cloudseeker2001 0 #26 November 23, 2004 Good Ole Texas Boy LBJ started that war with a lie so that Halliburton could make some cash.........................Ummmmmm, sounds familiar? "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #27 November 23, 2004 QuoteIhow do we win the war in Iraq? War? what war? have we declared a war? are you sure its not just a police action?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #28 November 23, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -The military was not allowed to fight the war, restictions on bombing, entering Cambodia and Laos, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because the goal was to liberate the Vietnamese people, not wipe them out. Same thing with Iraq. That's not what the military wanted to do in Vietnam, and not what they want to do in Iraq... In Vietnam, the military wanted to go after the supply routes and sanctuaries, but were not allowed to... Other segments wanted to organize locals to resist the insurgency... this turned into the Hamlet Program, which was forced relocation and a general failure. QuoteLike we do in most of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. In fact, that is the source of most animosity by middle eastern muslims toward the US. Because we support corrupt monarchies that oppress them. We have friendly relations with many governments in the Mid East, but I don't think I can point to one that we prop up... I could see where some might argue we prop up the Israeli government, but I think that is a stretch if you look at it objectively. The US gives Israel (NOT a developing nation) $3Billion each year, which is more than it gives all the nations of sub Saharan Africa, most of which are dirt poor, combined. I find it hard to believe that this is not "propping up".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #29 November 23, 2004 QuoteI find it hard to believe that this is not "propping up". Do we support Israel? Yes... should we is another question... Do we exercise infulence over, or interfere with their electoral process? Do we keep one party in power over another? Do we keep one person in power over another? No. If we did, then I would agree that we were proping them up, but we don't... if we withdrew our financial support to Israel, the government would not crumble, nor would their military... Again, we are giving them aid, but we are not proping them up. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 November 23, 2004 Once again...it doesn't matter whether YOU believe we are propping them up. The perception of those in the middle east is what has an effect on the ability for terrorists to recruit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #31 November 23, 2004 QuoteOnce again...it doesn't matter whether YOU believe we are propping them up. The perception of those in the middle east is what has an effect on the ability for terrorists to recruit. Actually, us doing what we feel is right (as a nation), whether it is supporting Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or formerly S.Vietnam should not depend on the perceptions of others. If we decide something is the right thing to do, it doesn't matter what people think. The problem here isn't that we're doing things that people are perceiving as evil or wrong... the problem is that Al-Jazeera, radical clerics, and a western press looking to sell advertising are shaping the perceptions in the wrong way. No, this doesn't mean that mistakes aren't made, but even if we were doing what the left thought was right... the same suspects would be molding perceptions against it as well.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #32 November 23, 2004 So how does the US fix the perception that some people in the middle east have? Especially when the Irsraeli-Palestinian conflict has little effect on them directly... Or is it just an excuse... Arabs don't really like the Palestininians, they just like the Israelis less. It comes down to effecting the religious extremist who think its OK to use violence to spread their religion... the hate needs to be taken out of their education system... either through reform, or by eliminating those who profess hate in the name of religion (and that would go for any religion, not just Islam)... some of the governments in the region are trying to change the education practices, others purposefully use these systems to solidify their own power... Hearts and Minds along with a sharp knife, or a big bomb... it will go one of those two ways, because it won't take care of itself. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #33 November 23, 2004 > So how does the US fix the perception that some people in the middle east have? Reverse the question. Many people in the US hate arabs, or at least arabs from some countries (i.e. Syria, the Palestinians) - what could _they_ do to stop people in the US from hating _them_? Once you have the answer to that, you have the answer to your question as well. We're really not so different from them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #34 November 23, 2004 Quotewhat could _they_ do to stop people in the US from hating _them_? Well they could stop the homicide bombings, stop using terrorism, and start showing the world that they have the capacity to govern themselvse... that would be a start. I don't hate Arabs, Palestinians, or Persians... I do hate terrorists, no mater what their background. