[marden]

Convince Me That Iran/Jihadists Are Open To Negotiation

I say that anyone who is committed to violent jihad and global conquest can not be negotiated with.

[Tuoder]

Depending on the group, I don't think there is negotiation to be done. Hamas wants Isarael gone. Al-Qaeda wants us and Israel gone. What is there to negotiate. They want us gone, and we want them gone because they want us gone.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Depending on the group, I don't think there is negotiation to be done. Hamas wants Isarael gone. Al-Qaeda wants us and Israel gone. What is there to negotiate. They want us gone, and we want them gone because they want us gone.

What about the Iranians?

[Doofy]

Old joke:

What's the difference between your wife and terrorists?


...You can negotiate with terrorists.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Old joke:

What's the difference between your wife and terrorists?


...You can negotiate with terrorists.

I smiled!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Convince Me That Iran/Jihadists Are Open To Negotiation

I say that anyone who is committed to violent jihad and global conquest can not be negotiated with.

I agree that neither are open to negotiation. Convince me that it matters.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that Iran is even remotely interested in global conquest.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that the "jihadists" can achieve global conquest or even have that as a realistic goal.

[Ron Goodman]

What he said. The jihadists have never conquered anything, anywhere. They're taking advantage of the chaos we created in Iraq, they moved in with the Taliban which arose from the chaos of Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan, they might have a foothold in Somalia, same scenario.

[vmarks]

Is Iranian President Ahmadinejad lecturing on a world without America and a world without Zionism.

[besson3c]

Marden, here is my question again:

There are many middle eastern countries where they can find a safe haven in... Where do we draw the line?

I've asked this time and time again, and you constantly respond with vague Republican speak such as "when the job is done and they are no longer a threat" (which is an absolutely meaningless statement and a completely indefinite time period which may never be reached).

We need some real and concrete metrics, and hopefully you'll understand someday that the need for these sorts of metrics and clarity in our vision is exactly what Bush opponents have been desiring all this time. It is easy to cast the left off as wanting to have Osama Bin Laden over for tea in a semi circle while we listen to Simon and Garfunkle in our tie-dye shirts, but really, this is what the majority of Bush opponents have been trying to get done for years.

Do you think there is a chance you'll ever graduate from cheerleader mode into pragmatic mode?

[Kevin]

besson will you answer the message and stop attacking the messenger for once in your life?

Please?

Your whole post didn't even come close to answering the questions he answered.

But instead was some leftist verbal masturbation and ad-hominem silliness.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Is Iranian President Ahmadinejad lecturing on a world without America and a world without Zionism.

Neither are equal to "global conquest". And, his lecture wasn't talking about "conquest". Convince me that Iran has the ability to "conquer" either America or Zionism ... even with nuclear weapons.

[Kevin]

Why do you think they want to get rid of these two areas Wisk?

Do you think they would stop there?

[Wiskedjak]

I don't think Iran has any desire to get rid of those two areas. I think they're only using those two areas as distraction to enable easier control of their own people (who believe those two areas are seeking conquest of the Middle East and the Arab people). Just as those two areas have been used by others in the past and just as those two areas have used others in the past.

So, I don't think Iran'll even get started at getting rid of those two areas, much less need to stop there.

The terrorists, on the other hand, may have the desire, but lack the ability.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't think Iran has any desire to get rid of those two areas. I think they're only using those two areas as distraction to enable easier control of their own people (who believe those two areas are seeking conquest of the Middle East and the Arab people). Just as those two areas have been used by others in the past and just as those two areas have used others in the past.

So, I don't think Iran'll even get started at getting rid of those two areas, much less need to stop there.

The terrorists, on the other hand, may have the desire, but lack the ability.

It's the oldest trick in the book. Bush and the other neo-cons tried playing their 'fear' card and lost BIG. Iran's government could find itself in the same spot eventually.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't think Iran has any desire to get rid of those two areas.

Well you are wrong.

[vmarks]

wiskedjak,

Iran supported HizbAllah in their efforts to attack Israel. It's not just vocal blustering.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well you are wrong.

Possibly

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I agree that neither are open to negotiation. Convince me that it matters.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that Iran is even remotely interested in global conquest.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that the "jihadists" can achieve global conquest or even have that as a realistic goal.

