Broken Army

[BT]

This is the question before you.

Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.

If not now, when.

Your representatives knew that was the core question and that is why they voted as they did.

Your polls reflect disatisfaction with Bush, the way he has prosecuted the war and a discomfort with the causualties that occur in any war. In fact the anti war movement was so splintered pushing so many different agendas, that there was no doubt it was doomed to fail. Simply because they didn't address the core issue. And yes you get kudos for participating in that failed effort. .

But they don't reflect opinion concerning the core question.

What is truly amusing is watching you guys flash the big rubber finger as if you have accomplished anything. The war continues. All you have won is first dibs at distributing pork, unless you and your representatives have the courage to act upon your campaign promises. I don't think they or you do.

Because the core question remains.

[Brassmask]

This is the question before you.

Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.

If that then is the question, I'll be glad to address it and let you know how it should be done.  We have seen for the last few years how it should NOT be done and in fact, hasn't been done; because if the goal is to stop a violent radical islam in its tracks then, by god, first and foremost don't do anything that will give that group greater power in recruiting larger numbers of "warriors" into its ranks.

If we are trying to stop these guys in their tracks then let's not try to remember that John Wayne's real name was Francis and he had to be taught to ride and the way he handled problems in the movies (with his fists and his guns) is not a basis for foreign policy.  While the men he faced in movies were the "bad guys" and that may be true of those who we now deem worthy of stopping in their tracks, simply killing them is not possible as it would be for John Wayne in a movie.  For it is not just Wayne versus 10 cowpokes on horses who just want to rob the bank or take the sheep rancher's land. 

If it is radical islam then that is an idea, ideology and the only way to combat with real effectiveness is with better ideas and more acceptable, inclusive ideology.  Sure, any fool can run out and kill the leader of the radical islamists but there will be another right behind him to take his place.  And that leader's death will be used as a rallying cry of martyrdom that will bring greater numbers of new believers.  When that leader is killed, the rest of the cowpokes aren't going to slink off while we kiss the girl and pin the star on our collective chests denoting the just are now the bringers of justice.

Clinton has stated and I agree that we cannot kill or jail all of our enemies.  Our presence in Iraq is indicative that Bush does not ascribe to this belief.  It insinuates that in his head, we only need have a greater force or more resolve or bigger guns than our enemy and soon we will get those kisses from Susie and that star will be shined up.  It ain't happenin', kid.  It ain't about pride, image, winning, history or Bush's ego.  It's about lives.  It's about leading by example.  Till he learns that, he endangers all of America.

And till stauch supporters and talkers of resolve realize that Bush may have thrown the party, invited all of you, entertained all of you, made you glad you came at the beginning, he is now stumbling drunk around the room and making a real boor of himself, insulting everyone.

[BT]

You miss the point of the question.

Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.

I believe that would require a yes or no response.

[Brassmask]

You miss the point of the question.

Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks.

I believe that would require a yes or no response.

I believe you would have to qualify to what extent.  Is violent radical islam worth stopping in its tracks with a phone call?  Yes.  With a few troops locating and capturing ObL?  Yes.  With an intense bloody guerilla ground war that kills troops daily, wounds more dailly, destroys a nation by creating endless, uncontrollable sectarian civil war and creates even more faceless followers of radical islam that hate America, creates a constitutional crisis leading to questions of impeachment of a petulant, egotistical madman of a president and can only be defending with bland, broad non-tangible solutions like "stay the course"?  No, I don't think so. 

And I made that very clear before the power was given to Bush to do all these things years ago.  None of this is a surprise to those of us who predicted nearly all of this.

[Plane]

If Radical Islam is worth stopping it is worth stopping for a reason.

To me the reason is its history of murder and repression and its potential for more and worse.


A phone call will not stop them .

A few troops will not stop them .

Captureing OBL will not stop them .

So Do not Qualify your answer to you it is not worth doing what is necessacery , so your anser is an unqualified no.

[Lanya]

Is it worth a war tax?
Is it worth eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy?
Is it worth reinstating the draft?
Is it worth gas rationing?

[BT]

Is it worth a war tax?
Is it worth eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy?
Is it worth reinstating the draft?
Is it worth gas rationing?

Yes

Next

[domer]

Is it worth sending your son over there in a combat role?

[BT]

Is it worth sending your son over there in a combat role?

My son is in the Navy, currently stationed in Sicily. Three members of his unit have already been to Iraq. He could very well be next.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Let us count the times when a warlike faction of any religion was defeated permanently by a national army.