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #35 November 23, 2004 >Well they could stop the homicide bombings, stop using terrorism . . . So if they stopped killing people, people in the US might stop hating them? I agree - and that goes both ways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #36 November 23, 2004 I agree, it goes both ways... but who started the killing? I recall a famous Japanneese Admiral commenting shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor... he said something to the effect "I fear we have awakend a sleeping tiger" The US did not create Israel, and didn't support it when it was attacked by the Arab world the day after it was created by the UN. The US has never bombed Suadi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt... We bombed Lebenon after our troops were attacked, troops that were there under the UN flag. We've bombed Iran after US flaged ships were fired upon... and we didn't start shooting at Iraq until they invaded on of its neighbors, then continually breeched the ceasefire agreement... So who needs to put down the guns first? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #37 November 23, 2004 > but who started the killing? No way to determine that. Go back far enough and you have the Crusades. More recently you have US support of the Shah of Iran, Israel and the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. On their side, they have Al-Qaeda, the PLO, the Al-Asaqua brigade, Zarqaui etc. Al-Qaeda's killed around 3000 americans; we've killed around 7000 iraqis. >The US has never bombed Suadi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt... And no arab country has ever bombed the US. (Country, not terror group.) >We bombed Lebenon after our troops were attacked, troops that were > there under the UN flag. We've bombed Iran after US flaged ships were > fired upon... and we didn't start shooting at Iraq until they invaded on of > its neighbors, then continually breeched the ceasefire agreement... Don't forget Afghanistan. >So who needs to put down the guns first? Neither side will. The only thing that will work is a gradual de-escalation of hostilities by both sides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #38 November 23, 2004 QuoteActually, us doing what we feel is right (as a nation), whether it is supporting Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or formerly S.Vietnam should not depend on the perceptions of others. If we decide something is the right thing to do, it doesn't matter what people think. The problem here isn't that we're doing things that people are perceiving as evil or wrong... the problem is that Al-Jazeera, radical clerics, and a western press looking to sell advertising are shaping the perceptions in the wrong way. Like everything else in life. If you go around doing whatever the hell you think is right without regard to other people's feelings and perceptions, you should not be surprised if they start pushing back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #39 November 23, 2004 Quote> but who started the killing? No way to determine that. Go back far enough and you have the Crusades. I can definitively state that the US was not responsible for the crusades. Yes, I know you'll say that the muslim world has a long memory and since we're predominantly christian, we're guilty... but that's just the BS the clerics use to rile people up. It isn't a valid reason for anything going on today. Even if it were, the arab world should be going after spain, france, and england exclusively. QuoteMore recently you have US support of the Shah of Iran, Israel and the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Shah of Iran: oops, it looks like a lot of people preferred that time to the current leadership, but let's forget that because we want the US to look bad. Israel: just an excuse to be angry... the arab world doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians and has repeatedly shown that. Saudi Arabia: If they're so mad about us doing business with SA, why don't we see any anger towards SA directly? Instead we see them coming after us because, allah forbid they attack a muslim ruler (kinda like Saddam, right?). I agree with Josh here (SURPRISE!)... people need to start calling a spade a spade. MANY of the problems in the middle east are of their own leader's making. The US's hands aren't clean either, but the arab leadership in the ME so far seems (to me) to be WAY more hypocritical than ours (yes, including the dems!). Quote>So who needs to put down the guns first? Neither side will. The only thing that will work is a gradual de-escalation of hostilities by both sides. Right, neither side will really disengage. It would be nice to see that de-escalation happen sometime in the near future... BUT (you knew it was coming)... with all the vehement anti-western, anti-Israeli, fundamentalism over there, that de-escalation HAS to involve the arab world cleaning up their own shit. The ridiculous rhetoric has got to stop, and it can only be done from within.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #40 November 23, 2004 QuoteLike everything else in life. If you go around doing whatever the hell you think is right without regard to other people's feelings and perceptions, you should not be surprised if they start pushing back. Yes, you're right. That's when we have to stand up and fight for what we beleive is right. That's why there will probably always be war. It is a serious compromise of moral character to avoid doing what you think is right, because someone might not like it.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #41 November 23, 2004 > but that's just the BS the clerics use to rile people up. I agree; I think the whole "arabs all want to be martyrs so they get 67 virgins" thing is BS too. There's a lot of BS floating around lately. >BUT (you knew it was coming)... with all the vehement anti-western, > anti-Israeli, fundamentalism over there, that de-escalation HAS to involve > the arab world cleaning up their own shit. I agree 100%. If we can get to a point where we're not killing arabs regularly, there is a better chance of that happening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #42 November 23, 2004 It is real easy to understand the recent history: The Germans Kill the Jews. The Jews kill the arabs. The arabs kill the hostages. Game. Set. Match..... Brief history of the last 80 years. