What should we do now: for Liberals

[Mariner]

1. Take a look at who's actually detained at Guantanamo. The implication that everyone we arrest is a beheader is a ridiculous exaggeration. Many insurgents have condemned the behavior of the splinter groups who have committed these atrocities. Treating people who are not likely to be dangerous as if they were terrorists simply makes us look unfair and heavy-handed--and thereby encourages more people to hate us, engendering more terrorism. I believe we'd do better to take the moral high ground for that reason. Wouldn't it be great if, all around the world, everyone saw that the U.S. treated every prisoner fairly?

2. We haven't yet provided freedom to either Afghanistan or Iraq. The jury is still out on both, though it's certainly (thank goodness) looking good in Afghanistan (though the bulk of the country is under the control of warlords who are not the loveliest of allies). In Iraq, we've killed tens of thousands of civilians--we'd certainly better do a superb job of establishing good gov't there if we expect the citizenry actually to conclude that it was worth it. The extent to which the President misjudged this situation is legendary by now, from the "Mission Accomplished" speech to the surprise at the insurgency. Let's not count chickens before they're hatched.

3. Every single Jewish person I know (primarily Harvard-based physicians, i.e. an educated bunch--I know opinion on the streets in Israel is different) agrees with Mr. Marbles assessment of the Israeli and Palestinian problem, and would not consider it anti-Semitic, but rather the truth. One of my best friends, who lives around the corner and whose parents have Holocaust numbers tattooed on their arms says precisely what Mr. Marbles said.

4. Raising a missile shield while testing new nuclear devices of our own and at the same time trying to prevent other countries from acquiring or testing them threatens to create an arms race--countries that can't afford it become pressured to put money into developing more sophisticated arms. Of course, Bush/Reagan's ridiculous Star Wars shield won't stop anything. They're building this 9 story high unit in Alaska right now that will cost, if I remember right, $20 billion dollars--based on tests which showed that the system will intercept only 3 out of 5 missiles. And that's only if it's given 10 minutes advance warning that they're coming, and if the missiles are accompanied by no decoys. A simply mylar balloon fools it nicely.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

1. Take a look at who's actually detained at Guantanamo. The implication that everyone we arrest is a beheader is a ridiculous exaggeration. Many insurgents have condemned the behavior of the splinter groups who have committed these atrocities. Treating people who are not likely to be dangerous as if they were terrorists simply makes us look unfair and heavy-handed--and thereby encourages more people to hate us, engendering more terrorism. I believe we'd do better to take the moral high ground for that reason. Wouldn't it be great if, all around the world, everyone saw that the U.S. treated every prisoner fairly?

Ridiculous exaggeration? I think not.

You're amazingly naive. have you heard of appeasement? It's generally considered a failed policy.

2. We haven't yet provided freedom to either Afghanistan or Iraq. The jury is still out on both, though it's certainly (thank goodness) looking good in Afghanistan (though the bulk of the country is under the control of warlords who are not the loveliest of allies). In Iraq, we've killed tens of thousands of civilians--we'd certainly better do a superb job of establishing good gov't there if we expect the citizenry actually to conclude that it was worth it. The extent to which the President misjudged this situation is legendary by now, from the "Mission Accomplished" speech to the surprise at the insurgency. Let's not count chickens before they're hatched.

3. Every single Jewish person I know (primarily Harvard-based physicians, i.e. an educated bunch--I know opinion on the streets in Israel is different) agrees with Mr. Marbles assessment of the Israeli and Palestinian problem, and would not consider it anti-Semitic, but rather the truth. One of my best friends, who lives around the corner and whose parents have Holocaust numbers tattooed on their arms says precisely what Mr. Marbles said.

Academia is full of brain dead liberals, even jewish ones.

4. Raising a missile shield while testing new nuclear devices of our own and at the same time trying to prevent other countries from acquiring or testing them threatens to create an arms race--countries that can't afford it become pressured to put money into developing more sophisticated arms. Of course, Bush/Reagan's ridiculous Star Wars shield won't stop anything. They're building this 9 story high unit in Alaska right now that will cost, if I remember right, $20 billion dollars--based on tests which showed that the system will intercept only 3 out of 5 missiles. And that's only if it's given 10 minutes advance warning that they're coming, and if the missiles are accompanied by no decoys. A simply mylar balloon fools it nicely.

Mariner.

Threatens to create an arms race? The world has been in an arms race since time immemorial. Why don't you grow up?

