You do know there is a war on!

Anarchist? Far from it. As I said earlier everything in moderation. I do not believe we should go around starting war but if one comes it isnt a good idea to procrastinate. Delaying the inevitable in this case only makes things worse. No you miss understand me. I would much prefer peace to war, but peace, like war, is temporary. The true reason for fighting wars in the first place is to bring about a new era of peace. But this too is not eternal. Unless of course you bring God into the mix.

Now if you would like to start a war of words with my right here and right now, then in the words of the greatest US President of the 21st century, "Bring it on!"

Yes, call it garbage and then say I'm right. Makes perfect sense. The Middle East wasn't peaceful "hundreds of years ago", it was just less than a century ago that peace in the region ended. As for Western Europe, it's been just over 60 years since the their last war. So if you don't want anybody to insult your knowledge of history, perhaps you should use that knowledge when posting.



Firstly, how was I wrong? Not that you'll answer the question, but I'll ask it for the benefit of the others reading this. The fact is that terrorists have not "flocked" to Iraq, but that conditions there have created Iraqi terrorists. Over a hundred thousand of them. And that's not from the liberal media, that's according to the Pentagon. And your analysis of who terrorists are is wrong. Dead wrong. The 9 11 terrorists were not poor. They were well off, well educated young men. The simple fact is that there are now more Iraqi terrorists now than before the invasion. And your premise that as soon as things settle down they'll all go away hasn't shown any sign of happening. Terrorist attacks in Iraq have increased over the last couple of years. The terrorists aren't going away.



We haven't stabilized Iraq. The stability in Afghanistan is in danger of collapsing. Our actions have fueled a huge increase in terrorist activity and in new terrorist recruits. Again, you need to read more than just Fox News, talks with Libya began well before the Iraq war.



Small wars relieve the pressure so large wars don't happen? LOL. Give an example. Just one. Human events aren't mechanical. Pressure doesn't "build" until it erupts. Humans make choices. We control our own destiny. I could just as easily say that the longer we wait, the more tensions will subside and the better chances are for peace. In fact that is much more likely the case. Look at other examples of historical enemies. Germany and France, after a period of peace are now extremely unlikely to go back to fighting each other every generation. France and England also. Greece and Turkey have had to learn to live with each other and the chances of war between them has greatly diminished. Periods of peace can ease the situation between countries. Lots of small wars just keep it aggravated. Look at Jordan and Israel. There is a good chance of a lasting peace there. And the longer the situation remains peaceful the better the chances are. Small wars don't stop big wars any more than slapping your neighbor will keep your neighbor from shooting you. Small wars escalate into larger conflicts. War isn't the answer here.

As the only US President of the 21st century, he's also the worst.

Anyone who compares Israel to the Nazis is a Nazi ... or is that an Israeli. Hmm.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika! Glad you could make it! Dont suppose your ever going to give me that pie but ah well, Ive got to fufill a promise to personally show a certain liberal the error of his ways.

Uh hun I think you need to read the post, not just skim over it. The only thing you were right about is that at one point in time the Middle East was no more prone to war than other areas of the Old World thats it. Everything else you said was complete and utter garbage.

Now the Ottoman Turks used to control the Middle East in one form or another all the way up to the end of the first World War. The Arabs were promised that if they helped the Allies fight the Turks then they would be able to form their own independent state. Yet as God (what you atheists call fate) would have it, the Arabs were sitting on top of what is arguably the most valuable resource of the era; Oil. So when war was over the European powers of England and France set up their own mandate countries in the Middle East to defend that resource and expand their empires among other reasons. Since then the Arabs have viewed the west with a suspicion that would only increase in the comming years.

