last three decades.You still didnt answer my question. How long till the costs outweigh the benefits? In your opinion, how many years or how many lives will it take for you to realize being bogged down in Iraq is costing alot of money and lives?
That's cute. Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?You did say once you weren't a hardcore neocon didnt you? Because they tend to be chickenhawks....
And I changed it. Would you like me to edit the first post too?You wrote it.
ahhh, resorting to the patented marcus bryant 'i contribute more to the forum than you' bit. clever.
That's two times in a row that you avoided answering the question, so let's make it three (gee avoiding the question, you DID say you weren't republican, right?)So the US should give up and not deal with the threat because it might cost something? You know what costs something? Not taking the threat seriously and shying away from doing something about it today. We saw how well that worked over the last three decades.
"What will it take for Marcus Bryant to say the costs of this war are outweighing the benefits?"
So what are you offering besides appeasement?
You are reading a bit much into that, to say the least. Nice try, though.ahhh, resorting to the patented marcus bryant 'i contribute more to the forum than you' bit. clever.
More cuteness.That's two times in a row that you avoided answering the question, so let's make it three (gee avoiding the question, you DID say you weren't republican, right?)
Perhaps when that is the case. What is the cost of not taking a determined and proactive move against this nation's enemies? As we've seen, that cost is at least a few thousand dead on US soil."What will it take for Marcus Bryant to say the costs of this war are outweighing the benefits?"
Democrat, Republican, Socialist or whatever, it's rather clear that this nation cannot repeat its past mistakes.
But, I know, we have a Republican president. Try something fresh for a change.
But what exactly to you is an outweighing cost?
-------------
you say we need to go to war because we've been attacked on us soil, etc
i say what if we stop the war now?
then you assume we'll get attacked again, or this will increase probability of attacks
so far it makes sense...however...
if we are to continue this war, and got attacked while at war, would you use this for reason to stay at war and start more wars, or see it as evidence that maybe war is not working like you thought it would?
I've heard people use this argument and take the former stance on this question. It's like you use attacks on us to justify anything.
That is the purpose. We are not discussing something extreme such as the use of a nuclear strike against a state or a massive conventional war with the potential for hundreds of thousands of military casualties. Rather, we are discussing the proper method to utilize against Islamic militants bent on hitting American targets anyway they can. This is not a pretty war but there is not the shiny, happy avenue of peaceful negotiation left. We can forget about trying to ignore the problem so that it takes care of itself. This nation has tried those means again and again and again.
Sometimes force is the only method adequate to address threats to national security. Let us not forget that the last time the US dealt with an attack upon its shores it entered into a war that resulted in four years of combat, hundreds of thousands of American casualties, and a much greater economic cost. That was also with a much smaller general population.
A successful surprise strike in the heart of US political and economic power after a couple of decades of unanwsered strikes against the US is an effective recruiting tool for the enemies of this nation. Having to fight the world's best military on the ground is quite another. Having to resort to killing fellow believers and generating resentment within your broader faith is not. No one wants to join a losing movement.
A decent op-ed today (or yesterday) in the NY Times summed it up. Here's a quote:
The simple fact is that many jihadis believe the war in Iraq is not going well. Too many Muslims are being killed. Images of that slaughter, conveyed by satellite television and the Internet throughout the Muslim world, are eroding global support for the jihadi cause. There are strong indications from jihadi Web sites and online journals, confirmed by conversations I have had while doing research among Salafis, or scriptural literalists, that the suicide attacks are turning many Muslims against the jihadis altogether.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-12-2005 at 12:48 AM.
But no Arab or Sunni cleric or top politician is condeming the Sunni slaughter of Shiites in Iraq. Total silence, because the Muslims know how violent and ruthless the jihadis are, even against other Muslims.
Meanwhile, the Brits have made a second accusation that Iran is training insurgents in Basra. With the Shiites being the majority in Iraq, Shiite Iran will end up, sooner or later, controlling Iraq. Thank you, dubya.
