We can’t win in Iraq?
Don’t be to sure.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We can’t win in Iraq?
Don’t be to sure. [/quote]
Enlighten me: what is generally considered a “win” in Iraq these days, and how far, in your estimation, is the United States from achieving it?
[quote]lixy wrote:
This is not a regular war. This is most definitely not a war you can win by throwing more military power at it. The flaw isn’t tactical; it’s much deeper than that.[/quote]
Any war can be won by throwing more military power at it, don’t be ridiculous.
The US is losing that war because it’s fighting it on the terms of the insurgents and because it’s not willing to do what would be required (ie, kill lots and lots of innocent civilians) to win. Bush’s worst mistake was thinking that by simply removing Saddam, the Iraqis would be happy to be invaded and occupied.
Or, if they had 10 times the troops, they could close the borders and impose effective martial law over the whole country. You could then have enough peace to install all the social institutions and infrastructure and modern democracy needs to be able to operate. Then you could slowly remove yourself from the country, passing the torch to a new democratic nation.
The current model of running to the voting booth between exploding cars is not the best example of a democracy at work.
Out of curiosity, how would you deal with non-state organisation like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. if you were in charge of US Foreign Policy? It’s kinda difficult to set up negotiations with terrorist groups, so short of caving in to every demand, how to you solve the problem?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Any war can be won by throwing more military power at it, don’t be ridiculous. [/quote]
Got me on that one!
Which they don’t since the military is already streched and they’re using 120,000 private contractors. But go on…
That might make Saddam look like a harmless puppy in comparison.
Your premise is wrong here. They’re not after installing a democracy. They want to install a friendly regime. I seriously doubt Iraqis will vote for a pro-US regime for numerous reasons.
Keep in mind that there was virtually no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. The topic is the war on Iraq! But I’ll answer you about the global Al-Qaeda movement: You can’t negociate with Al-Qaeda.
They’re a bunch of kooks and the best you can’t do to counter them is to make sure they don’t get new recruits. That can be achieved by revising the interventionist policy of the US.
Hezbollah is different because of its grassroots origins. Their demands are basically that Israel respects UN resolutions. That seems fair to me and I don’t see why the US won’t negociate with them.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Which they don’t since the military is already streched and they’re using 120,000 private contractors. But go on…[/quote]
Yeah, that’s kinda why I put an “if” in there…
It might be rather brutal at first, as the insurgents and rebels got flushed out.
Eventually, I wonder if the Iraqis might not welcome a bit of respite from the daily bombings and shootings. I know my parents told me that when martial law was imposed in Quebec during the October crisis in 1970, they felt quite safe seeing the soldiers at each street corner. The difference is, of course, that our own army, not a foreign one, was imposing the curfews.
Can you name one world democracy that’s not somewhat pro-US? Once you get to be a democratic nation, you tend to want to participate in the world economy and get the benefits of trade, etc.
If the US did manage to install a secular democracy in Iraq, I’m sure they’d eventually trade with the West and consider alliances with western nation simply out of common interests.
Even if you did that, don’t you think that they’d simply find some other cause to recruit for? The US is not the be-all end-all of foreign policy in the world. What if Al-Qaeda decides that China is polluting too much? Does China shut down it’s industries to appease AQ? What if they decide Sweden is too secular? Does Sweden legislate mandatory Islam to stop possible reprisals?
Letting Al-Qaeda dictate it’s will through threat of violence is no different than having militarily powerful nations invaded others. Only the means at hand differ.
I don’t buy for a second that if AQ (and whatever backing state they have) managed to get what they want, they’d simply stop and make peace. They’d use their newly found power to go after new goals. With success on some demand, I’m betting recruiting would be even better.
Don’t they regard Israel as an illegitimate state and demand it’s destruction?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
Any war can be won by throwing more military power at it, don’t be ridiculous.
Got me on that one!
Or, if they had 10 times the troops,
Which they don’t since the military is already streched and they’re using 120,000 private contractors. But go on…
they could close the borders and impose effective martial law over the whole country.
That might make Saddam look like a harmless puppy in comparison.
You could then have enough peace to install all the social institutions and infrastructure and modern democracy needs to be able to operate. Then you could slowly remove yourself from the country, passing the torch to a new democratic nation.
Your premise is wrong here. They’re not after installing a democracy. They want to install a friendly regime. I seriously doubt Iraqis will vote for a pro-US regime for numerous reasons.
Out of curiosity, how would you deal with non-state organisation like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc. if you were in charge of US Foreign Policy? It’s kinda difficult to set up negotiations with terrorist groups, so short of caving in to every demand, how to you solve the problem?
Keep in mind that there was virtually no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. The topic is the war on Iraq! But I’ll answer you about the global Al-Qaeda movement: You can’t negociate with Al-Qaeda.
