Doubleplusgood

We have no criminal justice group that is capable of widespread peacekeeping action... So, the military's what you get.

He got a trial because he was an American citizen... As for just going to arrest him, that was POSSIBLE because he was just one guy.

But how come you consider the terrorists to have "valid concerns," when they're really just mass murderers? They don't represent the population of their regions.

I think we all realize (or at least I would hope so), that this is not a traditional force on force conflict... But it is still a military conflict. It's beyond the scope of simple law enforcement at this point.

If you left Iraq, for instance, terrorist groups have enough power to topple the government there and take over the country for themselves. That's not what we want. It shouldn't be what YOU want either.

This is exactly what we are trying to do in the region.. But that kind of infrastructure doesn't just pop into existence. It takes a long time to develop, especially in such a region. You need to establish a stable government before you start just handing out presents... You need to try and establish some sort of secure environment for trade to take place in.

You seem to be saying that the place is a pit, and it's really not possible for us to help them. I simply don't buy that.



Ok.. this kind of illustrates two major misconceptions here.

First of all, all shiite muslims are not the same. That would be like saying all catholics are the same, or all protestants are the same. People in the west seem to have this mistaken impression that religion is the one dominant force in these peoples' lives... That's really not the case. It's more important than in most western culture, but it's not the single driving force behind every middle-easterner's life.

Believe it or not, these people do have opinions that stem out of ideas other than religion. Shiites in Iraq fought against Shiites in Iran in prior wars.

Secondly, most reporting indicates that the average person in Iran who's under the age of 30 doesn't really LIKE living under a theocracy. Mainly for the same reason YOU wouldn't want to live under a theocracy. Eventually, if we can make it through the currently "elected" leader of Iran's regime, I suspect that Iran's gonna come around on it's own. We've seen some evidence of this progress, but the newly elected leader threatens to really screw it up by forcing a conflict with the west.




There seems to be this very odd perception amongst many people in the west regarding people who live in a region like the middle east. It's almost like racism, but I don't think it's quite so intentional.

Like the "they have a valid complaint" idea... Is there ANY way that if someone in OUR society committed such things as intentional murder of thousands of innocent civilians, and you'd say, "Well, he probably has some valid complaints!"

Did anyone say, "Hey, Ted Kazinscki has some valid complaints."

Do you honestly believe that the majority of people in the middle east, or afghanistan, thinks that the murder of thousands of innocent civilians is Ok? Do you HONESTLY believe that the AVERAGE person in those regions values human life SO little, that they think such things are ok?

I simply do not believe that.... Because I've met people from the middle east, and they're not freaking crazy monsters! They are normal people, who value human life.

The terrorists are a minority in both regions... in both regions, the majority of the people are normal folks who want to live a peaceful existence.

And they don't think the terrorists have "valid complaints". They want them to freaking stop blowing up their families. The US catches a lot of flack over here, because no one really cares that the insurgent forces blew up a police station... We want to sexy news that can make us all go "oooooh! Lookit at what THEY did! They're so gonna get it!"

But I'll tell you this.. From what I've heard from people in Iraq, the majority of Iraq kind of HATES the insurgency. Because they are intentionally murdering their families. They don't really LIKE the US either, mind you.. but the insurgency is killing a LOT more of them.

I honestly do not believe that a majority of people in Iraq or Afghanistan is a crazy terrorist insurgent who wants to bring back a religious theocracy. I think those are the views of a tiny minority.. just as they are in the US.

If some crazy white supremesist in the US blew up a building, and killed a bunch of civilians, would you say, "Hey.. He just doesn't want any of the black people to have rights! That's a valid complaint! We're screwing with his culture!"

No.. no one would say that. We'd put the guy in jail, or execute him.

The Iraqis would do the same thing to most of the insurgents, especially the foreign ones like Al Zarquai. But they simply lack the power to do it yet.

But simply because they can't fight such criminals themselves, we can't just bail on them. That's how tyrants are MADE. We know this.. we've already made mistakes like that. Hell, I think some folks have cited examples of failed nationbuilding in this thread. One of those mistakes is just bailing on a fledgling democracy... We don't want to do that.

I honestly don't think that we're gonna get out of Iraq in only a few years. I think anyone who thought that going in, was very naive. But once you're in, you're in.... You can't just freaking say, "Screw it! Have fun with the militant islamic terrorists! Welcome to Taliban 2!"