I wouldnt care so much about the benefit of others considering the position your in. Your a mess. The fact is that terrorists have come to Iraq from the outside. Ive heard of terrorists from Jordan, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, and even Sudan being caught or captured in Iraq. Very seldom do you hear about an Iraqi terrorists. Im not saying that there are not a handful of Iraqis who have become terrorists but the number is not anywhere close to the one you are providing.
Good lord of course more Iraqis are going to become terrorists after the invasion than they would under Saddam. During the Saddam era they had to worry more about saving their own lives instead of ending the lives of others. Its a war. People who end up on the losing side of a war can either surrender or commence gurreila warfare and become terrorists.

The terrorists attacks have increased simply because more and more terrorists are being sent in from all over the world in a desperate and ultimately futile attempt to keep Iraq was stabilizing. The attacks will finally peak at one point but then they will begin to decrease as it becomes all the more obvious that Iraq is not going to go down the road that the terrorists would have it travel. Until then however, the terrorists cannot afford to lose Iraq, doings so would be a major blow to their already failing ability to operate freely in the region. Eventually they will create even more enemies among the Muslims as they are currently doing. As for the aren't going away... typically terrorists go away when you kill them. Sure your going to say something like "Yeah and when we kill one terrorists two more take is place." Well ok if you want to think like that well then we will just have to kill two more terrorists. Its really not that complicated.

Uh I dont really read fox news, I read CNN. Fox News has the best TV News program, and CNN has the best Web News Program. Again you need to read something besides CNN or whatever your getting your info from because its quite wrong. Correction, We ARE stabilizing Iraq, or rather the Iraqis seem to be doing it more and more on their own. We HAVE made Afghanistan a poor base for terrorists in that the government there is hostile towards their interests. Sadly as I have said before Afghanistan does not possess the will or the means to become much more than the country that they currently are. Hopefully that may change someday but you really dont hear much about huge violence in Afgahnistan. The terrorists have much more interests in keeping Iraq a useable base so Afghanistan is not really very high on their list at the moment. And talks with Libya did indeed begin before the Iraq war, so whats your point, it wasnt until after the War began that Libya decided to end their Nuclear Weapons program. A little backbone goes a long way sometime. Libya realized we meant business and responded in a very beneficial manner.

Two wondefrul example of how smaller wars can keep a bigger war from occuring; Korea and (no doubt your personally favorite) Vietnam. Now before you say, "Those two wars were huge wars! How can you say that they were smaller wars?" Well they were smaller wars when compared to what would have happened had they never taken place. If The coummunists saw that they could just march into one country after another without any consequences. We would end up with a similar scenario as the beginning of WWII in Europe. Hitler was allowed to occupy regions and even countries one after the other without consequences. Eventually however the Europeans had had enough and fought back after that madman invaded Poland. However had the other Europeans powers stopped Germany from occupying Austria and Czhechoslovakia (yeah I know I spelled that wrong) then perhaps Hitler could have been stopped before an all out world war began. At the very least the Germans would have been at much more of a disadvantage in a war that would take place in the 1930's rather than they were in the actual World War the finally took place. In the Pacific if the USA had halted Japans progress in Manchuria, China, and elsewhere, then Japan would have either realized that their actions would not be tolerated or they would have fought the United States then and there and we would have taken care of business with the Japanese while England and France were dealing the Hitler in Europe according to the Scenario I just laid out. So you see if you take the initative then you may have to fight a war, but it wont be as bad as the war you would have to fight if you just sit back and do nothing.

Europe is tired of war, all the European powers now understand that they must all operate via diplomacy not violence. They are able to do this only because all parties share the same policy of diplomacy first. This works until you try diplomacy with someone who doesnt care to talk. Countries that want war will eventually get it one way or the other. Thus using my previous example. Germany played the game of diplomacy but they knew that if they wanted France, England, Russia, and the rest of the world powers, they would have to fight a war eventually. Untill then they simply played the game of diplomacy to put themselves at an advantage when war finally came. Consider this scenario: A and B are states like those of Europe who always follow diplomatic roads instead of resorting to violence. States C and D are like those of the Middle East. These states have not prospered as much as A and B and so they have started to view A and B as the reason that they have not prospered. Over time they develop hatred towards A and B and so they do not see the value of negoitating since A and B have wronged them anyway.

