The Islamofascist War that isn't

[Plane]

If there is actually an orginisation ouside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it .  What is the middle ground opinion?

Careful Plane....you can't seriously believe their ambitions are to kill every living American man, woman, & child now.  I mean, that's completely impractical & probably impossible, so the threat really isn't a threat at all.  Right?     

     Osama has sued for peace several times , all he demands is that we all become Islamic.
      This would destroy our first admendment ,is that worth a fight?


       The amazeing thing is the huge number of pople there are who think this to be a reasonable demand.

[sirs]

Careful Plane....you can't seriously believe their ambitions are to kill every living American man, woman, & child now.  I mean, that's completely impractical & probably impossible, so the threat really isn't a threat at all.  Right?     

Osama has sued for peace several times , all he demands is that we all become Islamic.  This would destroy our first admendment ,is that worth a fight?   The amazeing thing is the huge number of pople there are who think this to be a reasonable demand.
[/quote]

Of course....but there are some here who believe such rhetoric is specific to the death of every american, nut just simple subjugation

[Universe Prince]

What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremeists.

If there is actually an orginisation ouside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it .

What is the middle ground opinion?

An alternative to either aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or makeing buddies with the Islamic extremists is to do neither. I realize for those who believe in the either/or argument, this is an impossible stance because to not do the one is to do the other. The rhetoric is such that any attempt to suggest an alternative idea to aggressive pursuance of the "war on terror" is called appeasement.

One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony. Personally, I don't believe we need it. I think we should stop trying to tell other countries what to do and bring all overseas troops home. If someone attacks us or moves to attack us, then we defend ourselves. In the case of Al-Qaeda, we hunt them down and either kill them or, preferably, capture them and put them on trial. And please notice I said we defend ourselves, not we attack them before they attack us. And also notice I did not say that we try to make friends with the terrorists.

I know that what I just said is going to be rejected outright by some because for those who believe in the either/or argument, what I just said is equal to appeasing the terrorists. And someone is likely to object that my proposal also amounts to us sitting around and waiting to be attacked before we do anything. Both objections are completely wrong. I did not say we do nothing until attacked. Not initiating violent action does not mean leaving oneself defenseless. I did not say we should stop having a C.I.A. or an F.B.I. or police or a military.

[domer]

Newman's sentiments, the result of an overwhelming situational epiphany, are ones I share in spades. If 9-11 provoked any emotion from thoughtful, intelligent, formerly laconic Americans, it was that, and proudly so. At a moment like that, not only does a summary of one's life sweep by but so too does a chorus of rights and privileges theretofore unconsidered, largely, because they are presumed to be so basic as to be impregnable, like life itself, which itself was shattered as the palpable object of the 9-11 attack. Yet, this only begins the story.

Reflexive reactions must always give way to a reasoned intelligence, a quality of mind that impels us to fight smart if we are to fight at all. This is perhaps the one sure lesson I see reaffirmed in 9-11 and its aftermath. Leaving the Iraq invasion aside as a colossal mistake horribly executed and costing so much more in lives and treasure (US and Iraqi) than can ever be hoped to be gained in consequence, even beyond Afghanistan, there is a wise and efficacious role for our military in threatening and acting to stem the rising tide of violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism. At the moment, suffused in the news, the reported vital resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the mountainous western Pakistani tribal regions provides perhaps a textbook case of military need, provided the geopolitics of such an intervention can be successfully negotiated. Beyond that, with the military at the ready and on call for other problem spots, the full array of political, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, cultural, economic, and all allied disciplines should be brought to bear in a smart application of the full range of our power. The aim, which was not clearly conceived or articulated at the start, is not to pursue the elusive goal of administering a decisive humiliation but rather to effectively stanch the appeal of radical Islam, its assets and operational abilities, until such time as Islam itself can act as a self-correcting mechanism, openly shunning to the point where it dries up the noxious extremes of its radical kin and allowing the full-flowering of the true, core Islam revered by most except this avant garde from hell.

[The_Professor]

I see.  Apparently it gives you less of an Excedrin headache to respond to something that isn't in my post than to something that is. 

No, actually it gives me less of migraine when I avoid responding to any of your illogical, and frequently delusional diatribes, you consider "reasoned common sense"

Ok, I participarted for a while, got fed up, returned. -- only to see the domain of illogic and inane comments remains. Gotta go on sabbatical for a while again...sigh....Keep up the faith, Sirs. I salute your persistence and patience!

[sirs]

Ok, I participarted for a while, got fed up, returned. -- only to see the domain of illogic and inane comments remains. Gotta go on sabbatical for a while again...sigh....Keep up the faith, Sirs. I salute your persistence and patience!