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #43 November 23, 2004 So if we can just get the hostages to kill some germans, we should be back at square one, and we can get everyone to stop killing each other! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #44 November 23, 2004 QuoteSo if we can just get the hostages to kill some germans, we should be back at square one, and we can get everyone to stop killing each other! Now your thinking BILL ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #45 November 23, 2004 QuoteIf we can get to a point where we're not killing arabs regularly It will be much easier for us to get to a point where we are not killing Arabs (Muslims would be a better group since it is not just an Arab issue that we are facing) if they would stop shooting at us... The US did not just dicide to pick a fight with the Muslim or Arab world... our military actions in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s have all been in response to aggression by the other side, and that IMO includes Iraq. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #46 November 23, 2004 QuoteI think the whole "arabs all want to be martyrs so they get 67 virgins" thing is BS too. There's a lot of BS floating around lately. I KNOW all arabs don't want to die for a cause, it's just the ones that do that we have a problem with. QuoteIf we can get to a point where we're not killing arabs regularly, there is a better chance of that happening. Let's say we get to that point. What do we do when the fundamentalists declare victory over the west and the hate doesn't decrease? Not that it'll happen... but it isn't outside the realm of possibility.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #47 November 23, 2004 >It will be much easier for us to get to a point where we are not killing >Arabs (Muslims would be a better group since it is not just an Arab issue > that we are facing) if they would stop shooting at us... Well, now, there's the rub. Getting to a point where we can draw down troops from Iraq and Afghanistan will be key here, but there are few good options to get to that point. >our military actions in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s have all been in >response to aggression by the other side, and that IMO includes Iraq. Iraq did not attack the US. They shot at our planes and we bombed their facilities for years before the war, but you'd be hard-pressed to define the US shooting at a Chinese bomber over LA as "an act of american aggression" (as an example.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #48 November 23, 2004 Quote>It will be much easier for us to get to a point where we are not killing >Arabs (Muslims would be a better group since it is not just an Arab issue > that we are facing) if they would stop shooting at us... Well, now, there's the rub. Getting to a point where we can draw down troops from Iraq and Afghanistan will be key here, but there are few good options to get to that point. >our military actions in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s have all been in >response to aggression by the other side, and that IMO includes Iraq. Iraq did not attack the US. They shot at our planes and we bombed their facilities for years before the war, but you'd be hard-pressed to define the US shooting at a Chinese bomber over LA as "an act of american aggression" (as an example.) Ummm.... Bad logic Bill. Let's see. THe USA Invades Mexico to steal some natural resources. China and a lot of the world intervien and go to war against the USA. The USA looses the war and the UN puts restrictions on military flights in our own country to prevent us from again attacking Mexico. The Chineese and others patrol the "No fly Zone". The USA fires on those patrols...... THe USA is then wrong. That is a bit more realistic of a scenario!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #49 November 23, 2004 QuoteThe question is why are we STILL fighting a war in Iraq? or afhganastan for that matter.. The Pentgonese wanted to make a point, prove something to the world and history - that the US can invade and control an entire country with basically a light "police force". Tell everyone: "Look at us - it is soooo easy for us - and you may be next". Backfiring would be understandment for the result. They tried to proved that point at the cost of leaving quite a bunch of cities completely uncontrolled and unsecured - for over 1 and1/2 years !! - letting terror cells, extremisms, common crime, etc fester and florish there and humanitarian conditions deteriorate. In itself that sort of negligence is a blatant violation of any standard of international law and resposibility. It's for that sort of "show-off-ideology" that people are getting killed in large numbers now. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #50 November 23, 2004 >That is a bit more realistic of a scenario!!! And one that's going to be lost on most people (and that would include conservatives in the US in your scenario.) My point is that we have been shooting at each other for a long time for various reasons - if we want it to stop we BOTH have to stop. Telling arabs "everyone lay down your weapons and we'll keep killing you for just a little while longer, honest, then we'll stop' isn't going to fly, just as it wouldn't fly if they said that to us. What will work is a de-escalation of hostilities on both sides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