It's not up to OUR criminal justice group to be policing other countries. I am sure a whole host of countries would strongly object if we swept in with military force and started bombing place with -think- terrorists might be. Especially if we started grabbing their citizens and returning them dead sometimes or just not returning them at all.

It was also possible to arrest entire groups, Australia managed it. Canada managed it, wtf is our problem?

Either you're confusing the civilians (who are not terrorists and have valid concerns about being caught up with something they have nothing to do with) with terrorists and mass murderers or you have still not gotten that point. Either way, do not mischaracterize me as thinking I care a whit about what either a mass murderer, our president, or terrorists think. My problem here is that we are treating Joe Shmoe in Iraq or Afghanistan worse than a mass murderer in America just because we can.

It's beyond the scope of law because we never had laws that concern either iraqis or afghanis. That's entirely their job. If they were incapable of it, they either would have asked or we could have asked them, but this did not occur. What we are doing today would not be the result of such a discussion.

This is a blanket assumption. So because a terrorist group can blow up a few things and mortar some empty fields, this also gives them the ability to take, hold, and run a country? They are not this organized. If they are, they probably should be running it anyway. They should also be running ours because we are currently not this organized.

Imagine what we could do with the money we are spending on an offensive military force in Afghanistan, if instead we spent the money on a smaller defensive military force along with education programs and restructuring programs to change the face of Afghanistan starting at the big cities working our way out into the wasteland. Imagine if instead of just sending food, we helped them turn some previously unused land into a profitable farm that can help support both the new owners and others who need the food.

The government in Afghanistan in my mind is not what will bring order and stability. In my mind the poverty is what causes the instability, and alot of the people we are going on the offensive against are only enemies because we are in Afghanistan.

As for Iraq, the first reports I saw about the original drafts of their constitution sounded like the leaders were pushing for a Shi'ite relgious theocracy. It took U.S. and British "suggestions" to encourage them to change it to something more like what America dreams for them. If the leaders when left to their own devices would start a religious theocracy, then I think the potential is very real that it will become one when we eventually loose interest and loosen our grip of control over them.

We make ourselves look bad. We have Israel that we arm to the teeth to take over land and hold it with brutal strength, yet we will not let Iraq be strong. We invade Afghanistan at the drop of a hat, but we delay actions and step carefully when dealing with a nuclear power such as Pakistan. Some of these countries want nukes, because they believe we won't invade them if they have them. I can see why they would be afraid of our invasions. The Al-Qaeda do have the wrong image of America, but the way we act makes it easier for them to paint us as villains. We aren't choosing our battles wisely. We are doing things that may give us a sense of justice being carried out, but they aren't things that make us safer. At the same time we are giving new recruits of the Al-Qaeda all the excuses they need to hate America.

And they're "taking over land, and holding it with brutal strength?" You mean the land that they took in a DEFENSIVE WAR, when all the coutries around them attacked?

Ooo... those evil dirty jews! How DARE they defend themselves!

It is an illegal occupation.

and just so you don't start crying anti semite, I will link you to a chached version of Jews against the occupation (the main site seems to be down)

also Roland, 129 posts into this mess, and I have yet to see you site a single source for your "facts"

you directly mirror the 6 o clock news for most of it

please, start citing obective facts so that your opinion isn't confused with facts

Let's not confuse opinion pieces on the internet with "facts" either, Mulch.

How exactly was the occupation of places like the Gaza Strip (which they now withdrew from) "illegal"?

Hey, Ted Kazinscki has some valid complaints.

check the link bra, and cross reference the UN resolutions

i could have cited a more formal website, but the rate you were going it wasn't long before you would have accused me of being an anti semite

so that link killed 2 birds with 1 stone

It's spelled "Kaczynski" - like the current president of Poland. They also partially share views - fanatically religious and conservatist to boot.

Anyway, the yapping of morons is the same everywhere: "Bush is evil", "down with the Jews", "it's for oil, not for democracy", blah blah blah. Cut that crap - we can't leave them alone, just because they did not leave us (no capitals here because someone would misunderstand it) alone. New York. Madrid. London. It's not because we attacked anyone. It's because we're different and they can't understand it. We left them alone in France and what? They turned on us. "Us" as Western people. They're even attacking fellow Muslims who happen to accept the Western lifestyle. Why? Because it undermines their powerbase. Understand it before they hit YOU. Even if we didn't give a crap about the Taliban or Saddam (which is, essentially, cleaning up after Reagan and Bush Sr - counting OBL in, as US screwed him over in Afghanistan back in the Soviet times) they would attack us - and oh yes they did.