 

[ajwps]

1. Take a look at who's actually detained at Guantanamo. The implication that everyone we arrest is a beheader is a ridiculous exaggeration. Many insurgents have condemned the behavior of the splinter groups who have committed these atrocities. Treating people who are not likely to be dangerous as if they were terrorists simply makes us look unfair and heavy-handed--and thereby encourages more people to hate us, engendering more terrorism. I believe we'd do better to take the moral high ground for that reason. Wouldn't it be great if, all around the world, everyone saw that the U.S. treated every prisoner fairly? 2. We haven't yet provided freedom to either Afghanistan or Iraq. The jury is still out on both, though it's certainly (thank goodness) looking good in Afghanistan (though the bulk of the country is under the control of warlords who are not the loveliest of allies). In Iraq, we've killed tens of thousands of civilians--we'd certainly better do a superb job of establishing good gov't there if we expect the citizenry actually to conclude that it was worth it. The extent to which the President misjudged this situation is legendary by now, from the "Mission Accomplished" speech to the surprise at the insurgency. Let's not count chickens before they're hatched.3. Every single Jewish person I know (primarily Harvard-based physicians, i.e. an educated bunch--I know opinion on the streets in Israel is different) agrees with Mr. Marbles assessment of the Israeli and Palestinian problem, and would not consider it anti-Semitic, but rather the truth. One of my best friends, who lives around the corner and whose parents have Holocaust numbers tattooed on their arms says precisely what Mr. Marbles said. 4. Raising a missile shield while testing new nuclear devices of our own and at the same time trying to prevent other countries from acquiring or testing them threatens to create an arms race--countries that can't afford it become pressured to put money into developing more sophisticated arms. Of course, Bush/Reagan's ridiculous Star Wars shield won't stop anything. They're building this 9 story high unit in Alaska right now that will cost, if I remember right, $20 billion dollars--based on tests which showed that the system will intercept only 3 out of 5 missiles. And that's only if it's given 10 minutes advance warning that they're coming, and if the missiles are accompanied by no decoys. A simply mylar balloon fools it nicely. Mariner.

Those enemy "soldiers" held in Guantanamo are being treated fairly. They are given food that is consistent with their religious beliefs, given strawberry preserves instead of orange marmalade and given a life style superior to their own prior to be captured as prisoners of war. They are not entitled to the American justice system or trial by their peers. Our soldiers are killed by their brothers when captured and we give them jelly and no pork foods.

You say that the Reagan star wars missile shield was ridiculous. You haven't got the vaguest concept of what that 'stupid' action actually accomplished. The Russians tried to keep up with the US Star Wars race and spent themselves into collapsing as a world power and now fight to learn democracy in a few years in which it took the westeren world centuries to live with.

You quote Jewish holocaust survivors statements, even though bright intelligent people, as somehow valid in the real world. These same Jewish holocaust survivors actually voted for Hitler in the 1930s when he was running for power in Germany. They also voted for John Kerry in the last election even though they knew that Kerry was ready to sacrifice Israel to get the Europeans and Arab nations as FRIENDS.

Finally you have no idea of how many enemy missiles can be stopped by anti-ballistic systems for that information is highly classified. Forget about gleaning real information from news services or the Internet.

 

[Mariner]

I don't believe the word "appeasement" is applicable to the Iraq situation or the Al Qaeda situation.

I would never advocate directly appeasing Al Qaeda members or leaders, e.g. if they say, "You abandon your base in Saudi Arabia or we'll blow up another U.S. skyscraper." (Oops, I seem to remember reading that we have in fact reduced our military presence in Saudi Arabia, so I guess we are appeasers).

Treating a potentially innocent Iraqi, who may only be fighting to protect his own home, as identical to an Al Qaeda terrorist or a member of a splinter insurgent group that performs kidnappings and abductions is an error, in my opinion. We have to differentiate people from each other. They may look alike to American eyes, but they are quite different--and their potential dangerousness and utility to us is quite different.

The word "appeasement" carries connotations of the world wars. Our current situation is not about world war--it's about making world conditions inhospitable to the development of terrorism. A large Muslim world that distrusts us or believes we treat Muslims unfairly and invade their countries at will is, to me, a less safe situation than a large Muslim world which sees us as good people who respect their religion and seek only to help them achieve economic success and basic human rights for their people. The latter situation is much safer for us, because these Muslims 1. will not turn terrorist themselves as easily, and 2. will help us by turning in terrorists.

Think about the situation in North Ireland, where terrorism was able to persist for decades because of a generally angry populace. Most Irish Republicans would never kill an innocent British person in a terrorist act. But they were angry enough at the British that they also would not turn in the IRA members among them.

That's the situation we're in. The British could not control IRA terrorism by force or by bullying. It could only be controlled by engaging with the general populace's needs and feelings. That's the "hearts and minds" war that we lose every time we ignore the Geneva convention, leave innocent people in jail for months, or abuse prisoners, e.g. Abu Ghraib.