If A and B are in a conflict then the conlict will be brought to a peaceful end since both A and B follow the rules of Diplomacy.

If C and D are in conflict they will fight one other because they see war as a way to establish their dominance over the other, while A and B have no real interest in proving who is superior.

Now if either A or B tried to resolve a conflict with C or D, they would try to use diplomacy which may grant them an extension to the period of peace but eventually C and D will see that they can get what they want by playing the game of diplomacy, so they will keep playing it until their demands become so outrageous that even the diplomatic and peaceful states of A and B cant stand it anymore and so they refuse the demands of C and D. Peace talks break down and in a scene that resonables a kid in a toy store being told no, C and D finally get the war they wanted with A and B in the first place.

Lets back track a bit. Earlier when only one country from the two groups was in crisis, for the sake of simplicity lets say A and C are in a crisis. If A shows a little muscle and fights and wins a war with C, then D will see and hopefully learn from C's failure and when they get into a confrontation with B, D will be more likely to solve their crisis via diplomacy rather than war. Thus the larger war where A and B had to fight C and D is avoided since a smaller war was already fought between A and C.

In closing, if you are in a crisis with a country that uses diplomacy as you do, then it is highly likely that the crisis will end without the need for a war. If two countries who want to fight each other, such as Israel and the Palestinians, Lebanon, etc. then these countries will most likely resolve their crisis with war.

Well until the election of 2008 you will technically be right about Dubya's status. ^_^

You should have quit talking right here.. no doubt most stopped reading.

say it again SAY IT AGAIN!!! ^.^!!!!

I don't read posts longer than Ulrika's hand.

You just Taco'd me.

We should pull all support for Isreal and Palestine, and let them duke it out. Or just nuke them both, for being such pointless snots.

You were late, someone had to say it

It has been a great pleasure reading all of your excellent responses in this thread. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on these types of issues as they arise in these forums.

Champie

Careful, Juro. Your bias is showing.


No matter what else is happening there, we know one thing: Lebanon and Palestine have BOTH stooped to taking hostages. In my book, that is the mark of a coward.

Israel will not give up..ever. The idiots over there that think they can drive the Jewish people from their homeland are only indulging in wishful macho thinking.

It will not end well I agree.

Great point Juro!

Susie - Are you sure they was first?

/Tina - War are never a solution.

PetGirl it doesn't matter who was first or that Judiasm is the foundation of Islam (my own statement and not yours). What matters is that the Jewish people have nowhere else to go. If Isreal is wiped out what are the people supposed to do? Wander the earth like they did for generations before they had a homeland?

...maybe, why not? - there are several tribes that walk the world today....that dont have an ”own land” given to them... by UN and (more) ... and nobody cares about them.... no one mention them...not UN or any as they dont have power or influesen... or oil or gold or....

Maybe time to give them a state of USA.... choose one and give it away... and you wil get same problem.... what will the ones that live in that state say.. do? To compare feelings.. to smell the scent of how it can feel .. be...

/Tina

Your conclusion is based on both faulty evidence and faulty analysis.

The faulty evidence is your belief that the insurgents in Iraq are non-Iraqis. That is not the case. There are thousands of insurgents in Iraq. The idea that they have all come from outside the country and are somehow able to hide among the populace and survive is beyond rational thinking. Where would they live? What would they eat? The insurgents in Iraq are Iraqi. The people attacking US troops are Iraqi. The people attacking Iraqis are Iraqi. Here are a couple of news stories from recent days:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/features/?id=16913

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/10/rampages_in_iraq_kill_at_least_60/

Notice they don't mention anything about your phantom foreigners? A few foreign terrorists have been found, but the real violence in Iraq is committed by Iraqis.