They’re a bunch of kooks and the best you can’t do to counter them is to make sure they don’t get new recruits. That can be achieved by revising the interventionist policy of the US.
Hezbollah is different because of its grassroots origins. Their demands are basically that Israel respects UN resolutions. That seems fair to me and I don’t see why the US won’t negociate with them.[/quote]
Since you seem to be ducking the questions I asked in your other thread, I paste it hear, because I am interested in your answer. So here it is:
[i]"So let me ask you this, Lixy? When are you going to get pissed at the terrorist’s who have hi-jacked your religion and turned your religion into a spring-board for world -wide violence? Where is your out rage that they use God’s name to commit the most horrific acts?
Where is your outrage that they claim to speak for you and all Muslims? Where is your outrage that this supposedly small element in your religion has gained the fear and disdain of the entire world?
As you excuse this evil on a regular and blame Israel and the U.S. for all the problems. consider this, that those your excuse and defend on a daily basis are more your enemy then they are ours.
I challenge you to speak up in your religious community and/or mosque and demand that those who do violence and speak for violence in the name of God or Islam be cast out of the mosques and alienated by the religious community as a whole. Do you have the guts?" [/i]
[quote]lixy wrote:
While Thunderbolt is busy posting stories about Islamists’ attacks on schools that didn’t happen, the US military is ACTUALLY killing children at schools.
in Iraq, another U.S. airstrike has claimed the lives of seven children. A U.S. helicopter opened fire on a primary school in a village close to the Iranian border. At least three other students were injured with heavy damage to the school building. The U.S. military says it fired after coming under attack from the school grounds.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/09/1511248
[i]CAIRO, May 8. ? Seven children, students at a public school in the Iraqi town of Mandali in Diyala province, were killed after a U.S. helicopter gunship fired on the town, according to Iraqi police sources.
The children were students at the Al-Saada school near the border with Iran, the EFE reported.
Along with the children, three other individuals were seriously injured by the attack, and the number of dead could rise. Diyala has been one of the provinces with the most violence this past year, with constant incidents. [/i]
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/mayo/mier9/u-s-helicopter-attack-in-iraq.html
My question to the supporters of the war is this: Do you expect the families of the kids not to seek revenge? If you were in their shoes, wouldn’t you spend the rest of your life trying to hurt the perpetrators? They’re KIDS for heaven’s sake!
Don’t come wondering why terrorism increased. The reasons couldn’t be clearer.
Meanwhile, an Afghan governor confirmed a US airstrike left 21 civilians dead in a Southern village of Afghanistan. The dead included women and children. Locals quoted a much higher toll of up to 48 killed and 20 wounded.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21701026-2703,00.html
And I’m sure some jerk by the name of PGJ will come around claiming it’s a bloodless war and “we’re not worse than the Nazis”.[/quote]
Shit, if we were like the Nazis, we would have already won this stupid war. Or better yet, the US Army of WW2, which was meaner than the Nazis. Or like the Vikings, well, in everything.
[quote]pookie wrote:
It might be rather brutal at first, as the insurgents and rebels got flushed out. [/quote]
…to say the least.
Venezuela.
Western nations, yes. The US, no. Iraqis will naturally ally themselves with Iran. I think the war will scars on a whole generation of Iraqis. Not because of the death toll, but because the war was absolutely unnecessary. But that’s just an educated guess…
Wanna take it down that path? No thanks.
The US literally introduced Al-Qaeda to Iraq, that much is certain. The rest is pure speculation and I have no interest in debating it.
[quote]Don’t they regard Israel as an illegitimate state and demand it’s destruction?
[/quote]
True. Of course, Israel tries to do the same to them.
Regardless of the ideology, my point was that talking to Hezbollah is worth considering because, unlike Al-Qaeda, they have popular support and are virtually the only voice the Southern Lebanese have. They might evolve or they might remain cramped on their unachievable goals. It could go both ways. But in its short life, the organization have proven to be willing to get closer to the center, something you’ll never see from Al-Qaeda for example.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
I challenge you to speak up in your religious community and/or mosque and demand that those who do violence and speak for violence in the name of God or Islam be cast out of the mosques and alienated by the religious community as a whole. Do you have the guts?[/quote]
I didn’t dodge the question. I simply didn’t see it. It happens you know…
I am as reformist as they come in Islam. I have always spoken up against the slighest displays of hate in religious speeches or such. You’ll have to take my word for it. I’m doing more than my share to cool the heads of the extremists. I might come out as always attacking and criticizing the US’s behaviour because your actions are not making my job any easier. Try to convince people that the US is not waging a crusade when thousands of Iraqis are killed under false pretenses, and when Bush uses crusadal words.