Ajwps. Sure, you could be right that they're withholding secret information about how good the system really is, but why would they? A deterrent is only good if the enemy knows about it. The public tests that have been conducated have all been dismal failures. The only reason Clinton didn't kill the program is because he knew he would be called soft on defense.

As for Israel--we'll just have to see what happens. I'm not sure why Mr. Marbles's statement bothered you so much. Israel was in fact founded on land where Palestinians previously lived. Many were displaced in its founding. The world community asked them to make this sacrifice on behalf of the horrors of two millenia of anti-Semitism, to give the Jews a homeland. Many Palestinians, however, were upset about this. I wish that instead of taking a terrorist route they had taken a legal route to seek the establishment of a Palestinian state.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to chat with the head psychiatrist in the CIA. I asked him for examples of situations in history where terrorism had actually worked. My country, India, achieved freedom without terrorism, under Ghandi's leadership. Martin Luther King, reading Ghandi, brought black Americans civil rights, again without violence. He said that, unfortunately, terrorism could in fact be effective when a David goes against a Goliath. He gave examples of South Africa (the ANC), Ireland (the IRA), and the Palestinian people, whose cause was ignored by the world until Yasser Arafat began his terrorism.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

I don't believe the word "appeasement" is applicable to the Iraq situation or the Al Qaeda situation.

I would never advocate directly appeasing Al Qaeda members or leaders, e.g. if they say, "You abandon your base in Saudi Arabia or we'll blow up another U.S. skyscraper." (Oops, I seem to remember reading that we have in fact reduced our military presence in Saudi Arabia, so I guess we are appeasers).

Treating a potentially innocent Iraqi, who may only be fighting to protect his own home, as identical to an Al Qaeda terrorist or a member of a splinter insurgent group that performs kidnappings and abductions is an error, in my opinion. We have to differentiate people from each other. They may look alike to American eyes, but they are quite different--and their potential dangerousness and utility to us is quite different.

The word "appeasement" carries connotations of the world wars. Our current situation is not about world war--it's about making world conditions inhospitable to the development of terrorism. A large Muslim world that distrusts us or believes we treat Muslims unfairly and invade their countries at will is, to me, a less safe situation than a large Muslim world which sees us as good people who respect their religion and seek only to help them achieve economic success and basic human rights for their people. The latter situation is much safer for us, because these Muslims 1. will not turn terrorist themselves as easily, and 2. will help us by turning in terrorists.

Think about the situation in North Ireland, where terrorism was able to persist for decades because of a generally angry populace. Most Irish Republicans would never kill an innocent British person in a terrorist act. But they were angry enough at the British that they also would not turn in the IRA members among them.

That's the situation we're in. The British could not control IRA terrorism by force or by bullying. It could only be controlled by engaging with the general populace's needs and feelings. That's the "hearts and minds" war that we lose every time we ignore the Geneva convention, leave innocent people in jail for months, or abuse prisoners, e.g. Abu Ghraib.

Ajwps. Sure, you could be right that they're withholding secret information about how good the system really is, but why would they? A deterrent is only good if the enemy knows about it. The public tests that have been conducated have all been dismal failures. The only reason Clinton didn't kill the program is because he knew he would be called soft on defense.

As for Israel--we'll just have to see what happens. I'm not sure why Mr. Marbles's statement bothered you so much. Israel was in fact founded on land where Palestinians previously lived. Many were displaced in its founding. The world community asked them to make this sacrifice on behalf of the horrors of two millenia of anti-Semitism, to give the Jews a homeland. Many Palestinians, however, were upset about this. I wish that instead of taking a terrorist route they had taken a legal route to seek the establishment of a Palestinian state.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to chat with the head psychiatrist in the CIA. I asked him for examples of situations in history where terrorism had actually worked. My country, India, achieved freedom without terrorism, under Ghandi's leadership. Martin Luther King, reading Ghandi, brought black Americans civil rights, again without violence. He said that, unfortunately, terrorism could in fact be effective when a David goes against a Goliath. He gave examples of South Africa (the ANC), Ireland (the IRA), and the Palestinian people, whose cause was ignored by the world until Yasser Arafat began his terrorism.

Mariner.

There were many reasons that we lifted many of our troops out of Saudi Arabia, but appeasement of OBL was not one of them.

Regarding the Muslim world, please remember that that we cannot help them achieve economic success and basic human rights as they believe in neither. Equating the troubles in Ireland to what is going on in Iraq is disingenous at best. The Muslims believe in killing the infidel (i.e., anyone not Muslim) and no political solution can hope to resolve that basic issue.

Finally, if you seriously believe the American civil rights movement was successfully concluded without violence, your education is sorely lacking.