Your analysis, that the people of the Middle East only respect and understand force isn't supported by recent history. Just a few years ago the most powerful nation in the world invaded Iraq with overwhelming force. Remember "Shock and Awe"? The US destroyed the elite Republican Guard in days. If your theory were correct, then the Iraqis would have respected that show of force and they would have been cowed into submission. A quick glance at the news shows that's not the case. Maybe your theory applies to the rest of the Middle East, but not to Iraq. Let's look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Israelis have used overwhelming force and yet the Palestinians continue to lob missiles at them and send in suicide bombers. If all that was needed was for Israel to show some force, the Palestinians would have sued for peace a generation ago.

Neither Vietnam nor Korea were the type of war you described. They were not places where pressure had been building for some time and it finally exploded. They were, in fact, the direct result of World War II. The withdrawal of Japanese forces from the Korean peninsula left a power vacuum that was filled in the north by Chinese supported forces and in the south by American supported forces. So World War II didn't relieve the "pressure" in Korea, it created the pressure. In Vietnam (not sure what your snarky remark about it being my "favorite" war means) the attempt by the former colonial power, France, to take charge after the withdrawal of the Japanese was countered by Chinese and Soviet influenced Vietnamese who wanted independence. Again, a direct result of World War II.

And the problem with your diplomatic analysis is that you have ignored the people. If the people don't accept their government as legitimate they won't accept the treaties it signs. If the people don't have a government, then diplomacy can't take place. And without diplomacy, for Country A to win a war against Country C, it would have to kill every citizen of C who won't submit. That is Israel's problem. The creation of the "Palestinians" as a separate nation from the rest of the Arab world has given Israel an enemy to fight, but no government to negotiate with. It was hoped that the Palestinian Authority would take that role, but as of yet it hasn't happened. In Iraq the government is seen by too many of its citizens as illegitimate, and they refuse to accept its decisions. Sectarian violence follows and the threat of all out civil war is increasing.

Maybe but the Israelites are long past caring for what the UN or anyone else says. They aren't going to budge. They have made their stand and god help anyone who thinks they have the right to remove them. We learned our lesson in WW2 about trying to be nice.

I am not speaking of philosophy but what will happen to anyone who tries. It won't be a pretty sight.

some of the best posts occur late at night congrats on a well thought out and researched post Micheal.

Now co-worker made a great analogy to this whole situation, "You know what a horse's tail is for? Swating flies" now to explain it because it is posted without the context of the discussion, does Isreal currently fear being conquered by Islamic groups? Not at all, all they are attempting to do is swat flies. Isreal will flex its military muscle and shoo the flies away for a little while, but they will always be there flying around and dodging the tail.

YEEEEEHAAWWWWW!!

And this is why I dont usually bother arguing with someone who wont even listen or consider what I am saying, before this argument even began you were convinced that I was wrong. There is little point in arguing if your not going to get the other person to at least act mature and consider what you have to say, im not saying you have to agree with me but all you have seem to do is constantly invent new problems with my explanations of the facts.

First of all judging from what I know about you based on your previous posts, It is no suprise that you sight the sources that you do. (Boston News yeah thats a real balanced view of the news.) Also I think your a little confused since you are talking about the Iraqi militia groups that the foreign insurgents/terrorists are attempting to insight into a civil war. These militia groups are more intent on killing each other than they are Americans. No they are simply products of angry and radical rhetoric from crazed clerics or even the terrorists themsleves. Its a tactic that the terrorists are banking on to win in Iraq. If they can cause the country to fall into Civil War then it will become extremely difficult to stablize Iraq and an unstable Iraq is good for the terrorists. (And you seem to be fond of the idea of the terrorists winning in Iraq since it would make "the worst president of the 21th century" look bad). Fortunately these radical Sunni and Shite Milita groups do not represent the vast majority of the two ethnic groups.