If it's of my doing Professor, I apologise.  Don't stay away long

[Michael Tee]

<<No, actually it gives me less of migraine when I avoid responding to any of your illogical, and frequently delusional diatribes, you consider "reasoned common sense">>

I notice, though, whenever your disordered brain imagines it has a perfect response to any of my "illogical, and frequently delusional diatribes," you manage to jump right in there with it, headache or no.  So I have to consider the possibility that your failure to answer a point I made, based on "headache," is just more of your bullshit.  Which is really OK sirs, because you don't have to answer any of my posts at all - - I get plenty of fun demolishing the nonsensical lunacy of all your other posts, analyzing your replies to me is just the icing on the cake.

[Michael Tee]

<<Ok, I participarted for a while, got fed up, returned. -- only to see the domain of illogic and inane comments remains. Gotta go on sabbatical for a while again...sigh....>>

Geeze, sorry about that, Professor.  IMHO I was the one who was bringing logic to these debates and keeping the inane at bay.  But to each his own.  I'll miss you and look forward to your early return.

<<Keep up the faith, Sirs. I salute your persistence and patience!>>

Agreed, and I second the motion.  Sirs will have to personify the lunatic right for me, all on his own during your absence, Professor.  It's a heavy burden to force him to bear.

[sirs]

I notice, though, whenever your disordered brain imagines it has a perfect response to any of my "illogical, and frequently delusional diatribes," you manage to jump right in there with it, headache or no.  So I have to consider the possibility that your failure to answer a point I made, based on "headache," is just more of your bullshit.  

Your "points" have been addressed and debunked so many times, nit by just myself, but a whole host of others here in the saloon, for the illogical, irrational, & unsubtantiated opinions that they are, I've lost count.  Suffice to say, if you want to start another irrational thread, along the lines of how Bush is a moronic version of Hitler, yada, blather, etc., by all means go for it, and I'll hit the drugstore for more excedrin

[Michael Tee]

<<Your "points" have been addressed and debunked so many times, nit by just myself, but a whole host of others here in the saloon, for the illogical, irrational, & unsubtantiated opinions that they are, I've lost count. >>

LOL . . . Keep on hallucinating, sirs.  BTW, are you sure those pills you've been taking are Excedrin?

[Universe Prince]

Ok, I participarted for a while, got fed up, returned. -- only to see the domain of illogic and inane comments remains. Gotta go on sabbatical for a while again...sigh....Keep up the faith, Sirs. I salute your persistence and patience!

I guess that means you're not going to answer my question. But your post illustrates something that I find a continual frustration. You quoted a couple of the more troubling parts of Mr. Sanders' column, and then you spoke of confronting evil, mentioning integrity and truth in the process. And to top it all off, you label differing opinions "illogic and inane" without so much as a sentence to support your position. You're talking in moral terms as if your position is the only morally justifiable position, and insisting contrary positions are stupid. If the domain of illogic and inane comments remains, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I am beginning to wonder why some people here bother posting at all, because they seem completely uninterested in any sort of discussion at all. They just want to declare some sort of victory and move on to the next banal rehashing of "No, I know you're wrong because I'm right." Sure, everyone believes he or she is right, but can't we discuss ideas anyway? If all you're going to do is call everyone else's ideas stupid, at the very least you should try to be verbose like Domer or romantic like Crane so that your replies have some mild entertainment value.

[Universe Prince]

Confronting evil is ALWAYS productive.  It is a universal call of those of integrity and true seekers of Truth.

And when people of integrity do not agree on what is evil and what is Truth, what then?

So anyway, getting back to my question, what then? Anyone? Anyone care to try an answer?

[The_Professor]

Ok, I participarted for a while, got fed up, returned. -- only to see the domain of illogic and inane comments remains. Gotta go on sabbatical for a while again...sigh....Keep up the faith, Sirs. I salute your persistence and patience!

I guess that means you're not going to answer my question. But your post illustrates something that I find a continual frustration. You quoted a couple of the more troubling parts of Mr. Sanders' column, and then you spoke of confronting evil, mentioning integrity and truth in the process. And to top it all off, you label differing opinions "illogic and inane" without so much as a sentence to support your position. You're talking in moral terms as if your position is the only morally justifiable position, and insisting contrary positions are stupid. If the domain of illogic and inane comments remains, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I am beginning to wonder why some people here bother posting at all, because they seem completely uninterested in any sort of discussion at all. They just want to declare some sort of victory and move on to the next banal rehashing of "No, I know you're wrong because I'm right." Sure, everyone believes he or she is right, but can't we discuss ideas anyway? If all you're going to do is call everyone else's ideas stupid, at the very least you should try to be verbose like Domer or romantic like Crane so that your replies have some mild entertainment value.

I apologize. I will go back and (a) ignore the latter personal diatribe and (b) attempt to answer your question.

