Point taken but your ‘They’ does not work in your sentence about ‘They’ can prop themselves up for some time with their oil reserves before their ideology collapses.
As far as I know Muslim terrorists do not control any major oil producer. In this context your ‘they’ seems to be a broad brush.
Wait, what? No, no, no – Lieberman wants to bomb Iran, not Saudi Arabia. I don’t think the two for one special really applies here. Besides, we like Saudi Arabia, their King is a great kisser, as our elected representatives know all too well.
I approve the morality of this statement. I also wish to know: for how long have you hated America? (the toaster is in the mail)
YOU PEOPLE?!
Actually, the problem I saw here is the gulf between the terrorists and the governments. Osama Bin Laden isn’t going to be hanging on thanks to oil. He wasn’t very popular with the powers that be in quite a few countries, what with him being a major terrorist who hated what he saw as brutal U.S. backed puppet regimes and all. He had a habit of being exiled. IIRC, his inherited family fortune was from real estate, which is what he used to finance Al-Qaeda and kick off all those lovely training camps where they master such dangerous tasks as swinging across monkey bars while wearing a ski mask.
Apparently I misunderstood your intent. Is what you’re saying that Muslim terrorists would not be killing each other in Iraq if the US wasn’t there because the Muslim terrorists came to us? I think that’s too broad a brush, Muslim terrorists are not of a single mind.
Ha.
Every time I post something related to Iraq somehow I end up having to defend something that does not need to be defended. It’s as if they see who wrote it and refuse to see what I’m saying.
Now this is a good point, and a good refutation of what I said. I portrayed the terrorists as having the resources of a nation-state in comparison to the assertion that they will collapse on their own as Communism did. Clearly they are not a nation-state. Nevertheless, they are getting money from somewhere, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that the money will continue to come in as long as they have sponsorship from someone. It’s also not unreasonable to assume that oil money is paying the bills.
Regardless, if we want to make that distinction they will never go away. Like I said before, you cannot defeat ideas.
Look. The assertion that Muslim terrorists would fight each other and leave us alone were had we not been over there is given lie by the large hole on the end of Manhattan Island. They (the general “they”) have no intention of leaving us alone.
We didn’t go to them spoiling for a fight. They picked one.
If you can’t effectively fight an ideology on the ground with an army and the problem in Iraq as its been characterized in the last few days by our most recent expert as “…conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian committees for power and resources.” Isn’t Biden’s tripartite idea worthy of more consideration?
Oh, I know. I thought it’d be humorous to compound the pain since you gave another opening.
Maybe. You don’t know that for sure. Remember, most of this discussion came from your post which said:
Good so far.
What does that even mean? Co-opted by the terrorists? Which Middle Eastern states have been co-opted, in your view? I’m guessing Iraq wasn’t since it was a secular state hated by fundamentalists for allowing women to have rights and power. But I think we all tend to agree on that point. Ignoring that, I find it hard to swallow that’s our only other choice.
How about this: our other option is to work with other countries in intelligence gathering and police work, not to mention a whole host of other fields which people way smarter and informed than I am have written about. It’s a threat, to be sure, but a manageable one. I remember Kerry once compared terrorism to prostitution and organized crime in how it should be handled and he was widely made fun of by the right. Seems to me like he was pretty reasonable.
I liked this part too. Now we just need to get Joe and Susy American to like it too and we’ll be on to something.
“Permanent attachment of Republican hands on the tillers of government power.”
Not to be cynical or anything.
Oh, please. We’ve been screwing over the ME for a long time. Do you think it’s chance that they picked us as a target ? The hatred from the ME for America is perfectly justifiable, even if the way they express it isn’t.
Given the way we continue to fuck up their country, I think it’s more likely than not. No one liked Saddam, but the government that eventually fills his vacuum may very well be worse.
If we could acheive the original roll-out, Victory in Iraq 1.0 ('Luc’s Law: Never install version 1.0…), that would have, most assuredly, been a stunning defeat for Islamic extremism. Starbucks on every corner, a liberal parliamentary systems, an economy based on sound and proven economic bedrock (flat tax, etc…you know the drill…), outdated mosques converted to Ayn Rand Study Centers…
This proved to be impractical. Not the fuzzy-thinking idealism of wussy-ass liberals, but the hard-headed, realistic impracticality of the neo-con right. A bit off, it appears, needed a tweak or two…version 1.1. Now we got, what? Version 110.2? A reduction of sectarian violence down to “acceptable” levels? A population that no longer craves to bathe in our blood, but simply wishes we would fucko off?
The good news, and good news it is, is the defeat of AlQ/I, which could lead directly to the defeat of Alq/I, We may be able to capitalize on that, ending finally with the defeat of AlQ/I. I stand ready to rejoice most fulsomely for the five seconds or so this triumph deserves. To our astonishment, the people of Iraq don’t much cotton to foreign fighters on their soil! Well, son of a gun! Who gnu?
We are finally assured that Al Queda will not take over Iraq, a prospect as likely as the Pentecostalists taking over Mexico. Can we go home now? Nope. They could come back! The piddling numbers of Sunni loonies may cow the heavily armed Shia majority into abject submission! If we leave, the AlQ fighters will scurry out of their hidey-holes, declare victory, and scurry back before the Shia tear them a new one. Can’t have that!
We are hoist on our own retard. We are committed to some vision of democracy in Iraq, which means a nation ruled by people who don’t like us very much. And who will, most likely, not fall all over themselves offering us military bases and light, sweet crude. Any more than they flung bouquets in the path of our heroes and offered their daughters.
Finally, victory is defeat, peace is war, and Goldstein is in Iran. Rejoice.
No – but they are getting lots of applicable practice.
Well, no, we actually went “there” first. Not Iraq obviously but the Middle East in general. Al Qaida has repeatedly said that their primary goal is to drive the American military out of the Middle East. There were no Muslim terrorist attacks in the United States prior to our deployment of troops in the Middle East in 1991. I’m not saying I agree with their opinion - we were invited into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - but to the Muslim terrorists, we were the ones who “invaded” first and they’re striking back at us.