So, how would you stop the War?

[rmnunez]

We both know there is little difference between fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam. Both want state interference in a whole range of moral issues that would be an abhorrence to a European.

I disagree. Though both may favour more state involvement in moral issues, the morality is different. Further, I think the Christian fundamentalists at least appreciate the problems with state involvement in church affairs too, something the Muslims aparently have not similarly experienced.

The only terrorist training camps under Saddam was run by Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq on the border with Iran. Ansar al-Islam was openly hostile to Saddam a secularist.

The Kurdish camps were there under the no-flys and, as Islamic fundamentalists, opposed to Saddam, but he did have terrorist ties, and he potentially could and was likely to develop them. It is well-documented Saddam disbursed up to $50 thousand to the surviving relatives of Palestinian "martyrs", whether this was some insignificant "publicity stunt" is another matter. It also was documented the infamous terrorist who hurled a wheel-chair bound tourist to his death from the deck of the Achille Lauro, lived in Baghdad by Saddam's explicit arrangement. An airport mock up with a trashed airliner in a Baghdadi industrial park were established to have been used in terrorist training drills.

The "no-flys" arguably were illegal, but arguably they also were not. The UN imposed a ceasefire after Desert Storm (Security Council Resolution 687). Subsequently, the Security Council authorized whatever means were deemed apropriate by the enforcing authority to protect the threatened Kurdish minority in Iraq. This was just one of many Security Council resolutions issued under the temporary ceasefire which enumerated a number of conditions (including those WMD inspections).

Firing on the patrolling aircraft enforcing the "no-flys" was a hostile act. Hostile acts intentionally directed against the enemy during a ceasefire technically can only be met by resumption of hostilities. The US and British aircraft were repeatedly "lit" by Iraqi ground defences which included guided and heat-seeking missile batteries recurringly destroyed by the patrolling jets, but the noted ineffectiveness of the Iraqi defences was only because the pilots enforcing the Security Council's resolution were more adept and didn't hesitate in demolishing any offending targeters.

Iraq had the same porous borders under Saddam as the Coalition now deals with and is neighbor to the two most important sources of fanatical Islam; Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both generate plenty of radical mullahs who agitate their devout followers from among which candidates to the madrassas and OBL's "bases" emerge. These devout fanatics are separated by Iraq, a Muslim country under infidel occupation, they are bound to try those vague borders and the outrageous aliens on those brethren lands.

[RickSp]

Even the American Conservative Union Foundation, not wild eyes left wingers they, are arguing that we should pull out immediately after the next election in December, essentially bugging out before the whole mess blows up in our face.

Iraq Exit

The elections provide the obvious rationale. That has been the continuing logic of positioning American troops to more isolated outposts and leaving the police work to the Iraqis, flexibly withdrawing U.S. soldiers after the next election one way or another turns power to the Iraqis to work out their own destinies.

[GodBlessAmerica]

rmnunez,

I agree, the morality is different. As an example, in Christianity and with Jews, if some radical/nut goes off and kills lets say a Muslim in a terror act, the Christian or Jew would denounce it.

If a similar thing happened where a radical Muslim killed a Jew or Christian, the Muslims mostly would praise it.

I think that is quite a difference.

[Matt W]

You haven't done any research here, have you? I've posted Muslim reaction to 9/11 and London a shedload of times, and it isn't like that at all. Stop believing stereotypes and look for yourself.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Matt W You haven't done any research here, have you? I've posted Muslim reaction to 9/11 and London a shedload of times, and it isn't like that at all. Stop believing stereotypes and look for yourself.

I can't help but find it amusing when a poster on one hand brags about "liberating" Islamic Iraqis and Afghans while in the next breath claiming that all or most Muslims are immoral murderous terrorists only interested in either killing or converting the rest of the world. Makes one wonder about the utility of all that "liberation" if Muslims are so fundamentally dangerous.