It's all about Iraq, isn't it?
Yep, it's all about Iraq and...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Argentina and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and...
...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment
of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

The nations highlighted above have become Islamic or radically ruled within our lifetimes.

Look at how it was done in each of those instances and get an idea of the various ways it might be attempted here or just to get an idea of how the means of conquest is tailored to the dynamics of THAT nation at THAT time.

No doubt the way employed on America will be custom designed just for us.

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

What he said. The jihadists have never conquered anything, anywhere. They're taking advantage of the chaos we created in Iraq, they moved in with the Taliban which arose from the chaos of Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan, they might have a foothold in Somalia, same scenario.

See the post to Wiskedjak.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by marden 

What about the Iranians?

I don't think Iran wants to negotiate very much either. That might change if anyone actually gets around to imposing sanctions that matter on N. Korea. I think Tehran is watching. If the UN proves itself to be ineffective, then Iran will not change its course.

On a side note, I don't think it is completely fair to lump Iran and Jihadists together. I would say that Jihadists and the president of Iran are both a quite nutty. But, I still don't think it is completely fair.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Marden, here is my question again:

There are many middle eastern countries where they can find a safe haven in... Where do we draw the line?

I've asked this time and time again, and you constantly respond with vague Republican speak such as "when the job is done and they are no longer a threat" (which is an absolutely meaningless statement and a completely indefinite time period which may never be reached).

We need some real and concrete metrics, and hopefully you'll understand someday that the need for these sorts of metrics and clarity in our vision is exactly what Bush opponents have been desiring all this time. It is easy to cast the left off as wanting to have Osama Bin Laden over for tea in a semi circle while we listen to Simon and Garfunkle in our tie-dye shirts, but really, this is what the majority of Bush opponents have been trying to get done for years.

Do you think there is a chance you'll ever graduate from cheerleader mode into pragmatic mode?

You can not base your assessment of a danger on whether it has been done before. That is backwards thinking that a attacker will take advantage of whenever they get a chance.

We never were attacked by terrorists in planes before.

We never tried to stop Communism from spreading before.

We were never surprise attacked by Japanese bombers before.

YOU need such unmeasurable metrics because unfortunately the subject of national defense and homeland security and the war on terror is just not your thing. You have expressed a lack of tolerance and a frustration for the tension it brings. We can oblige your posts as you try to get a better handle on this subject but I won't take seriously your telling me what we need in this regard.

I will try again to state my view of things.

There is a worldwide threat to attack America in any number of attacks by any number of individuals or groups, in any numbers of ways.

This is part of a concerted effort by those with the same Islamic ideology to have every head bow to Allah or recognize Allah to be the ONLY God or that Islam is the SUPREME religion.

Every inch of ground that the Islamists conquer or own (or THINK they have conquered or owned) they are commanded to never give up and so they will fight to the death to never lose said territory or to regain it.

As they gain territory all over the Earth the amount of ground they gain includes people and resources they employ to use as part of the effort to gain MORE territory. In the year 2000 France was not the Islamic strong hold it has become. Neither was Somalia or Sudan or the Netherlands or England and others. But each has since 2000 become the spawning ground or the launching pad for terrorism.

As Islamic rule replaces democracies around the world it becomes more difficult for ANY democracy to stand and more likely that military force will have to be used to prevent becoming Islamic. This speaks to Huntington's statement that Islam has bloody borders. As Islam attempts to spread and usurp the existing social or political order by force or intimidation or even by legal means the emotions of non-Muslims rise and the logic exists that the only way to stop the onslaught of Islamic domination in that locale is to resort to violence.

So we see dozens or hundreds of flashpoints around the world where non-Muslims try to resist Islamic aggression with force. And the violence continues until the non-Muslims succumb or submit.

This process was taking place outside of our self centered myopic viewpoint until 9/11/01.

It continues today but President Bush recognized the cancer of Islamic aggression that was continually eating up territories around the world and decided to contest it but instead of waging war on Islam, which would have unfairly targeted innocent Muslims, he called it a war on terror.