 

[MrMarbles]

Oh sure, we are "violating" the rights of the dirty dogs who kill our citizens and saw off their heads. Tell me, are you now going to say that these filthy terrorists are NOT violating peoples rights or the Geneva convention? Why should we give them special rights and privileges when they don't do likewise to the innocents that they capture?

Murder is against the law. So punish them accordingly. Not charging them, not telling them why they are detained, not allowing them to contact lawyers or even family members is against they're human rights. Do you really want to sink they're level? You give them they're basic rights as humans. Once/if you find them guilty of a crime, then you can punish them according to your law, not before.

So you think it is hypocritical to trounce a dictator BEFORE he actually develops operating nuclear weapons? You would rather wait until he has the nukes aimed at your cities instead? We are "negotiating" with NK now because they already have the nukes in our faces, get it?? Like I said before, Clinton, the liberal you liberals think was so great with nicey-nice negotiations botched the job and now we need to be extra careful because nastyang has a trigger to pull. That is hardly hypocritical. You libs are really reaching.

It's hypocritical. In the name of peace you invade a country, then spare another country which is preforming the same acts.

Of course you think it is "arrogance". I call it sanity. You liberals just want to pull the U.S. down to your pitiful level. If we joined the ICC you guys would act like jackals. The first person you would probably haul into court would be our President Bush, the man who is leading the fight against the terrorists and providing freedom to helpless peoples. You marxist socialists just don't want freedom to spread and grow in this world, plain and simple.

Your an idiot. "They hate us for our freedom" is the most lamest excuse ever. And believing it actually proves how dumb some Americans can be.

Maybe the reason the US won't abide by international law because it is afraid that it would be held accountable for it's actions.

We have just invaded two of the poorest and MOST OPPRESSED nations in the world and provided them FREEDOM and a FUTURE from oppression and the killing and torture of countless MORE innocents, not only in their own countries but in other countries as well. Is this really a concept you find really difficult to understand? Or is it you just refuse to take off the blinders you wear?

My blinders are off. Tell that shpeel to thos killed by 'freedom' http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Iraq is a mess. The people aren't behind you.

Oh, btw, I'll remember your gratitude when you Canucks want something again.

Like what?

Sure, blame your anti-semitism on "complications".

And i'll blame your iggnorance on your inbreeding.

No, pray tell me about your "perpetual suffering" from WWI.

"Well, back in ninteen dickety-two, we had to say dickety because the Kaizer stole our word for twenty"

Read a book. And nothing endorsed by Fox news, something less bias will help you.

What do you define as progress? We define progress to be the dismanteling of the nukes. Not empty promises. If NK can't last much longer, then that is Nastyang's problem, isn't it? Not ours. And certainly no reason to "reward" him.

Thats a good place to start.

Why is putting up a defense system going to "increase tension"? Why do you have a problem with a system that is only there to PROTECT? I just don't follow your "logic".

How many times does this need to be explained? You build sheild, they build sheild killer, you build better sheild and get angry, they build bigger sheild killer and get even more angryier. Then Austria's Arch-Duke gets shot, and we all get screwed.

Also, you dismissively (blah, blah, blah) ignore what I said about the current "negotiations" happening with NK. What is it you really find so horrible about what Bush is doing? Is there something so much better to do? Enlighten me.

He's not doing anythin'.

 

[manu1959]

couple of comments:

what is canada doing about anyhting in the world?

they're is spelled their in every context you have attempted to use it

funny thing about the (clinton era) CIA, Goss is in there (not they're) busting balls and his memos are leaked the next day....i say fire the lot of them and start over...the press is just pissed because all their (not they're) sources are being fired

 

[Mariner]

Of course I know there was some violence in the civil rights movement--but there could have been much more. By calling for non-violent protest, MLK and others gained a moral high ground and saved countless lives that would have been lost if he had chosen terrorist means instead.

And getting the British out of India with minimal violence was nothing short of breathtaking. Both examples show how having a moral high ground can work--but of course it only works against enemies with morals who are able to see you as human. Most Muslims have morals, and we could do better at showing them that we're human. Terrorists, of course, don't, and I would never advocate violence against them. Once more, as I said above, we have to differentiate. If people like Screaming Eagle simply lump all the brown people together, that's no better thinking than when an Iraqi on the street concludes that all Americans are sadists because of what happened at Abu Ghraib. Using Screaming Eagle's logic, all Muslims SHOULD want to kill us. Thank goodness most of them are more sensible than he.

Mariner.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Murder is against the law. So punish them accordingly. Not charging them, not telling them why they are detained, not allowing them to contact lawyers or even family members is against they're human rights. Do you really want to sink they're level? You give them they're basic rights as humans. Once/if you find them guilty of a crime, then you can punish them according to your law, not before.

It's hypocritical. In the name of peace you invade a country, then spare another country which is preforming the same acts.