And when did you EVER see me condone violence in the name of God? I think that, more often than not, people under military occupation have to right to resist the occupiers. Knowing that, can you point to ANY of my posts where I might have alluded, even in the slighest way, that I was supporting crimes commited in the name of Allah? If you do, I promise to never post on the political forum. If you can’t, I’ll ask you to be more careful in your wordings and stop claiming that I “excuse the evil” and am not “pissed when Islamists commit atrocities in the name of Allah”.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Western nations, yes. The US, no.[/quote]
Kinda hard to deal with western nations and completely avoid the US. The United States is a large partner of many western nations…
I guess you could bend over backwards and emulate Cuba by choice; but will you prevent your own people from dealing with them? Free markets tend to try and avoid trade barriers…
[quote]Even if you did that, don’t you think that they’d simply find some other cause to recruit for?
Wanna take it down that path? No thanks.[/quote]
Why not? Your own assertion that Al Qaeda (who isn’t only in Iraq) exists only because of US foreign policy is just as pure speculation. At lot of terrorist attacks have had targets that have nothing to do with the US.
It seems that as soon as we ask questions that show arab or islamic organizations, even extremist ones, in a less than favorable light, you refuse to discuss further.
[quote]Don’t they regard Israel as an illegitimate state and demand it’s destruction?
True. Of course, Israel tries to do the same to them.[/quote]
Well, you previously said that all they were asking for was for Israel to respect UN resolutions. Wasn’t Israel established by a UN resolution?
If they want Israel to respect UN resolutions, shouldn’t they accept them too and recognize Israel’s right to exist?
Do they really expect Israel or any of its allies to take them seriously as long as Israel’s eradication is article one of their main goals?
You can’t ask the western nations to negotiate peacefully while you’re (publicly!) plotting to destroy your neighbor.
Lixy wrote “You’ll have to take my word for it. I’m doing more than my share to cool the heads of the extremists. I might come out as always attacking and criticizing the US’s behaviour because your actions are not making my job any easier.”
Lixy - If as you say, you are “doing more than your share now”, to cool the heads of the extremists, I’d hate to live in a world where you weren’t pulling your weight in this regard. I guess we should all be thankful to you for the results you have yielded.
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=39829
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Lixy wrote “You’ll have to take my word for it. I’m doing more than my share to cool the heads of the extremists. I might come out as always attacking and criticizing the US’s behaviour because your actions are not making my job any easier.”
Lixy - If as you say, you are “doing more than your share now”, to cool the heads of the extremists, I’d hate to live in a world where you weren’t pulling your weight in this regard. I guess we should all be thankful to you for the results you have yielded.
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=39829 [/quote]
I saw this article earlier. So now Al Qaeda affiliates plot terrorism if a western nation votes for someone they don’t approve of. Can that be explained away? Why are they targeting France simply because he got elected? What policy has he implemented to give them legitimate reasons. What is it that’s bringing these big chickens home to roost? Let’s not forgot the recent promised attacks against Spain, either.
Sloth,
You wondered how the threat of violence could be explained. Wait for Lixy’s post for your explanation.
He may not call Sarkozy a Zionist, but Lixy will assign blame for the violence on the (future) victims citing that they need to remove the reason for terror, and the terrorists will go away… Lixy after all predicted violence if Sarkozy won. (“Mark my words”,) It was the one, and only post of his that I agreed with - so far.
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Sloth,
You wondered how the threat of violence could be explained. Wait for Lixy’s post for your explanation.
He may not call Sarkozy a Zionist, but Lixy will assign blame for the violence on the (future) victims citing that they need to remove the reason for terror, and the terrorists will go away… Lixy after all predicted violence if Sarkozy won. (“Mark my words”,) It was the one, and only post of his that I agreed with - so far. [/quote]
I don’t think you’re too far from the truth, heh. So, is this Islamist interventionism? Of course, terrorists and their backers have been intervening for a loooooong time in other nations. You can see this in the Mideast, Asia, the Philippines, and Africa, etc.
Interesting how Islamic interventionism doesn’t share the same screen time in Lixy’s posts. Even though it’s muslims killing more muslims (and Jews and Christians) than anyone else is.
Hey, I’m just saying, he spends an awfully disproportionate time on the US. Seems to me that the majority of his posts should be aimed at Islamists. Guess it isn’t the trendy thing to do.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…
Interesting how Islamic interventionism doesn’t share the same screen time in Lixy’s posts. Even though it’s muslims killing more muslims (and Jews and Christians) than anyone else is.
Hey, I’m just saying, he spends an awfully disproportionate time on the US. Seems to me that the majority of his posts should be aimed at Islamists. Guess it isn’t the trendy thing to do.[/quote]
He spends the rest of his time going after those people. Not here of course, you will have to take his word for it.