Regrettably not unusal among a certain subset of conservatives. Seems to suggest a certain lack of insight.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Matt W,

I have talked with many Muslims, especially in the West, who in public condemn violent acts but in private conversations say, "The West deserves this." In public, they will say it is a revenge for Palestine and Iraq, but in private I hear blind hatred, a virus that is taking over too many Muslim minds.

Only two things can stop terrorism: serious counter-fatwas from all Muslims to excommunicate bin Laden and his supporters, and a more skeptical eye in the West for Islamists who say one thing while advocating another.

There are no moderate Islamists that I have seen. There are ordinary Muslims who are living decent lives, and there are terrorists or would-be terrorists.

Mamoun Fandy is a senior fellow of Middle East and Islamic politics at Baker Institute at Rice University.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...-muslims_x.htm

A nice archive regarding the religion of peace for you to look up stuff on now and then.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[rmnunez]

The answer is in compromise. We won't see a long-term gringan puppet banana republic, but Iraq won't be allowed to break up un ethnic lines in intestine battles among regional warlords. We won't get full gender-equity, but it isn't going to be pure Sharia either. We already saw improved political participation, though not to the degree desired. I'd expect human rights to suffer in a military occupation, but as the responsibility for public safety gets transfered to reconstituted Iraqi police, I'd also anticipate they'd get some trraining on basic criminal procedure which will enhance human rights once the occupation ends. The reconstruction effort needs to be redoubled, this means better security on the ground and depends on more reliable and better equipped and trained local security. The infrastructure will remain vulnerable, but as its destruction produces more hardship to Iraqis it ought to make the insurgents unpopular if they keep blowing things up.

[Matt W]

GBA - 'Jihadwatch'?? Really? An unbiased archive, is it?? Somehow I doubt it.

As for muslim reaction, I suggest you look at the everyday papers following the London bombings & 9/11 in Egypt, Syria, etc. I've posted the links - feel free to go look.

[deedee]

Quote by: RickSp Yah right. Sure. And don't forget all the WMD and ties to Al Queda. Don't forget those. Your numbers and your conclusions are completely disconnected from reality. Just like our mad king.

Saddam himself was a weapon of MASS destruction. Google the Mass Graves.

[ibm]

Quote by: deedee Saddam himself was a weapon of MASS destruction. Google the Mass Graves.

so is our government (fema). google "katrina".

[deedee]

Quote by: ibm so is our government (fema). google "katrina".

Yes....and the man who did not have the 'experience' to handle this massive natural disaster is fired.

Did the hurricane kill 600,000 people? Let's not forget this man was a mad man who had pattern-like behavior. He was an ethnic cleanser and it all began with the Kuwaiti people. Then he continued his ethnic cleansing with the Shiites.

Now....Saddam's rebels are the true enemy in this whole war scenario. They ought to be dealt with.

[ibm]

Quote by: deedee Yes....and the man who did not have the 'experience' to handle this massive natural disaster is fired. Did the hurricane kill 600,000 people? Let's not forget this man was a mad man who had pattern-like behavior. He was an ethnic cleanser and it all began with the Kuwaiti people. Then he continued his ethnic cleansing with the Shiites. Now....Saddam's rebels are the true enemy in this whole war scenario. They ought to be dealt with.

mind you brown is not fired - yet.

so the reason we invaded iraq WAS saddam himself - one we had generously supported. although real wmd isn't found, now saddam IS the wmd we've been searching for.

a very innovative way to justify the war and its legality i have to say.

[deedee]

Quote by: ibm mind you brown is not fired - yet. so the reason we invaded iraq WAS saddam himself - one we had generously supported. although real wmd isn't found, now saddam IS the wmd we've been searching for. a very innovative way to justify the war and its legality i have to say.

Name one country we have supported that has not turned against us. (Excluding Israel). I don't believe they have 'backstabbed' us yet.

Typical human behavior if you ask me, sometimes people mistake kindness for weakness. Saddam made that mistake with us.