In the war on terror he sought to address the problem of Islamic intolerance and aggression and violent jihad at it's heart, not at one of it's Hydra-like heads, by creating a replica of what has proven to be a mediating force against violent aggressive jihad, the USA. Recognizing there is only one USA but that what makes the USA a neutralizing force against the impulses to conquer and kill are our freedoms and prosperity, he sought to solves several other problems as well as to strike at the heart of the world's Islamic terror problem by introducing democracy and freedoms and tolerance and commercial advancement in Iraq.

If we do not accomplish the President's initial goals we should AT LEAST make sure that we leave with the Iraqi government able to protect itself from Iran and Syria as well as al Qaeda terrorists who would look to consume Iraq and make it just one more radical strong hold like Iran.

Now. Why don't you use that to create the metrics you seek, Mr. Pragmatist?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I don't think Iran wants to negotiate very much either. That might change if anyone actually gets around to imposing sanctions that matter on N. Korea. I think Tehran is watching. If the UN proves itself to be ineffective, then Iran will not change its course.

On a side note, I don't think it is completely fair to lump Iran and Jihadists together. I would say that Jihadists and the president of Iran are both a quite nutty. But, I still don't think it is completely fair.

What do you mean you don't think it FAIR?

The Iranians have the same motivation as the jihadists. The only difference is that Iran is jihadism employed by a state. al Qaeda is jihad practiced by independents.

Their ultimate goals are the same.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by marden 

What do you mean you don't think it FAIR?

The Iranians have the same motivation as the jihadists. The only difference is that Iran is jihadism employed by a state. al Qaeda is jihad practiced by independents.

Their ultimate goals are the same.

They would say the something similar about us and the Jews.

Iran is a soverign nation. It's president is a democratically elected official. While I certainly wholeheartedly disagree with the leadership of Iran, and I really don't like the rhetoric being tossed around by their government. I think, at the end of the day, they are a lot of harsh words and very little action. That government is a reflection of popular opinion in Iran, however wrong it may be. They are not terrorists. Radical islamic terrorists are the scum of the Earth. There is a difference.

[christ]

Originally Posted by marden 

Convince Me That Iran/Jihadists Are Open To Negotiation

I say that anyone who is committed to violent jihad and global conquest can not be negotiated with.

No.

People conducting a Jihad are not open to negotiation.

Terrorists, however, are not conducting a Jihad. They are not interested in global conquest - they are interested in inspiring teror. (Although you didn't ask, I'll answer that, too - terrorists are not often open to negotiation, either.)

Iran doesn't seem to be open to negotiation, but I don't understand what you want to negotiate with them about.

What has this got to do with anything? Invading is no substitute for negotiation, unless it is accompanied by genocide.

If, for the sake of argument, I were to concede that all (for example) Iranians were interested in invading America, and had the wherewithal to do so, what do you propose, noting that negotiation is not an option. Do you propose turning a relatively stable Iran into another Iraq? Do you have a spare quarter of a million soldiers? Or is it your contention that only a few Iranians would be causing the trouble, and a swift strike could take them out, so a few American soldiers could take the country swiftly, and could parade through Teheran to a chorus of adoration from the "liberated" peaceful Muslims?

What is your purpose in stirring up all of these arguments, without offering solutions to the hypothetical situations that you propose? Instead of asking others, and then shooting them down as bleeding heart liberals:

1) What is your solution, if they won't negotiate?

2) What is your solution to a Holy Book that you think incites violence?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden 

You can not base your assessment of a danger on whether it has been done before. That is backwards thinking that a attacker will take advantage of whenever they get a chance.

We never were attacked by terrorists in planes before.

We never tried to stop Communism from spreading before.

We were never surprise attacked by Japanese bombers before.

YOU need such unmeasurable metrics because unfortunately the subject of national defense and homeland security and the war on terror is just not your thing. You have expressed a lack of tolerance and a frustration for the tension it brings. We can oblige your posts as you try to get a better handle on this subject but I won't take seriously your telling me what we need in this regard.

I will try again to state my view of things.

There is a worldwide threat to attack America in any number of attacks by any number of individuals or groups, in any numbers of ways.

This is part of a concerted effort by those with the same Islamic ideology to have every head bow to Allah or recognize Allah to be the ONLY God or that Islam is the SUPREME religion.

