Yeah, and WWII radicalized Germans and Japanese. So what?
Sounds like to many people are trying to come up with reasons why we shouldn’t fight, rather than ways we can win.
Iraq has way more chance of becoming a democracy sometime in (the distant) future than does Afghanistan. The way power there is divided among the warlords… don’t expect anything outside of Kabul.
adaher... your smarter than that. Against the Japs and the Germans was there any other option ? They were a MILITARY threat... and they WERE NATIONS. Al Qaeda is not military or a nation.... the sooner US'ers take that in the faster they will concentrate on terrorists.
No one is saying the US should sit around on their asses and have buildings knockdown as if in a bowling alley… did anyone suggest that ? What the US shouldnt do is go on a rampage that causes as much damage to their reputation and their fight against terrorism… as it destroys other nations.
It’s odd that it sounds like that to you. It’s not what’s actually being said. perhaps you should consider the discrepancy between what’s being said and what it sounds like to you.
What’s being discussed is how the appropriate, crucial diplomatic efforts are being chintzed on.
Here’s what Rumsfeld had to say about these things:
I can only guess if this also “sounds” to you as if Rumsfeld is “trying to come up with reasons why we shouldn’t fight, rather than ways we can win.”
Good luck.
Posted by adaher:
adaher, what exactly do you mean by “win”? We “won” the Iraq war, but that’s done nothing but enhance the appeal of terrorist causes to Arabs and Muslims all over the world – that’s what this thread is about. We can’t win the “War on Terror” by conquering every Islamic country that harbors Islamic terrorists; there are too many such countries (Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and that’s just the short list), we don’t have the manpower, and if we somehow do manage to conquer them all, the terrorists will just go even further underground and continue the fight – as is happening in Iraq right now.
The only way the U.S. can win the War on Terror is if something happens to cause the Muslims to, well, lose interest in terrorism. An independent Palestinian state would be a good start; it would deprive al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc., of one of their principal rallying causes.
The soultion is to give those poor middle east countries lots of money, tell them we are sorry and ask them not to hurt us anymore. We also need to tell them we want to be friends and then we can cry together.
Southern Democrat, welcome. We can use a few of you.
But you should know that while it’s OK to toss in the occasional purely sarcastic remark in a debate, we have a fairly high standard for sarcasm 'round here. And that’s a pretty old, tired, sad caricature you tossed in there.
Another solution is to stop supporting the tyrants that rule over them.
Helping them get rids of said tyrants and establishing democracies would do more to defeat terrorism than anything else.
Israeli-Palestinian peace is a chimera. Even if it happens, that’s not the real root of Muslim anger outside of Palestine itself. There are many causes, many of which can’t even be addressed realistically.
but they should try to make an effort to address… ? Saying your not in a war against Islam… but you target only muslims and support unconditionally Israel…
I wouldnt get so jumpy and cheerful over establishing Democracies either. South America has struggled for decades to get Democracy ingrained just a bit… not that America helped… or better they did get in the way actually.
The Middle East isnt a place where freedom of speech or liberties are base values… its a very different culture.
**but they should try to make an effort to address… ? Saying your not in a war against Islam… but you target only muslims and support unconditionally Israel… **
We support all democracies unconditionally, whether it be Israel or Taiwan. And we are trying to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US is the only nation that has any influence left with ISrael. If we stop backing them, what is to stop Israel from just going ahead and solving the problem in a way that none of us want?
**I wouldnt get so jumpy and cheerful over establishing Democracies either. South America has struggled for decades to get Democracy ingrained just a bit… not that America helped… or better they did get in the way actually.
**
As did the Soviet Union. The Cold War did tremendous damage to the Third World. And I would consider South America’s progress since the 90s to be incredible. Democracy is a wonderful thing. The incredible growth of Latin economies and the fact that war between South American nations is now almost unthinkable attests to that. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Middle East was just like South America?
**The Middle East isnt a place where freedom of speech or liberties are base values… its a very different culture.
**
Those are universal values. Everyone wants to speak freely and have liberty. The key is to get people to realize that other people deserve it to.
