To: michael97123 who wrote (105 ) 5/14/2007 11:36:17 PM From: Hawkmoon Respond to of 4152 You know i love you Hawk And I love you too Michael (in an intellectual sort of way.. ;0) You make me think, and you make me defend my logic. I always welcome that.but i am thinking that the conventional thinking we used just doesnt work in the arab world It depends upon how far down into human nature you "drill". Are there serious gaps between Arab and Western cultural values and mindsets? Certainly.. But show me where any sizable segment of humanity are willing to accept (let alone approve of) having to live out each day of their lives in fear of becoming a victim of a terrorist attack.. Please show me how the tactics that Al Qai'da uses to intimidate and terrorize common shoppers in a marketplace, or people afraid to go out at night wins them support in the Arab street as "Holy Fighters". Sorry Michael.. I just don't buy that argument that we're a "lightning rod" for their failures. If anything, our presence in the Mid-East, is the direct result of of the Muslim world's PREVIOUS perceptions of our being responsible for their failures since they freed from subjugation under the Ottoman Turks. And the feeding of this perception that, somehow, we're the "great satan" who needs to be confronted and attacked is what led to 9/11. So now, we've shifted the battlefield to their own countries. We're forcing them to face the beast they've fed and nurtured as a result of their cultural inferiority complex as it turns upon them and targets their daily lives. No longer can the Arab street applaude the "Mujahidin" attacks upon either Israel or the West, because they now find themselves equal targets of opportunity. There's been a lot of discussion about the lack of "progress" in Iraq by the US and Iraqi government. But let's look at the lack of progress by the enemy to advance their agenda. Earlier on, Al Qai'da and Ansar Al-Sunnah were able to control entire regions, relatively unopposed. This is no longer the case, hence the return to suicide and car bombings. A few years ago the insurgents were on the verge of elevating their guerrilla war from a LIC phase to MIC (low-intensity and Mid-intensity conflict). But now they have been chased out of their Anbar sanctuary by the very Sunni tribes who once sheltered them, and they find themselves forced to roam from one part of the country to another using hit-run LIC style tactics in order to try and regain momentum. And if you're not convinced of the possibility of a regional war, should we permit the various factions to go at each other's throats unopposed, maybe you should rethink that logic. The Shi'a are the dominant faction in Iraq, while millions of Sunnis have fled (in part because they were part of the insurgent forces, and in part because they were targeted by Shi'a retaliation and forceable "gerrymandering"). But were the Shi'a to launch upon a full-fledged campaign to kick out ALL the Sunnis from Iraq, no Sunni in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Syria could stand by and permit that to happen. These Sunni tribes are ALL interconnected at some level. And they ALL share the same historical animosity and fear of the Shi'ites. Iraq has been a battleground between Persian and Arab for centuries Michael. Past history should be sufficient reason to bring your pause when you discount the threat of a regional war. And this isn't even mentioning the huge financial stakes involved.. IF the recent news that there's a potential for doubling Iraq's oil reserves due to deposits in primarily Sunni regions, that's a HUGE motive for neighboring countries to get involved and offer their protection to the Sunnis in Al-Anbar. Hawk