======================================
October 12, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist
Silence and Suicide
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
If I were editor of this newspaper, I would have led last Thursday's issue with the news report, under a big headline, saying that a Sunni Muslim suicide bomber attacked the Shiite mosque in Hilla, Iraq, on Wednesday - the Shiites' first day of Ramadan - and blew himself up, killing at least 25 worshipers and wounding more than 87. The worshipers had come to the mosque not only to mark the start of the Muslim holy month, but also to mourn a Shiite restaurant owner who had been killed by insurgents a few days earlier. According to The A.P., "The explosion hit the Husseiniyat Ibn al-Nama mosque, ripping through strings of light bulbs and green and red flags hung around the entrance to celebrate the start of the holy month."
This attack, which got scant attention, deserved much, much more because it's the essence of the terrorism problem we now face. When a Sunni Muslim jihadist blows up a Shiite mosque - a mosque - during Ramadan - Ramadan - and virtually no one in the Sunni world utters a word of condemnation, it means there is no controlling moral authority in the Sunni Muslim community anymore.
When Sunni Muslim insurgents have no respect for the sanc y of Muslim lives, Muslim houses of worship or Muslim holy days - and no one from their own wider Sunni community really moves to restrain or censure them - then there are no boundaries anymore. No one is safe. Anything goes, against anyone, anywhere. If the Sunni Muslim world does not act to halt this genocidal ethnic-cleansing campaign against the Shiites of Iraq, which this week included a teacher's being dragged from a classroom and shot in front of his students, the Sunni world will eventually be consumed by this very violence. A civilization that tolerates suicide bombing is itself committing suicide.
Inexplicably to me, the Bush team, which has finally settled on the right rationale for the war in Iraq - to help Arabs carve out a space in the heart of their world where they can create a decent, progressive future, instead of drifting aimlessly under autocrats and worshiping a glorious past - is equally silent. Instead of going to the U.N. and seeking a resolution declaring the Sunni terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his ilk war criminals, it sends Karen Hughes around the Arab world to get flagellated by Sunni Muslim women for how awful we are.
The Bush team calls that "public diplomacy." I call it losing a public relations war to mass murderers.
Yes, we, too, are hypocrites. I think the U.S. abuses of prisoners of war in Iraq and Afghanistan (we apparently tortured to death scores of prisoners in our custody) is a lasting blot on us all. But at least we have news media, a religious elite and courts that are exposing this, and a Senate majority that is now acting to bring it to a halt.
As Human Rights Watch noted in an Oct. 3 report, U.S. abuses in Iraq cannot justify the deliberate attacks by Iraqi insurgents on civilians, which "are serious violations of international humanitarian law - war crimes - and in some cases they are crimes against humanity. ... Not only should all insurgent groups in Iraq cease such attacks, but the political and religious leaders in Iraq and other countries who have expressed support for the insurgency should condemn the targeting of civilians."
But try to find an Arab head of state, or a major Sunni Arab cleric, who has consistently and repeatedly condemned Zarqawi or bin Laden by name. There are very, very few. Oh, yes, they arrest these jihadists in their own countries. But they rarely take them on - head on - in the war of ideas, because they are afraid of their own Sunni fundamentalists, many of whom tacitly support the war on Shiites.
And that is a real problem. Because there is only one way to stop this terrorism we are seeing from Indonesia to Iraq and from Madrid to London: it takes a village. It will stop only when the religious and political leaders, and parents, in these Sunni Muslim communities delegitimize it and anyone who engages in it.
Western leaders keep saying after every terrorist attack, "This is not about Islam." Sorry, but this is all about Islam. It is about a war within Islam between a jihadist-fascist minority engaged in crimes against humanity in the name of Islam, and a passive Sunni silent majority. Many of those Sunnis, I'm sure, are appalled by the violence against Iraqi civilians, but are too afraid, too morally leaderless or too quietly anti-Shiite to act.
As I said, a civilization that tolerates suicide-genocide will eventually be devoured by its extremists from within - and quarantined by its friends from abroad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