Every inch of ground that the Islamists conquer or own (or THINK they have conquered or owned) they are commanded to never give up and so they will fight to the death to never lose said territory or to regain it.

As they gain territory all over the Earth the amount of ground they gain includes people and resources they employ to use as part of the effort to gain MORE territory. In the year 2000 France was not the Islamic strong hold it has become. Neither was Somalia or Sudan or the Netherlands or England and others. But each has since 2000 become the spawning ground or the launching pad for terrorism.

As Islamic rule replaces democracies around the world it becomes more difficult for ANY democracy to stand and more likely that military force will have to be used to prevent becoming Islamic. This speaks to Huntington's statement that Islam has bloody borders. As Islam attempts to spread and usurp the existing social or political order by force or intimidation or even by legal means the emotions of non-Muslims rise and the logic exists that the only way to stop the onslaught of Islamic domination in that locale is to resort to violence.

So we see dozens or hundreds of flashpoints around the world where non-Muslims try to resist Islamic aggression with force. And the violence continues until the non-Muslims succumb or submit.

This process was taking place outside of our self centered myopic viewpoint until 9/11/01.

It continues today but President Bush recognized the cancer of Islamic aggression that was continually eating up territories around the world and decided to contest it but instead of waging war on Islam, which would have unfairly targeted innocent Muslims, he called it a war on terror.

In the war on terror he sought to address the problem of Islamic intolerance and aggression and violent jihad at it's heart, not at one of it's Hydra-like heads, by creating a replica of what has proven to be a mediating force against violent aggressive jihad, the USA. Recognizing there is only one USA but that what makes the USA a neutralizing force against the impulses to conquer and kill are our freedoms and prosperity, he sought to solves several other problems as well as to strike at the heart of the world's Islamic terror problem by introducing democracy and freedoms and tolerance and commercial advancement in Iraq.

If we do not accomplish the President's initial goals we should AT LEAST make sure that we leave with the Iraqi government able to protect itself from Iran and Syria as well as al Qaeda terrorists who would look to consume Iraq and make it just one more radical strong hold like Iran.

Now. Why don't you use that to create the metrics you seek, Mr. Pragmatist?

You have not answered my question.

How about you try again, and this time leave the broad visionary stuff alone for now - how about some actionable plans, something more concrete we can go by?

This is why the Republicans were thrown out of office.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You have not answered my question.

How about you try again, and this time leave the broad visionary stuff alone for now - how about some actionable plans, something more concrete we can go by?

This is why the Republicans were thrown out of office.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

They would say the something similar about us and the Jews.

Iran is a soverign nation. It's president is a democratically elected official. While I certainly wholeheartedly disagree with the leadership of Iran, and I really don't like the rhetoric being tossed around by their government. I think, at the end of the day, they are a lot of harsh words and very little action. That government is a reflection of popular opinion in Iran, however wrong it may be. They are not terrorists. Radical islamic terrorists are the scum of the Earth. There is a difference.

It is important to distinguish between a country with an election fetish and a country that has a free society.

Iran is not a free society. Let me know when someone can speak an unpopular pro-Israel view in the city square without fear of repercussion, then we can talk.

I believe in supporting and respecting the differences of free societies. I have no such respect for societies based in fear.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I have no such respect for societies based in fear.

Great quote

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

What he said. The jihadists have never conquered anything, anywhere. They're taking advantage of the chaos we created in Iraq, they moved in with the Taliban which arose from the chaos of Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan, they might have a foothold in Somalia, same scenario.

Yeah, and what's the common denominator: Chaos. Economic stability would go a long way toward easing all of these problems. Bush is right to call for democracy in the Middle East, but what he doesn't understand is that democracy must walk hand in hand with the rights and possibility for self-determination. Poverty and the lack of opportunity are the enemies that breed terrorism and insecurity.

These jihaadists are globalization's disenchanted. The very greed which drives the Bush agenda is the enemy and we should stamp it out first.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You're thinking "actionable plans" are ?

[Kevin]

"This is why the Republicans were thrown out of office."

As if the left doesn't do these things.

That plus besson's rants about partisanship when he is the worst offender of doing it.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You have not answered my question.

How about you try again, and this time leave the broad visionary stuff alone for now - how about some actionable plans, something more concrete we can go by?