Your an idiot. "They hate us for our freedom" is the most lamest excuse ever. And believing it actually proves how dumb some Americans can be.

Maybe the reason the US won't abide by international law because it is afraid that it would be held accountable for it's actions.

My blinders are off. Tell that shpeel to thos killed by 'freedom' http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Iraq is a mess. The people aren't behind you.

Like what?

And i'll blame your iggnorance on your inbreeding.

"Well, back in ninteen dickety-two, we had to say dickety because the Kaizer stole our word for twenty"

Read a book. And nothing endorsed by Fox news, something less bias will help you.

Thats a good place to start.

How many times does this need to be explained? You build sheild, they build sheild killer, you build better sheild and get angry, they build bigger sheild killer and get even more angryier. Then Austria's Arch-Duke gets shot, and we all get screwed.

He's not doing anythin'.

Mr. Marbles, is that what your head is full of? Most of your replies are nothing but pea shooters. Oh, it must be you're still suffering from WWI...

You seem to want to ignore the fact that we are at war with these terrorists. However, it is not a "declared war" and we are under NO obligation to treat said terrorists like regular troops - although now they are all getting a hearing and being charged with their individual offenses. Also, if you will stop to take notice, the terrorists are NOT treating our troops or citizens with ANY regard for "the law". However, instead of blaming the terrorists for NOT following the Geneva convention or even treating our troops or citizens with one iota of respect (they would rather just kill innocent people, then disfigure their dead bodies and hang them from bridges for instance) you liberals take it upon yourself to blame the United States by shrieking in your media about how "horribly" we are treating those poor captured terrorists. If only. Your media says nary a word about the truly nasty things that the terrorists do to OUR people. What about OUR human rights? Did any of those people that got their heads sliced off have a lawyer in their defense? Just whose side are you on anyway? (rhetorical question)

You also certainly don't seem to understand the North Korean situation nor do you have a solution of your own to propose although you sure like to criticize us. It is obvious to me that you just want to attack Bush and the U.S. by making assinine comparisons between Iraq and NK.

The only way we Americans would become idiots would be to join the ICC. "You hate us for our freedom" is not an "excuse" (as you say) of why we do not join. That is your phrase and only describes how folks like you in liberal international set feel about us for not joining your little criminal court junket. Why on earth should we let you guys get your anti-American claws into us? So hate us for it. I don't care.

If your blinders are off then you can see that Iraq is getting ready to have elections next year. You can see that the people in Iraq are starting to live better. You can see that it scares the pants off the Islamofascists to see freedom taking hold in the Middle East. Much as you guys wish Iraq was a complete and utter failure, it just ain't true.

I doubt if there is ANYTHING you liberals like about American foreign policy. Yet you can't seem to come up with any better answers to the world problems yourselves.

 

[CSM]

Of course I know there was some violence in the civil rights movement--but there could have been much more. By calling for non-violent protest, MLK and others gained a moral high ground and saved countless lives that would have been lost if he had chosen terrorist means instead.

And getting the British out of India with minimal violence was nothing short of breathtaking. Both examples show how having a moral high ground can work--but of course it only works against enemies with morals who are able to see you as human. Most Muslims have morals, and we could do better at showing them that we're human. Terrorists, of course, don't, and I would never advocate violence against them. Once more, as I said above, we have to differentiate. If people like Screaming Eagle simply lump all the brown people together, that's no better thinking than when an Iraqi on the street concludes that all Americans are sadists because of what happened at Abu Ghraib. Using Screaming Eagle's logic, all Muslims SHOULD want to kill us. Thank goodness most of them are more sensible than he.

Mariner.

I have no argument with your thoughts on the treatment of Muslims BUT do you not think they have just as much responsibility to try to understand us as we have in trying to understand them? Or are you advocating that Muslims bear no responsibility? Truthfully, I am sick and tired of the rest of the world portraying the US as the most evil thing since the Mongols rode out of the steppes and then crying for understanding when we start spanking those who would harm us.

 

[MrMarbles]

Mr. Marbles, is that what your head is full of? Most of your replies are nothing but pea shooters. Oh, it must be you're still suffering from WWI...

You seem to want to ignore the fact that we are at war with these terrorists. However, it is not a "declared war" and we are under NO obligation to treat said terrorists like regular troops - although now they are all getting a hearing and being charged with their individual offenses. Also, if you will stop to take notice, the terrorists are NOT treating our troops or citizens with ANY regard for "the law". However, instead of blaming the terrorists for NOT following the Geneva convention or even treating our troops or citizens with one iota of respect (they would rather just kill innocent people, then disfigure their dead bodies and hang them from bridges for instance) you liberals take it upon yourself to blame the United States by shrieking in your media about how "horribly" we are treating those poor captured terrorists. If only. Your media says nary a word about the truly nasty things that the terrorists do to OUR people. What about OUR human rights? Did any of those people that got their heads sliced off have a lawyer in their defense? Just whose side are you on anyway? (rhetorical question)

You also certainly don't seem to understand the North Korean situation nor do you have a solution of your own to propose although you sure like to criticize us. It is obvious to me that you just want to attack Bush and the U.S. by making assinine comparisons between Iraq and NK.

