The War on Terror

[Doug]

I was just watching CNN Late Edition while getting ready to go for a run. Representatives Harman and Hunter were being interviewed. The text of Cheney's slam on Pelosi was brought up on screen and in it Cheney alluded to the war on terror and how if we withdrew troops from Iraq, we would give the signal to Al Queda that we were throwing in the towel. This confuses me. My understanding of the facts as I've seen them is that 1) Al Queda is our enemy on the war on terror, 2) Al Queda and Saddam Hussein were not in any sort of working together relationship and that 3) They showed up in Iraq to fight us.

 

So was this the strategy; to use Iraq as a forward operating base in the war on terror? I'm not downplaying the fact that Hussein was an evil dictator and should have been deposed, but in my mind there was no global or even regional terror base in Iraq, Can someone unravel this for me? No rhetoric or innuendo, just the facts please.

[sobo]

I think Junior was put up to finish what Daddy didn't in 1991. Sounds too simple, but maybe true?

 

I agree with you that there was no global or regional terror base in Iraq prior the US-led invasion of 2003. Hussein had his people pretty much squelched with his own home-grown variety of terrorism. The real effort should have remained in Afghanistan, if that's where our intelligence told/tells us OBL and al-Qaeda were/are. We have no business being in Iraq. I support/supported the military campaign in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, but never The Bush War in Iraq. I never thought we should have gone there in the first place, as "we have no dog in that fight." I remember saying to my wife the day we heard the news that we had actually set foot in Iraq again, "Oh shit, we really did it. We've stepped in the dogturd again. WTF are we doing there? No good can come from this in the long run."

 

THREAD DRIFT WARNING

Now in my mind, if we really felt like we had to invade a sovereign country, we should have chosen North Korea. The (apparent) evidence of the danger to the West from the DPRK is greater: Kim Jong-il is actively pursuing nuclear weapons technology with (perceived) intent to deploy, he's acquired and tested ballistic missile delivery capability (with a few positive results), and has a firm belief (approaching paranoia) that the US is going to pre-emptively attack his state. In short, he's a loonie! Well, maybe not totally a loonie on that last point, given the current state of affairs in the Middle East...

 

But if we do/had invade/d the DPRK, we would have to be prepared for a much greater, longer, and bloodier conflict, much like what the world experienced during WWII. Other states would almost certainly get involved (China, Russia, S. Korea, Japan, etc.). I do not believe that Joe-Bob America is prepared for what would surely be a sustained conflict, as mandatory rationing would surely infringe upon his ready access to pork rinds, cheap beer, cigarettes, NASCAR racing, and WWF spectacles.

 

But back in 2003, it appeared to the administration that they would not have those long-term problems in Iraq, as the underlying assumption was that "we kicked their ass in 6 weeks before, we can easily do it again." We had what was thought by many to be "an easy target", supporting UN resolutions (however which way we wanted to twist the wording), and it would clean up Daddy's unfinished business.

END THREAD DRIFT

 

Oh, sorry, not facts, just my opinion.

[Stonehead]

KNOWING THE ENEMY: Can social scientists redefine the "war on terror"?

 

“People don’t get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social networks.”

[dmuja]

Who the fuck really knows whats going on.

 

Personally, I think 9/11 was the result of some sexual fetish between OBL and Bush and their Daddies.

 

Having said that, Islam IS a problem, and sooner or later there was bound to be a clash of ideologies.

 

"Iraq" however, was a plan - maybe not the best plan but a plan - that lacked world leadership, a conclusion, and or any contingency. I don't blame Bush (and co.) alone because a lot of people voted him and now they (we) are all going to suffer for his (our) lack of standing in the world.

 

In the end, negotiation, diplomacy and compromise will be what carries the day and invading Iraq will likely be seen to have been a big mistake.

 

But if we pulled everyone out all at once in an instant withdrawl I think the whole region would go up and we might have a world war on our hands. Cant do that imo.

 

Our grand kids will be dealing with this shit unfortunately, that and our lack of action on global warming.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

a) Why is Islam, itself, any more of a problem than any other religion? It's far closer in doctrine to Christianity than any other.

 

b) How is our situation a clash of civilizations? Seems like a classic local turf war to me.

 

c) How and why would a world war result if we pulled out of Iraq.

 

Please to explain.

Edited February 26, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[high_on_rock]

I think we should get our asses out of Iraq. “We” screwed up going in, “We” have screwed it up since, and now there is nothing we can do to fix it so let's cut the losses and get our asses out of there. Convene a meeting of all of the Arab nations, lock them in a room and tell them to solve our Iraq mess because we failed and we admit it. Tell them that we are pulling out in one month, so they have one month to create a solution or decide how they are going to divide it up. Sorry Iraq!

[dmuja]

Quote by tvashtarkatena:

 

a) Why is Islam, itself, any more of a problem than any other religion? It's far closer in doctrine to Christianity than any other.

 

b) How is our situation a clash of civilizations? Seems like a classic local turf war to me.

 

c) How and why would a world war result if we pulled out of Iraq.

 

Please to explain.

---

 

 

Islam

 

My own observations; {I work with kids and parents in the school system} Muslims are really not very interested in assimilating into or adopting our "liberal" secular system. At least at this point. They seem to see the world as divided between themselves and the nonbelievers/ infidels etc.. This sounds like Ive listened to Limbaugh too much but its coming from someone (me) who is generally on the far left politically. I see this stuff first hand.