This is why the Republicans were thrown out of office.

You have not answered any questions. All you have managed to do is attack other people and regurgitate tired partisan rhetoric.


I wish that for once, the critics would offer constructive alternatives but that would require real thought. I have a feeling the perpetual critics around here are afraid of thinking things through as they may come to realize that they were wrong.

[christ]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It is important to distinguish between a country with an election fetish and a country that has a free society.

Yup.

See: "Iraq".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by christ 

Yup.

See: "Iraq".

I love snippety little sarcastic jabs.

[christ]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

I wish that for once, the critics would offer constructive alternatives but that would require real thought. I have a feeling the perpetual critics around here are afraid of thinking things through as they may come to realize that they were wrong.

Critics of what? Alternatives to what?

My solutions would be to fight terrorists, rather than to invade irrelevant countries (whose leaders are objectionable) whilst indulging in "Jihadist" rhetoric.

I don't criticise fighting terrorism. I criticise the invasion of Iraq (and the sabre-rattling over Iran).

What are your solutions?

[Kevin]

christ how would you fight terrorism?

If you don't see how giving the center of this whole mess democracy is attempting to fight terrorism, I don't know what to tell you.

The Bigger picture here I guess.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I love snippety little sarcastic jabs.

Especially when they are accurate and applicable, I'll bet.

It was impossible to resist, when the invasion force tout Iraq as a free country, because they have had an election, but some people (notably those that support the Iraq invasion) are tilting at Iran because they aren't free, they just have an 'election fetish'.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If you don't see how giving the center of this whole mess democracy is attempting to fight terrorism, I don't know what to tell you.

I can't understand that sentence, Z - I wish I did, because it may help me understand your point of view

If you mean that Iraq is now (or will be soon) a democracy, then see the reference above in vmarks post. I agree with him, there is definitely a difference between a democracy and a country that has had an election.

[Kevin]

accurate and applicable? I disagree.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by christ 

I can't understand that sentence, Z - I wish I did, because it may help me understand your point of view

If you mean that Iraq is now (or will be soon) a democracy, then see the reference above in vmarks post. I agree with him, there is definitely a difference between a democracy and a country that has had an election.

Give it 20 years. Things don't automatically just happen. The world isn't a 1/2 after school special.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It is important to distinguish between a country with an election fetish and a country that has a free society.

My point id that it is important to distinguish between a country with an election fetish and terrorists.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

christ how would you fight terrorism?

1) Determine the target. (Based on their involvement in terrorism, not their ranking in a popularity contest). Note that there may be more than one.

2) Stop creating the environment in which the terrorists can breed.

3) Attack both the terrorists and the environment that creates them.

I would support anyone that did the above, rather than inventing targets, and reasons for attacking them, and then backdating justifications when the original (invented) reasoning falls apart.

I fully supported, and continue to support, the war in Afghanistan. I wish that the US and its allies had concentrated on Afghanistan until peace had been restored after the removal of the Taliban, rather than losing focus and wandering off into unrelated countries, for immaterial reasons. If an attack on Iraq was necessary, it would have waited for years, or maybe even decades.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

accurate and applicable? I disagree.

Upon what basis? Because you don't like Iran, but do like the Iraqi occupying force?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Give it 20 years. Things don't automatically just happen. The world isn't a 1/2 after school special.

Thank-you for the (lack of) clarification.

An easy answer, because it justifies anything that you want to do.

Upon what precedent do you base this confidence? (Are you prepared to give Iran 20 years, to see if their democracy takes?)

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You have not answered my question.

How about you try again, and this time leave the broad visionary stuff alone for now - how about some actionable plans, something more concrete we can go by?

This is why the Republicans were thrown out of office.

DON'T LET THE BAD GUYS TAKE OVER. STAY UNTIL THE IRAQI GOVT CAN PROTECT ITSELF!

Geez...

besson3c, why don't you ask one of your chums to explain it if I'm doing a poor job of it? Ask Dork. or BRussell.

[christ]

Originally Posted by marden 

DON'T LET THE BAD GUYS TAKE OVER. STAY UNTIL THE IRAQI GOVT CAN PROTECT ITSELF.

First thing that you have ever said that I agree with.