[The_Professor]

What I see from my perspective is that basically they try to structure the issue as an either/or, either you support aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or you want to make buddies with the Islamic extremists.

If there is actually an organization outside the USA whose stated purpose and ambition is the destruction of the entire USA, I am against it .

What is the middle ground opinion?

An alternative to either aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or making buddies with the Islamic extremists is to do neither. I realize for those who believe in the either/or argument, this is an impossible stance because to not do the one is to do the other. The rhetoric is such that any attempt to suggest an alternative idea to aggressive pursuance of the "war on terror" is called appeasement.

One's acceptance of alternative ideas depends on whether or not and to what degree one believes American foreign policy should be focused on the goal of an American hegemony. Personally, I don't believe we need it. I think we should stop trying to tell other countries what to do and bring all overseas troops home. If someone attacks us or moves to attack us, then we defend ourselves. In the case of Al-Qaeda, we hunt them down and either kill them or, preferably, capture them and put them on trial. And please notice I said we defend ourselves, not we attack them before they attack us. And also notice I did not say that we try to make friends with the terrorists.

I know that what I just said is going to be rejected outright by some because for those who believe in the either/or argument, what I just said is equal to appeasing the terrorists. And someone is likely to object that my proposal also amounts to us sitting around and waiting to be attacked before we do anything. Both objections are completely wrong. I did not say we do nothing until attacked. Not initiating violent action does not mean leaving oneself defenseless. I did not say we should stop having a C.I.A. or an F.B.I. or police or a military.

I assume this is what you would like me to answer, so....if not, please point ou the appropriate post, ok?

You said: "An alternative to either aggressively prosecuting the "war on terror" or making buddies with the Islamic extremists is to do neither. I realize for those who believe in the either/or argument, this is an impossible stance because to not do the one is to do the other. The rhetoric is such that any attempt to suggest an alternative idea to aggressive pursuance of the "war on terror" is called appeasement."

Actually, I partially agree with you. As I have mentioned before, and I believe we agree here, we as a nation, need to be less imperialistic and quit trying to be the world's policeman. I simply fail to ascertain why that is our manifest destiny. You can easily get into this mindset because as you respond to an earnest request form help from a belabored nation, you then, incorrectly, assume this makes you "responsbile" for righting all wrongs and then, before you know it, you are Imperial Rome. That is perfectly fine if your culture will support this posture. It is clear to me at least that ours does not. We do not, apparently, have the persistence to maintain long engagements. So, if your culture and societal norms do not allow for this, then you need to be self-aware of this and posture your foreign policy accordingly. In our case, I believe this means we need to reposition many of our forces and "interests" abroad. This not only includes current trouble points such as Iraq, but the Middle east in general. Basically, what I posit is that if it is not within our National Interest to be there (in a narrower sense than the neocons), then we should politely leave. We continue to particpate diplomatically and so on but "buddying up" is not necessary. An example of this posture might be Saudi Arabia. This borders upon the Al Queda issue, because the neocons have extended their vision of Al, Queda to include them being in many countires so therefore we have a prerogative to go in and "address this issue". This in antithetical to the policy I just advocated. There are means of addressing this systemic issue of terrorism via covert means and, yes, diplomacy. A similar comparison can be made to radical Islam. If they want to be "radical" then fine as long as it doesn't directly impact us (e.g, 9-11) or our interests abroad (limited interests like sea lanes, etc.). Appeasement enters the picture when it is mentioned that we cozy up to radical Islam factions. This is where I would draw the line. We should continue to conduct business via diplomatic channels with them (read: Iran) but no other support is required. It is like people at the workplace that you really do not get along with but you maintain cordial and professional relations with nonetheless. We should be talking to both Syria and Iran, This doesn't mean we agree with what they say, but we nod nonetheless and keep the communication channels open. HOWEVER, if they choose to confront us directly via violent means, then you totally decimate them, salt the ground, etc. We should have done that in Afghanistan. We did part of the job but not all. Now, did I agree with how the Taliban ruled that land before 9--1? Of course not, but that doesn't give me the moral or any other prerogative of "takingthem out" 9--1, in my opinion, provided that opportunity, otherwise continue to dialog with them, bribe them to come around perhaps, if possible, but shake your head and don't get any closer.

Did that answer your question, UP?

[sirs]

BTW, are you sure those pills you've been taking are Excedrin?

Yea.  What's your excuse.  Seriously though, I encourage you to start a new thread.  Outline how Bush is a moronic version of Hitler.  You know, "rational and reasoned" stuff like that.  Don't forget the concentration camps and mass graves of those rounded up for the slaughter.  I mean, if he's so stupid, he's bound to be leaving tangible/factual clues all over the place of how evil he really is.  Your opinion of how wrong the war is, and the lives lost in it, just doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.