Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Hello??!!.."
Hi!
Re: "These ideas have been pervading the region for the past 20+ years without invading Iraq."
US foreign policy in the Middle East has been tilted towards Israel for 20+ years. This is not just my opinion. One of the front runners for the Democratic nomination for President is saying the same thing. Hell, most of the world agrees with the Arabs about this point.
Re: And why do they believe this? Where did they learn it?"
They get their news from Al Jazeera, but if they got their news from CNN or even Fox they'd think the same thing. It's not the slant that the news provider gives that convinces the Arabs that we're out to get them. It's that we're out to get them, at least from their point of view. That you don't see this is hilarious, especially with the genocidal comments you've made on this thread. What the f do you think the people who you want to mass murder think about the idea?
Re: "Do you think children are born racists and hatemongers? Think about our own racism in this nation.. Where did this hatred towards blacks and Jews originate? How long has it taken to come as far as we have?"
Scrambling around for rhetoric, you're just typing randomly. Stick to the issue, you'll make better progress.
Re: "That's the battle we're ultimately fighting Bilow and YOU KNOW IT."
Yes, I believe that this is a battle for hearts and minds, a battle that we are losing, and that our loss in this battle endangers our cities. Hey, if you thought that WTC was a blast wait till you see what life's like in the US when we have daily nukes going off here in a 40-year long war with Islam, LOL.
You keep acting like the downside to losing the war on terror would be "another 911", but you're so underestimating what war can do to a country that it's hilarious. In a world that is fast becoming nuclear armed, we simply can't afford to get ourselves involved in ancient Old World pissing matches. It's only a matter of time before the two sides start lobbing nukes at each other and we don't want to get caught in the crossfire.
You act like dominating the Moslem world would be a walk in the park, a cakewalk like WW2. That's right, for the US, WW2 was a f'ing cakewalk. We only lost about a quarter million. Russia lost what, 20,000,000. That's about 80 times as many. The Jews were almost wiped out. The Chinese lost tens of millions. And that was all with conventional weapons. What do you think the casualties would be in a nuke war in the US homeland?
My point is simple. Why bother using our military to fight a war which only makes more suicide bombers attack us when our business is making daily inroads on the enemy, an invasion that was the one that Osama really feared, an invasion of our culture? We are winning this war, and we will inevitably win it, provided we keep the kids with guns (and planes) out of the Middle East.
Re: "Because that's how hatemongering thrives, by blaming others for your own problems."
You mean like blaming Bilow for the fact that the US has pissed off the Arabs for a policy of sucking up to Israel for decades? Like blaming the Arabs for noticing that tilted policy and reacting to it? Like blaming the rest of the world for refusing to get involved in a dishonorable war based on lies?
You got it right that blaming others for your own problems is the fate of mankind, but you refuse to see your own blame, LOL. Hey, Sweden ain't getting threatened with terrorism, why should we?
Re: "The same dysfunctional logic that was applied to staying out of WWI and WWII."
That's right, it could have. And in fact, we did stay out of WWI and WWII as long as we could. We did not enter either war because a bunch of lily-livered cowards believed that the United States was threatened by Germany in WW1 or Japan in WW2 and insisted on a sneak attack. We got into those scrapes when we were attacked by soldiers from Japan, when Germany declared war against us, and when Germany sank our neutral shipping. We were forced into those wars by the actions of the countries that we were already at war with.
But we were not at war with any Arab country before Bush invaded Iraq. And the practical truth is that if the two sides in WW2 had started nuking each other in 1938 instead of 1945, we'd have been a hell of a lot more careful to keep ourselves truly neutral in 1941. If nukes had existed in 1914 or 1938, the peace faction in the US would have been that much more powerful, and we probably would have stayed out of those wars. Would that have been bad for Britain? Hell yes it would have, but that's just life's tough titty. It's not a coincidence that Red China has nukes and I don't see George Bush begging for UN assistance in liberating Tibet, LOL.
It's just the nature of power. When you got it, you use it, but when you don't have it, you don't run around joining pissing matches. Where Bush and you blew it in Iraq was in overestimating US power, in particular the power to pacify hostile civilians. Bush also blew it in overestimating how much the Iraqi people would like being occupied, LOL.
And I didn't see a lot of people asking for us to invade and occupy the Soviet Union while they were occupying Eastern Europe either. In that case, as in the Arab case, the facts are simple. The other side is in possession of weapons that prevent us from being able to tell them how to live their lives. Despite the obvious fact that the Soviet Union was an evil empire, we did not start a war with them.
The Arabs are similar, but they are not nearly as much of a global threat, and their weapons are not yet nuclear. But their suicide attacks are conventional weapons that can and will result in casualties in the United States greater than any other nation has done for a very long time.
We got our ass kicked on September 11, 2001, and you're right that that should have attracted your attention. (I can only hope that we don't start calling it a national holiday, that would really piss me off. It's a day, like December 7th, that we should remember, but holidays should be reserved for days of victory, not days of defeat.)
We got our ass kicked for the first time in a damn long time, and you should think carefully about that fact.
What they proved two years ago was that the US cannot intervene in Arab affairs on the side of Israel without risking massive casualties in the United States itself.
This is now a fact, and you admit it. Where you are mistaken is in believing that US military force can reduce the threat. Go look at Iraq. It's now ours, and what has happened, it's become a Disneyland for Al Qaeda. This is exactly in keeping with the Israeli experience of 50 years. Militarily occupying a piece of territory tends to increase the terrorism generated in that piece of territory. The Indians in Kashmir can speak the same lesson, as could the British in Ireland. Military force is useless at pacification, except when it's in the hands of near genocidal maniacs.
And the only way you can get the US to use genocidal force against the Arabs is by getting us repeatedly nuked. Some victory. Long before that happens, Israel will be a smokin' hole in the ground. So why put our neck out to save them?
By the way, did you see the latest headline in USA Today?
Poll: Bush approval rating takes fall
President Bush's public standing, on a downward trend all summer, has slid to its lowest point since the September 11 attacks two years ago, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.
...
On Iraq, where the news has been dominated by continued attacks on U.S. troops, 51% approve of Bush's management, down from 57% in late August and a high of 76% in mid-April.
Public satisfaction with the way things are going there has fallen below 50% for the first time to 47%.
...
Most, 58%, think Iraq was worth going to war over. But that has dwindled from 63% in late August and a high of 76% five months ago, when a statue of Saddam Hussein fell in Baghdad.
...
usatoday.com
-- Carl |