I suggest that soldiers can eliminate other soldiers, buy there is no government that can annihilate a religion that believe that martyrdom is a worthy cause.

Trying to defeat a religion with an army , especially a foreign army that does not speak the local language and does not understand the culture of the enemy, is like trying to assemble a cake with hammers and nails. No matter how good the hammer is or how sharp the nails are, this cannot be done.

No amount of courage will accomplish this.

[BT]

Let us count the times when a warlike faction of any religion was defeated permanently by a national army.

I suggest that soldiers can eliminate other soldiers, buy there is no government that can annihilate a religion that believe that martyrdom is a worthy cause.

I don't believe anyone is trying to annihilate a religion.I believe they are trying to persuade those who think that blowing up civilians with carbombs will have repercussions.

[Plane]

Let us count the times when a warlike faction of any religion was defeated permanently by a national army.

I suggest that soldiers can eliminate other soldiers, buy there is no government that can annihilate a religion that believe that martyrdom is a worthy cause.

Trying to defeat a religion with an army , especially a foreign army that does not speak the local language and does not understand the culture of the enemy, is like trying to assemble a cake with hammers and nails. No matter how good the hammer is or how sharp the nails are, this cannot be done.

No amount of courage will accomplish this.

Why do you think the anilation of a religion is needed?

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is the question before you.

Is violent radical Islam worth stopping in its tracks.

==========================================

How do you "stop radical violent Islam" in its tracks without annihilating it?

These people have not risen up because "they hate our freedoms".

They have become suicidally dangerous because they feel that the West has trampled on their rights.
(1) The US has supported every corrupt dictatorship in the area. The US deposed an elected government in Iran and put the Shah in power. Then the US tried to arrange for a replacement dictatorship with Baktiari when the Shah was dying.
The US continues trying to overthrow the Iranian government.
The US supported Saddam, even after he gassed the Kurds. The US did all it could to prolong the Iran-Iraq War.
(2) The US has constantly supported Israeli colonization of Palestinian lands. There is an effective system of apartheid in Israel today, and the US supports it with money and diplomacy.
(3) The US sent US troops to Saudi Arabia in contradiction to the Koran. Some Americans smuggled Arabic Christian Bibles into Saudi Arabia and  were actively evangelizing, in counter to the agreement with the Saudi government.
(4) Saddam was told by the US ambassador April Gilespie, who has never held one interview, that it was okay for him to invade Kuwait. Using US technology, the Kuwaitis were drilling diagonally across the Iraqi border and were draining Iraqi oil
(5) The US supported the bombing of civilians in Lebanon just this year, and deliberately kept the bombs falling for over a week.

NO one believes that the US wants a democracy in Iraq except you dittoheads. If there is an elected government after the US leaves, it will be an assortment of Arabic Tom DeLays with elections manipulated by Arabic Karl Roves.

Juniorbush has ineptly painted this country into a corner. It is a while lot easier to make fish soup than it is to restore the contents to an aquarium.

He will be lucky if even Afghanistan turns out halfway neutral to US interests.

[domer]

I don't think the list of US sins is as uncomplicated and stark as you suggest. In fact, I'll say categorically that it's not. Further, the Muslim regions affected by our policies share a significant degree of the blame for any deleterious situations that have developed. They were not and are not passive. Most importantly, however, our enemies are not Muslims but violent, radical Islamists, a relatively small fraction of the overall number, if supportive to some degree by sympathies, tolerance and non-opposition. Our fight is like this, in an apt metaphor: we seek to eliminate the Bolsheviks, not the Russian people.

Approached from another standpoint, conceding wrongdoing by the US for the sake of argument, Japan and and Germany -- infinitely more damaging to the peace and health of the world some 60-70 years ago -- have followed a path of reconciliation that has brought them to the point where former enemies are friends. I suggest that the disaffected Muslims use the same approach we used on those two WWII foes, adjusted for context but not attitude.

[Plane]

" 1) The US has supported every corrupt dictatorship in the area. The US deposed an elected government in Iran and put the Shah in power. Then the US tried to arrange for a replacement dictatorship with Baktiari when the Shah was dying. 

Should we have no freinds in the region?

Every government in the area is to some degree undemocratic or repressive by our standards , I don't think we can shun all of them.

I didn't know that the Carter administration was trying to preserve the Pavlavi dynasty , what in particular was done?