The only way we Americans would become idiots would be to join the ICC. "You hate us for our freedom" is not an "excuse" (as you say) of why we do not join. That is your phrase and only describes how folks like you in liberal international set feel about us for not joining your little criminal court junket. Why on earth should we let you guys get your anti-American claws into us? So hate us for it. I don't care.

If your blinders are off then you can see that Iraq is getting ready to have elections next year. You can see that the people in Iraq are starting to live better. You can see that it scares the pants off the Islamofascists to see freedom taking hold in the Middle East. Much as you guys wish Iraq was a complete and utter failure, it just ain't true.

I doubt if there is ANYTHING you liberals like about American foreign policy. Yet you can't seem to come up with any better answers to the world problems yourselves.

The biggest problem with people like yourself is that you are unable to see the consequences of your actions.

The people beheading civiliand in Iraq would not be doing so if you haven't invaded and destroyed they're country. Those people are monsters, there is no disagreement with that. But by not taking the high road, by not allowing people they're basic rights, you are destroying all credability you have. Those guys should be found, then put on trial and punished for they're crimes. Then you get support. By just rounding people up and detaining them without proof, or due process; then what is the point of even trying to re-build Iraq? You are just swapping regime with regime. And that is hypcritical.

 

[deaddude]

1. In Iraq, set an achievable measurable goal or a set of goals. X number of US trained Iraqi police officers, Nation wide democratic elections, lowering the amount of violence to something close to the United States et cetera. If this set of goals is achieved we pull out. This has the advantages of giving the Iraqis a timeline and incentive to achieve these goals while not putting our troops on a time limit to achieve these goals. First send Saddam to an international trial, alow them to sentence him. Alow the sentence to be carried out by Iraqis.

2. After we have gotten out of Iraq do not rush off to attack another nation. Keep how every many you need to hunt terrorists, which I imagine is much smaller than an occupation force. Wars are expensive, after we have achieved our set of goals in Iraq alow the American people to recover, War may be neccesary but peace is sure nicer.

3. Start international trials for the prisoners in Guantanamo.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

:rotflmao:

If we would have gone right to Osama Bin Laden, the liberals would have said we needed to get Saddam. If we go after Kim Jong-Il, they'll say our focus should be on Iran. And then if we go to Iran they'll say our focus should be on AIDS in Africa. With liberals, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.... so what can I say???

 

[MrMarbles]

:rotflmao:

If we would have gone right to Osama Bin Laden, the liberals would have said we needed to get Saddam. If we go after Kim Jong-Il, they'll say our focus should be on Iran. And then if we go to Iran they'll say our focus should be on AIDS in Africa. With liberals, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.... so what can I say???

Thats nonsense. If you went after Osama, you wuld have been applauded. And by going after one of the other two, you would have to go after the other.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Thats nonsense. If you went after Osama, you wuld have been applauded. And by going after one of the other two, you would have to go after the other.

We DID go after Osama. Remember Afghanistan? We knocked out 75% of his henchmen, his training camps, his base of operations, his money sources, his contacts, etc. His power is greatly diminished. He is fearfully hiding somewhere now with a big price on his head.

ps: I still don't hear you applauding...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The biggest problem with people like yourself is that you are unable to see the consequences of your actions.

The people beheading civiliand in Iraq would not be doing so if you haven't invaded and destroyed they're country. Those people are monsters, there is no disagreement with that. But by not taking the high road, by not allowing people they're basic rights, you are destroying all credability you have. Those guys should be found, then put on trial and punished for they're crimes. Then you get support. By just rounding people up and detaining them without proof, or due process; then what is the point of even trying to re-build Iraq? You are just swapping regime with regime. And that is hypcritical.

The biggest problem with people like yourself is that you are unable to see the consequences of your actions, or should we say, your inactions.

If those people are monsters, then you liberals should not get too queasy when we jail them. Monsters do not deserve basic rights, although we give them basic rights, more than they deserve.

We are NOT swapping one regime for another regime. Iraq is going to set up its own government. If you can quit reading for a moment the commie propaganda that you usually suck up, you will find out that Iraq is determined to become a freer nation with a bright future. Yes, there are problems - nothing worthwhile is going to be easy. It took years for both Germany and Japan to become stable, free democracies but with our help, they did. Iraq is headed for the same future - despite your excessive liberal whining about it.