These are the thoughts of some muslims on democracy and the recent French elections:
Syed Qutub wrote in his book:
“Demolish all governments and organizations that are established by man. The return of Allah’s kingdom can only be established with a sword. Absolute rebellion is a must against anything on earth that conflicts with Islam and to destroy it with great power”.
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Syed Qutub wrote in his book:
“Demolish all governments and organizations that are established by man. The return of Allah’s kingdom can only be established with a sword. Absolute rebellion is a must against anything on earth that conflicts with Islam and to destroy it with great power”.
[/quote]
Which is, of course, the Muslim extremist equivalent of “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Syed Qutub wrote in his book:
“Demolish all governments and organizations that are established by man. The return of Allah’s kingdom can only be established with a sword. Absolute rebellion is a must against anything on earth that conflicts with Islam and to destroy it with great power”.
Which is, of course, the Muslim extremist equivalent of “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”[/quote]
Please source the quote you made. I’d be interested in who said it. Was it Pope John Paul 2, Pope Benedict, Jerry Farwell? Please let us know which Christian sect is calling for blood.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Please source the quote you made. I’d be interested in who said it. Was it Pope John Paul 2, Pope Benedict, Jerry Farwell? Please let us know which Christian sect is calling for blood.[/quote]
None of the above. It was Ann Coulter, of course.
And no Muslim “sect” made the statement quoted by Toyoka above. Those are the words of Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist author and intellectual, whose ideology was adopted by al-Qaida (which isn’t a sect, either).
If Ann Coulter were an Egyptian Muslim man, she would likely be Sayyid Qutb.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I challenge you to speak up in your religious community and/or mosque and demand that those who do violence and speak for violence in the name of God or Islam be cast out of the mosques and alienated by the religious community as a whole. Do you have the guts?
I didn’t dodge the question. I simply didn’t see it. It happens you know…
I am as reformist as they come in Islam. I have always spoken up against the slightest displays of hate in religious speeches or such. You’ll have to take my word for it. I’m doing more than my share to cool the heads of the extremists.
[/quote]
I’ll take your word for it and if you are doing that, good for you. You are definitely facing an uphill battle.
How is convincing your brothers and sisters that violence is not the way related to what the U.S. does or is doing? If you are waiting for the world to “Get right” to fix problems in you own back yard, you’ll be waiting a long time. You tying in politic with your religion. If the politics are right then your religion will be too. The problem is that politic are never right. Politics are the last resort when real solutions are no longer viable. Don’t worry about convincing people the U.S. or Israel ain’t so bad, a belief you do not seem to hold anyway. How about dialog on how to deal with situations and get results instead of throwing temper-tantrums and “I’ll drown you in your own blood you Zionist pig” rhetoric every time somebody draws a cartoon Muslims don’t like. That is just ridiculous.
Also, what crusader rhetoric? Bush may be many things but he has never declared the destruction of Islam, the retaking of Jerusalem, etc. Is creating a “free and peaceful” Iraq crusader rhetoric? It may be a pipe dream, but it is not rhetoric.
So what you are saying basically, is that you want Muslims to be peaceful people, but it is virtually impossible given the political climate in the ME?
[quote]
And when did you EVER see me condone violence in the name of God? I think that, more often than not, people under military occupation have to right to resist the occupiers. Knowing that, can you point to ANY of my posts where I might have alluded, even in the slightest way, that I was supporting crimes committed in the name of Allah? If you do, I promise to never post on the political forum. If you can’t, I’ll ask you to be more careful in your wordings and stop claiming that I “excuse the evil” and am not “pissed when Islamists commit atrocities in the name of Allah”.[/quote]
Well, you are passing the buck. It’s the U.S.'s fault for existing or it’s Israel’s fault because they illegally occupied lands after they were attacked in 1967. And every time you pass the buck you excuse the evil acts.
You?re not saying the Islam is in big trouble. It is divided, infested with radicalism, and represented by violence. These things are undeniably true and have to be addressed and they are not being addressed.
As far as “resisting occupiers” in Iraq. That is a bunch of horseshit. If you want the U.S. out of Iraq then the opposite needs to happen. Peace needs to take place and the fledgling government needs to take hold. The insurgency is a bunch of people taking advantage of a shaky situation and jockeying for position. A few IEDs and road side bomb are not going to defeat the U.S. army. It would take a significant military uprising to “throw the U.S. out” and pretty much everybody, including the insurgents, know that. These animals are mainly just taking lives and saber rattling. While the U.S. tries to avoid civilian casual, these insurgents target civilians directly, in the name of God and blame the U.S. for it.