If I had made a claim that the people of the Middle East ONLY respect and understand force then you might have been right. But as always you do not fully read my posts. I said that their culture is more likely to see force as strength and diplomacy as weakness. Even had a made that claim you have a horrible understanding of human psycology. If someone attacks you, you dont give up, you strike back. No Shock and Awe killed alot of people but it pissed off those it didnt kill. Someone blows up your house and brother (who was probably going to blow himself up anyway but i digress), you dont bow down right then and there. You fight back as the terrorists have tried and failed to do. Only after repeated conditioning will that individual realize that they cannont win. Same goes for the Palestinians and Israelis. Both sides view the other as the aggressor and so they will keep fight till the other side gives up or is destroyed. (I cant see either of them giving up)

Again your not reading my posts. Korea and Vietnam are the kind of wars I was talking about. They were smaller wars that served to prevent a larger war. My talk about how smaller conflicts relieve pressure applies to more unstable parts of the world such as Africa and the Middle East where tribal warfare is common. Had you analyzed my statements you would have realized that i am refering to two different kinds of conflict. Heck you might have even learned something if you werent so dang close minded.

*Sigh* You completely misunderstood my example about Countries A-D. So much so that I cant explain it to you without restating the whole thing again and somehow I doubt that will get us anywhere since you are incapable of learning. Not quite sure where you get that the Iraqis dont accept their governments decisions. They voted them into office and I havnt heard of any Iraqi's violating curfue.

I've repeatedly addressed your statements. You, however, don't seem to feel the need to return the favor. You sum up an entire post as "More of the same misrepresentaions, misunderstaninds, misidentification, and mistakes."



Point out the bias you claim to find in the Boston News article. Not that you will, of course. That would require actually responding to something I've said. So who then are the terrorists? The insurgents aren't the terrorists? So if an Iraqi blows up an American convoy, he's an insurgent, but if a Syrian or Saudi does it he's a terrorist? And can you write a single paragraph that doesn't descend into idiotic personal attacks? I have no fondness for the fiasco our president has led us into Iraq, but your disgusting comment that I am fond of the idea of terrorists winning anywhere is vile. It is a typical way for supporters of this disaster to try to deflect criticism away from the people who created this mess. Trying to somehow tie your critics to the terrorists is a game the White House has played for years. It shows a lack of character in him and you.



So, let's look at what you've said:





You're right! You didn't say "only"! Of course I didn't say you did, so, you're kind of wrong there.




So force doesn't work right away, you have to keep using overwhelming force again and again and one day it will work? So the method you've chosen isn't working, and your answer is to keep doing it over and over? If it hasn't worked in the last 50 years, when will it start working? Or maybe your analysis of the situation is wrong. Maybe the people of the Middle East aren't one dimensional cardboard cut outs that fit neatly into theories dreamed up by pasty skinned neo-cons in the comfort of Washington think tanks.



I read your post. The Vietnam War (I notice you didn't bother to explain the personal attack you made there) and the Korean War were the direct results of another WAR, World War II. WWII didn't relieve pressure, it created pressure. That is fact. Your statement that Korea and Vietnam prevented other wars is hypothesis. Smaller conflicts don't relieve pressure, they create more problems. War may sometimes be necessary, but it doesn't create peace. Peace in Western Europe didn't come about because the Europeans were "tired". It came about through a lot of difficult negotiations. One small treaty at a time.



You confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You haven't heard of Iraqis violating curfew? That's your standard for citizens accepting their own government's legitimacy?

Let's look at the news. First off the President of Iraq calls for a National Front to prevent the country from descending into civil war. That shows a distinct lack of confidence in the government.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_President.html

Next is one that talks about how Sunnis are deserting the Iraqi military. 70% of those who made it through basic training don't report for duty. A tad more impressive than the fact that you haven't heard of Iraqis violating curfew don't you think?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Sunni_Soldiers.html

Here's another article about sectarian violence. Although I'm sure none of those involved violated curfew.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060715/WIRE/207150308/1117/news