What's the problem with you liberals? Why can't you support the new free Iraq and stop trying to tear the U.S. down for helping them? Why aren't you jumping in to help Iraq too? It seems all you try to do is throw roadblocks in the way. It appears to me that you really are not for liberty and freedom for the downtrodden in this world like you claim you are.

 

[Mariner]

A guy who has lost his wife and child in to a U.S. bomb and therefore joins an insurgency to protect his homeland is a completely different person from a committed terrorist such as an Al Qaeda fighter or one of the organizations that is kidnapping and beheading (I saw a statistic showing that something like 90% of these crimes were committed by just a handful of organizations).

By mixing the two up, we lose the "hearts and minds" war--and that is the only war that counts, since new terrorists are constantly made when people get angry enough for long enough.

The Red Cross labelled our Guantanamo detentions, without due process as specified by the 6th Amendment, as "tantamount to torture." How do you think that the Iraqis, especially the most distrustful Sunnis, will accept our invasion if we mistreat the people we pick up along the way? You're constantly presuming that they are all guilty--on the contrary, there are reports that most of them are completely innocent.

You know, the truth will come out. Either the Sunnis will have been convinced that you're right, and it's obvious we're good, and therefore join the election, or they won't, and we could be stuck in Iraq for an awfully long time. Don't you feel just a little chastened by the course of events? Remember when Rumsfeld and Bush were jumping up and down as our forces swept the country? And what do you think of that Cato Institute (conservative think tank) report saying our invasion is now counterproductive to our interests, because we have created a terrorist haven that wasn't there before?

A dictator (Saddam) is one type of bad guy. A terrorist is another. An angry Iraqi who has lost home or family members is a third. Around here, you guys mix them up constantly, and I don't understand why.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

A guy who has lost his wife and child in to a U.S. bomb and therefore joins an insurgency to protect his homeland is a completely different person from a committed terrorist such as an Al Qaeda fighter or one of the organizations that is kidnapping and beheading (I saw a statistic showing that something like 90% of these crimes were committed by just a handful of organizations).

By mixing the two up, we lose the "hearts and minds" war--and that is the only war that counts, since new terrorists are constantly made when people get angry enough for long enough.

The Red Cross labelled our Guantanamo detentions, without due process as specified by the 6th Amendment, as "tantamount to torture." How do you think that the Iraqis, especially the most distrustful Sunnis, will accept our invasion if we mistreat the people we pick up along the way? You're constantly presuming that they are all guilty--on the contrary, there are reports that most of them are completely innocent.

You know, the truth will come out. Either the Sunnis will have been convinced that you're right, and it's obvious we're good, and therefore join the election, or they won't, and we could be stuck in Iraq for an awfully long time. Don't you feel just a little chastened by the course of events? Remember when Rumsfeld and Bush were jumping up and down as our forces swept the country? And what do you think of that Cato Institute (conservative think tank) report saying our invasion is now counterproductive to our interests, because we have created a terrorist haven that wasn't there before?

A dictator (Saddam) is one type of bad guy. A terrorist is another. An angry Iraqi who has lost home or family members is a third. Around here, you guys mix them up constantly, and I don't understand why.

Mariner.

Underlying the whole terrorist issue is the fact that the religious texts of both the terrorists and the Iraqi defending his home advocates the destruction of the infidel (anyone not Muslim). In the past, that was easily dismissed and overlooked because we (US citizens) just did not believe that the basic tenet of that religion was taken seriously by anyone in current times. Recent history has made many, many Americans rethink their attitude towards Muslims. We are reminded daily if not hourly that Muslims want us dead, the rest of the world hates the US and we are ALWAYS wrong. America is a terrible place filled with hypocricy and stupidity or so we are told very often. America is the great Satan and the rest of the world wants us gone. We have been told these things so often lately that many in this country fear for their survival and the survival of this country. I cannot say that such thinking is unjustified.

The Red Cross report is a good example of what I am talking about. Once again a global organization is criticizing the US while ignoring our perceived enemy. Once again we are being presented to the world as evil incarnate while our perceived enemy tortures and kills prisoners in a far more gruesome and horrific way. The fact is the prisoners at Gitmo are still alive and quite healthy thank you very much; can the Red Cross say the same for prisoners held by any terrorist organization in the Middle East or elsewhere?

It is plain to me that we will be in Iraq for a long time to come, regardless of the outcome of the election. Whether our actions in Iraq are counterproductive or not remains to be seen. Again, if we believe the rhetoric, the US is ALWAYS wrong and therefore no good can come of ANYTHING we do.