 

In Seattle for example (my observations) girls who are Muslim but for whatever reason didn't wear the veil (hajab) get harassed by other Muslim girls until they wear it. I could give other examples but its all just my own experience and observations and to be frank, Seattle school Dist is in denial about the whole subject imho. Ill just say that I think the whole non-assimilation/separatist thing is so bad that a "new racism" is emerging and will look something like this.. Muslims over here, all other cultural groups over there. In the years to come as they gain more numbers and political clout you will hear about more and more "demands" by Muslims to be allowed some types of special privileges I think - times set aside for prayer, special holidays just for them etc. Of coarse this is my own opinion and speculation.

 

Islam is a fundamentalist literalist religion. There is utterly NO room for personal interpretation of the Koran. Various interpretations generally are grounds for sectarian warfare. If youre Muslim, you are either a fundamentalist, or you are on track to being labeled , treated, and maybe attacked as a "bad" Muslim or nonbeliever.

 

 

Clash of Civilizations

 

Its becoming a "clash of civilizations" because there are aproximately 1.5 billion Muslims who -for various reasons- were largely ignored by most of modern Western civilization until 9/11. Now it (Islam) is like a giant flower that has begun opening and spreading its spores throughout the non-Muslim world. Westerners/Christian liberals etc.., are just beginning to feel their presence and there will be much resistance when the effects of this "blossoming" become more completely felt.

 

World War 3 or 4..

 

Iran has eyes for Iraq via Iraqs Sheite majority. If we pull out all at once the Sheites would begin to initiate a "final solution" of their own upon the Suni population. Saudi Arabia for example would not stand for this and Israel could not tolerate Iraq becoming a twin to Iran. The whole region would destabilize to such a point that its very likely Israel would be at war with most Arab countries in the area and the US would have to jump in to save Israel and become an enemy of every Arab and likely 1.5 billion Muslims world wide. Again JMO.

[olyclimber]

Why can't they just ARGUE ON THE INTERNET LIKE CIVILIZED PEOPLE.

 

GOSH! sickie

[dmuja]

Of coarse Oly, I didn't say Muslims weren't "civilized" , just that their version of civilization is dramatically different from what most others are accustomed to.

 

The differences run pretty deep and having the traditional "liberal-left-nicey-nicey-tolerant of all-Seattle" mind set won't allow one to gain an accurate veiw of what is actually happening.

[olyclimber]

Well, maybe they could learn to sing kumbaya my lord. HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT?

 

thats whats wrong with the world. people don't get how easy the solutions are. just join hands and sing.

[dmuja]

I don't mind singing (many Muslim parents don't like their kids listening to music though) however Im not into that whole "Jesus thang" myself..

[ivan]

historically, few first generation immigrants feel like assimilating the values of their host nation - it is their children who do so (assuming they're thrown into the texas death-cage that is public education)

[dmuja]

Hopefully we can do this better than Europe has thus far.

[ivan]

europe doesn't have the same tradition/history of assimilating immigrants as we do- for most of modern history, people have been leaving europe, not immigrating there.

 

i've taught a number of muslim kids, all of whom are thoroughly "american" but whose parents are very parochial and "old world"

 

that said, there will always be maladjusted types - we had our sacco and vanzetti (if you'll pretend to forget for a moment that they were probably innocent)

[Doug]

This is all very thoughtful discussion. O.K., some of this is semi-thoughtful, but no one here has answered the question; Is the war in Iraq really the war on terror, or are we just being fed a load of crap because for some reason Bush & Cheney have lost interest in Afghanistan?

[foraker]

if this was about actually finding terrorists, they'd have sent out spec ops teams to hunt them down. you don't find small groups of people by sending in a batallion or two, knocking on doors, and stopping cars.

[Doug]

Is this discussion too boring to attract anyone with an opposing viewpoint?

[DirtyHarry]

You guys are just emboldening the terrorists by having this critical discussion. For shame.

[Doug]

My contribution to the war on terror. I hope to infuriate Osama out of his cave and give him an open hand bitch slap.

[archenemy]

historically, few first generation immigrants feel like assimilating the values of their host nation - it is their children who do so (assuming they're thrown into the texas death-cage that is public education)

I don't believe this is true for many people who immigrate; at least not in the past.

I know a great number of people who came here from Denmark (having been the first in my family to be born in the States, I am surrounded by crazy Danes). My family has a high number of European friends who also emmigrated, and all of them have worked quite hard to assimilate while maintaining their own language and customs in the home.

Maybe it is different for Muslim or Asian or African cultures or whatever, but not for Europeans as far as I have seen.

And remember that our (meaning those of us born in the US) expectations of what an "assimilated" person is might be higher than what is reasonable. For example, although all of my family speaks English, as they get older they naturally revert back to Danish. They can't help it, that is how the brain degrades over time. And they will never like peanut butter or root beer b/c these are uniquely American flavors that they can't seem to ever get used to. Everyone has their limits

Oh, and it no longer is a "host" nation. It is their homeland. Our (American) own attitudes toward legal residents are often betrayed when we use these terms.

[Doug]

I would think that the more a person's culture is tied to their spiritual beliefs the less likely that they would assimilate; that is change their behaviors to fit in with their new surroundings.

 

edit: Unless of course they are immigrating to escape the culture in the first place.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Doug

[Dechristo]

right, religion is potentially the most powerful of political affiliations.

[archenemy]

I would think that the more a person's culture is tied to their spiritual beliefs the less likely that they would assimilate; that is change their behaviors to fit in with their new surroundings.

 

edit: Unless of course they are immigrating to escape the culture in the first place.

That side of the family left after the war.

 

My other side of the family left before the war. That side is German. My father fought for America in WWII. Probably wasn't too easy with an obviously German last name. As far as I know, religion was not a factor. They still assimilated well.

 

But you certainly make good points. However, I assume most people leave the country they were born and raised in to "escape" something, right?