There is no person who say, “I want to be a slave.” However there are plenty of people who want to be enslavers.
That’s a very sweet sentiment. 
And we have stopped them …how? …from doing which what? …when?
Posted by adaher:
Ermmm . . . but that’s the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq, adaher. We got rid of a tyrant there, but our success has done nothing but inflame anti-American feelings in Iraq and all over the Islamic world. Do you really think it would turn out differently if we toppled the tyrants ruling Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran?
adaher is all optimism… poor Israel held back from being the Middle East monster by the generous USA…
Come on Adaher… without US support Israel wouldn’t be playing along as a bully. In fact the whole situation in the ME and terrorism would be much better if they had negotiated more. Part of course of the unconditional US support… but Israel is no angel beset by evil muslims all round.
I haven’t noticed any mention of the International Institute for Strategic Studies annual report, so I thought I’d bring it up.
I might note that this was also predicted BEFORE the invasion.
Sorry SimonX, alqaeda will continue to be hunted down like wild dogs.
This is also a line from that report:
Because of its extreme religious world view, al Qaeda “cannot be tamed or controlled through political compromise or conflict resolution,” the report said.
So there you go, taken from your own source. No negotiations, no compromise, no nothing. We will either kill them or detain them, until there are none left.
It seems that you may have missed the point.
I’m not sure how you could’ve missed the point, but you certainly appear to have missed it by many miles.
I’m utterly mystified as to how you could think that I needed an apology for the elimination of aQ. I’m not talking about preserving al Qaeda. The discussion is about not helping al Qaeda “swell their ranks.”
You must’ve missed the part of my discussion about how the invasion of Iraq, (over what was merely a potential threat), has increased the imminent threat of al Qaeda. Consider whether or not it would it be easier to “either kill them or detain them, until there are none left” if our actions didn’t help their recruitment drives? It certainly seems like a very straightforward, elementary realization that no helping al Qaeda attract members would make it easier to eliminate them. Basic arithmetic as it were.
If you’ll notice the title of the article, Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda’s Ranks, Report Says, you’ll see within it the gist of the main point- Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda’s Ranks. If you read the article and my comments carefully, you should also notice that there’s absolutley no outcry for the preservation of al Qaeda. This leaves one to wonder as to why you would decide that you owe me an apology about the destruction of al Qaeda. It wasn’t because of anything that I said.
Please re-read my post and try again.
Good luck,
SimonX
Simonx, I don’t disagree that the Iraq invasion may have caused a few more loonies to join al Qaeda. ANY action taken by the USA may very well cause even more loonies to join al Qaeda. Even non action by the USA may cause some loonies to join al Qaeda. I’m sure the recruiters are out and about, working their butts off, in search of members to join their death cult.
As for the sorry statement, I have gotten the impression from your earlier posts, that you do not like the military fashion, in which the USA is dealing with the war.
So I take it, that you agree that there is to be NO compromise and NO negotiations with al Qaeda and their ilk ? (we will eliminate them)
What’s under discussion here, AFAICT, is the effect of the manner in which we’re prosecuting the war on terror and its effects on those who’re NOT members of al Qaeda. Even rumsfeld has acknowledged the need to spend more energy addressing th elongterm aspects of our efforts. If we can’t cut off the next generation of recruits, we’re doomed to generations of conflict. If we can cut off the enemy’s supply of troops we can save lives of our military and innocents all around. It’d be a good thing.
To win this war, we need to drive a wedge between these radical, extremist groups and the general population of the Arab and Muslim world.
I’d be perfectly willing to negotiate with aQ members after they lay down their arms and surrender peacefully. What would be on the table for negotiation isn’t much though.The likelihood of people on a mission from God surrenderring is exceedingly slim, however. Until such time as that astronomically improbable thing happens…
I don’t think that going into Iraq when we did and how we did was the best option available to us, especially from the perspective of the war on terrorism.
Helping overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran and Chile was a strange way of expressing America’s unconditional support for democracy.
[SARCASM]
Kill the terrorist, militants and supporters (plus some “collateral damage”); and don´t adress the roots of the problem, it works! Just ask Israel… :rolleyes:
[/SARCASM]