For your final statement as to understanding why some tend to lump all three types together, it is because they (at least from my perspective) all have one thing in common. They all want ME and MINE dead and destroyed. They made that very clear to me when two planes flew into the Twin Towers. There were many in Iraq and other Muslim countries who did not come to America and blow anything up, but they sure as hell were dancing in the streets when it happened. Even with the horrifc events of 9/11, when many other nations on the planet were sending their condolences to the United States, there was more often than not the qualifying statements implying the US deserved it attached to their sentiment.

Maybe the United States is the Great Satan and maybe we do deserve the hatred of the reat of the world; being one of Satan's minions then, do not expect me to go silently into the night or kneel in surrender as the rest of the world tries to crush me. It will not happen.

 

[sagegirl]

Fair enough question jeff!

You're in Iraq, whether the world likes in or not so do your best and I do believe the US is trying hard. The odds are and have always been completely stacked against them, unfortunately. I don't believe there is any ideal solution, unfortunately.

Afghanistan is a different matter. The country is much more stable and receptive to Western support. Let all the western nations build Afghanistan's infrastructure, debt free, so that they have a viable national industry in which to promote prosperty. With prosperty comes democracy, rarely the other way around.

All nations, not just the US, have to put pressure on Sudan and think it's time for a joint AU-NATO peacekeeping force for Sudan. It's a clear and present humanitarian crisis-Rwanda style.

NK and Iran are nuclear threats. World military ultimatum's must be made. The world has sat on there proverbial asses too long. NK first, and Iran second.

The Isreal/Palestine question must be settled in 2005. They need peace, the region needs peace. Pressure must be applied strongly and equally on both sides, perhaps with Western trade incentives to sweeten the deal. In addition, Israeli subsidizes/grants should be threatened as part of this deal.

The War on Terror, in my opinion, can never be won with bullets alone. Solving Israel/Palestine question would help. A stable Afghanistan, and hopefully Iraq would do wonders. Targetted, large quantities of foreign aid for counties that embrace American or Western style values is also good (Bangladesh, Turkey, Afghanistan etc). Serve notice to the world that the US supports its allies.

The power of Western powers since the early 20th century has never been their militaries, but rather their economic clout, especially the United States. A billion dollars may buy a miltary a few planes, but it can completely rejuvinate a country and people with it. That I believe is the new power of the 21st century and not to exploit it on the War on Terror would be fool hearty.

A very thoughtful response, one of the best I have seen. I also think the value of rewards in trade and foreign aid can be used to a great advantage.
I hope George is listening.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A guy who has lost his wife and child in to a U.S. bomb and therefore joins an insurgency to protect his homeland is a completely different person from a committed terrorist such as an Al Qaeda fighter or one of the organizations that is kidnapping and beheading (I saw a statistic showing that something like 90% of these crimes were committed by just a handful of organizations).

By mixing the two up, we lose the "hearts and minds" war--and that is the only war that counts, since new terrorists are constantly made when people get angry enough for long enough.

The Red Cross labelled our Guantanamo detentions, without due process as specified by the 6th Amendment, as "tantamount to torture." How do you think that the Iraqis, especially the most distrustful Sunnis, will accept our invasion if we mistreat the people we pick up along the way? You're constantly presuming that they are all guilty--on the contrary, there are reports that most of them are completely innocent.

You know, the truth will come out. Either the Sunnis will have been convinced that you're right, and it's obvious we're good, and therefore join the election, or they won't, and we could be stuck in Iraq for an awfully long time. Don't you feel just a little chastened by the course of events? Remember when Rumsfeld and Bush were jumping up and down as our forces swept the country? And what do you think of that Cato Institute (conservative think tank) report saying our invasion is now counterproductive to our interests, because we have created a terrorist haven that wasn't there before?

A dictator (Saddam) is one type of bad guy. A terrorist is another. An angry Iraqi who has lost home or family members is a third. Around here, you guys mix them up constantly, and I don't understand why.

Mariner.

Cry me a river. If a guy signs up with the enemy for any reason, he is the enemy.

Maybe when the "innocent" Iraqis finally realize that less of them will be killed when the fighting stops, they will start to put pressure on those that hide out and keep the fight going where they live.

Just because they lost a loved one in the war does not mean that they must join the "insurgency" forces. Those that have lost loved ones will never get them back but they can help their relatives and fellow countrymen from losing their still-living loved ones by helping to stop the fighting, rebuild their country, and get on with living a peaceful life without gunfire on the streets. It's their choice.

Why is it that you liberals won't blame the "insurgents" (terrorists, Saddamites) for the loss of the innocent lives? They are the ones who are keeping the fight going. They have the opportunity to quit at any time.

Remember we Americans are also fighting to prevent the loss of more innocent American lives. Not to mention innocent lives from plenty of other countries as well including Iraq. Or doesn't that still make sense to you?