How many times have you helped a stranger only for that stranger to turn against you? The United States is a friendly nation with a big heart. Sure we have issues and sure we need to progress, however, for as 'new' as it is relative to the 'old world' countries......well, instead of us griping, we should push for justice.

We are just in helping the Shiites from the oppression they received from Saddam.

[Gilligan]

That's an easy one. I'd keep Bush as president (and I can't stand the man), BUT without Homeland Security, FEMA and Cheney...Bush would be forced to behave himself and bring the troops home.

[ibm]

Quote by: deedee Name one country we have supported that has not turned against us. (Excluding Israel). I don't believe they have 'backstabbed' us yet.

none. but your point here being?

Quote by: deedee Typical human behavior if you ask me, sometimes people mistake kindness for weakness. Saddam made that mistake with us.

we supported iraq and saddam out of what? kindness? does kindness, in its conventional meaning, even exist in politics and international relations?

Quote by: deedee How many times have you helped a stranger only for that stranger to turn against you? The United States is a friendly nation with a big heart. Sure we have issues and sure we need to progress, however, for as 'new' as it is relative to the 'old world' countries......well, instead of us griping, we should push for justice. We are just in helping the Shiites from the oppression they received from Saddam.

from wmd’s to “spreading the seeds of democracy”, from “liberating iraq people” to “the bin ladin connection”, from “saddam IS the wmd” to now “helping the shiites”, the encyclopedia for justifying the war just becomes more and more brilliant.

[Gracchus]

Quote by: deedee Name one country we have supported that has not turned against us. (Excluding Israel). I don't believe they have 'backstabbed' us yet.

But as I remember, Israel did shoot up a plainly marked, unarmed U.S. Navy ship during the Six-day War, and has at least once suborned espionage from a U.S. intelligence operative.

Typical human behavior if you ask me, sometimes people mistake kindness for weakness. Saddam made that mistake with us.

Tell that to all the Iraqis we killed who were not hiding weapons of mass destruction, were not terrorists, were not oppressing anyone, and were not Saddam Hussein. Have them tell us how kind the U.S. is.

How many times have you helped a stranger only for that stranger to turn against you?

Only once, that I remember.

The United States is a friendly nation with a big heart. Sure we have issues and sure we need to progress, however, for as 'new' as it is relative to the 'old world' countries......well, instead of us griping, we should push for justice.

Which can't happen until we admit our injustices.

We are just in helping the Shiites from the oppression they received from Saddam.

We are just helping ourselves to the control of Iraqi oil, and Saddam Hussein's undercutting of OPEC's price gouging. I predict that the price of oil will rise even faster with Saddam Hussein out of the way...OOPS! To late! It already has.

:rolleyes:

[Dirty Name]

CRUSH THE ENEMY. Completely. Total war. It's the only way. And when I say, "total war," I mean wiping every living thing from the face of the earth from one border to the next in Iraq. Leveling every building to the point where the largest piece of rubble is smaller than a man's fist. Start Iraq from scratch. NOTHING LEFT. Now before you peaceniks dismiss this strategy, there are two points about it that I think you'll like:

1) If the threat wasn't serious enough - and it would have to be pretty damned serious for a "total war" policy - the American people wouldn't stand for it. Thus, in this case, the evidence would not have reached the threshold necessary for "total war."

2) If Saddam understood the United States policy to be that of "total war," he likely would have capitulated.

Thus, the US Total Warfare Policy is known and feared throughout the world. But the destructive power is so great that it is rarely used, and rarely would it even need to be threatened...

Now I know many of you will still dismiss this because you believe it requires unnecessary killing.

NONSENSE! If you don't want to die, you surrender. Of course, your buildings still get leveled, your weapons still get confiscated and/or melted into scrap, and you become a ward of the United States until we re-establish Iraq. If our policy is known and feared, civilians will flee rather than die in place. The key is that the policy must be known.