When people threaten the US, they are our problem. If the government of another country is incapable or unwilling to pursue terrorists, such as in the case of Afghanistan, then we can't just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well!"

I'm not confusing them.. I'm talking about terrorists. I'm not talking about joe shmoe in Iraq.

Contrary to what some on this board might think, we're not just going around Iraq murdering and torturing random civilians. (Although the terrorists most certainly are)

1) Who's "they" that you're referring to?

If I were French, I could give credance to conservative talk show hosts (who have listeners in the millions) as being terrorists for some of the really, really nasty things they say about the French. This does not mean I have free reign to invade the US and bomb the relevant radio stations, their homes (in case I missed them), their friends (they might be terrorists too) and all their listeners (they could be insurgents ya know).

I'm not sure exactly what example I'll need to give, but we have over reacted in the extreme.

In the examples I provided, both Canada and Australia managed to arrest entire terrorist cells, yes. Awesome? Not really. We had pretty good intelligence on the 9/11 plane hijackers before that happened and could have taken them out, but we didn't do anything about it.

Joe Shmoe in Iraq matters because when you use napalm or high explosives with white phosphorus as an anti personnel device, you will kill Joe Shmoe even if you are not targeting him.

Please quote me a source that says we have not beaten to death at least 1 (which is too many) civilians trying to extract information they did not have? I have already quoted you a source that indicates we have indeed done just that, so I don't know where you're getting bad information.

There are quite a few organizations that provide amnesty and systems in place for civilians placed in danger to request help from foreign governments. For details you can request them from specific governments, the UN, Amnesty International, or a variety of other sources. I am not the one ignoring reality here.

This may or may not be true, I don't have any information that says they want them to stay or that they want them to leave. I do have information that they think they'll be self-sufficient (and the US can leave) as early as next year. I would love to see some information as to whether or not they are HAPPY we went there and are there currently. I cannot provide this and I doubt you can either as it would require a general poll of their populaces.

I don't underestimate these groups at all. I think you supremely overestimate these groups to think they'd last longer than a couple months before they run out of ammo and food if they took it upon themselves to actually run the country. It's far, far easier for them to endorse a group that knows how government works and fade away into the background.

If you want to get into the history of this, just examine any revolution or transitionary goverment in south america or africa. A military government almost always makes way for either an elected one, or a dictatorship (which are only noteable when they last, and often when they do they include a separate elected governing body).

Also, judging by your responses, you could not take 2 hours of your time to listen to someone talk about actual conditions in Afghanistan. Care to try again?

So, you see no difference between saying mean things about france, and actually harboring a terrorist group like Al Qaeda?

Ok.

2 Words: Saudi Arabia

Explain?

Is this the argument where there because Saudi Arabia does bad things, it's ok for everyone to do bad things?

Quite frankly, I don't support the Saudi government at all.

Some of your points here seem really whacked out.. I mean, Israel arms themselves now... they manufacture their own weapons. They don't need the US to support them from a military point of view.

And they're "taking over land, and holding it with brutal strength?" You mean the land that they took in a DEFENSIVE WAR, when all the coutries around them attacked?

Ooo... those evil dirty jews! How DARE they defend themselves!

But the US govt does support and protect them, DESPITE doing all the bad things you base your justification of invasion on

Defensive war? The six day war started when Israel conducted a pre-emptive strike on Egypt. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were building up forces, but Israel was the one that struck first. Israel is the one that took land.

But I'm not the US government, nor am I justifying invasion.

I'm justifying why it would be foolish to abandon these regions NOW.

Uh.. Do you realize why Israel launched a pre-emptive strike?

i'm sorry

you were just justifying torture and continued killing to protect us from the "bad guys" who torture and kill

my bad

Um, do you know why these countries were angry at Israel. We can play this game all day. Both sides have reasons to be upset. The easiest way to make the problem worse is to approach it like Israel even existing as it is was a totally right thing to happen in the first place, or that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had it coming to them. This is not the same as Hitler just hating all jews as a scapegoat. This is a country that displaced actual people and killed actual people before the hatred came. There is a basis for the hate, even if it doesn't warrant a violent response. The thing is both sides are approaching the problem in a violent manner, so neither side should be able to claim the moral high ground.

Do you understand that little clips on the internet are not exactly what we can judge such things upon?