But - this would have been a lot easier if we hadn't gone there in the first place. Bad guys like Saddam are inherently safer for America and the rest of the world than bad guys like OBL.

[marden]

Originally Posted by christ 

No.

People conducting a Jihad are not open to negotiation.

Terrorists, however, are not conducting a Jihad. They are not interested in global conquest - they are interested in inspiring teror. (Although you didn't ask, I'll answer that, too - terrorists are not often open to negotiation, either.)

TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World
" The List " of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 4 Months

These are the ones we are talking about...ISLAMIC TERRORISTS...because these are the ones with the intent of killing/conquering US and the World.

You can talk about the Tamil Tigers in your own thread.

Originally Posted by christ 

Iran doesn't seem to be open to negotiation, but I don't understand what you want to negotiate with them about.

You don't understand??? Try these:

Don't try to gain possession of nuclear weaponry. Stop exporting terrorism. Stop advocating or working toward the demise of Israel. Stop oppressing your citizens who want Western freedoms.

Originally Posted by christ 

What has this got to do with anything? Invading is no substitute for negotiation, unless it is accompanied by genocide.

If, for the sake of argument, I were to concede that all (for example) Iranians were interested in invading America, and had the wherewithal to do so, what do you propose, noting that negotiation is not an option. Do you propose turning a relatively stable Iran into another Iraq? Do you have a spare quarter of a million soldiers? Or is it your contention that only a few Iranians would be causing the trouble, and a swift strike could take them out, so a few American soldiers could take the country swiftly, and could parade through Teheran to a chorus of adoration from the "liberated" peaceful Muslims?

What is your purpose in stirring up all of these arguments, without offering solutions to the hypothetical situations that you propose? Instead of asking others, and then shooting them down as bleeding heart liberals:

1) What is your solution, if they won't negotiate?

2) What is your solution to a Holy Book that you think incites violence?

First of all, I think it's helpful to have as many of the creative types thinking about this as possible and as soon as possible. I continue to attempt to enlighten those who aren't seeing things clearly. For people to see things clearly I think they should know more than just the basics. The Bush administration realized that there's an advantage in keeping things simple for the American people to understand but after a while simplicity can be a hinderance. At this point we have seen when people don't have access to the detailed truth they will make up their own truth. And that has it's downside.

Who is talking about invading Iran? You are. I haven't suggested it. I have suggested we try to convince Iran that it is not in their best interest to push things to the limit. How that might be done? I don't know. But we ALL should get out of the habit of thinking we have all the info needed to make intelligent foreign policy choices.

We don't.

So, I will not try to suggest a concrete solution. Do we really have a weapon that will cause Iranians to crap their pants en masse? How do I know? Would it cause the Iranians a problem if used against them? Sure.

So how could I make an intelligent choice in policy without this knowledge?

The question of how the Holy book should be interpreted or dealt with should be asked peaceful American Muslims. How do they avoid buying into the violent Suras? How about the Turks?

[marden]

Originally Posted by christ 

First thing that you have ever said that I agree with.

WELL NOW THAT I KNOW THE SECRET OF REACHING YOU I WILL KEEP ON DOING IT. I WAS SAYING THE SAME THINGS ALL ALONG BUT NEVER LIKE THIS.

Originally Posted by christ 

But - this would have been a lot easier if we hadn't gone there in the first place. Bad guys like Saddam are inherently safer for America and the rest of the world than bad guys like OBL.

I think you are criticizing our decision to invade without:

1-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's...at the time. After the fact doesn't count.
2-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
3-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
4-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
5-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
6-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
7-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
8-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
9-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
10-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
11-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
12-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
13-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
14-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
15-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

DON'T LET THE BAD GUYS TAKE OVER. STAY UNTIL THE IRAQI GOVT CAN PROTECT ITSELF!

Geez...

besson3c, why don't you ask one of your chums to explain it if I'm doing a poor job of it? Ask Dork. or BRussell.

Staying in Iraq is all it takes to save the world from the global jihad that you are constantly ranting about? It must not be very global ...

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Staying in Iraq is all it takes to save the world from the global jihad that you are constantly ranting about? It must not be very global ...

I REFUSE to believe you actually misunderstand in the way that your post suggests.

Staying in Iraq is not ALL it takes to save the world from the global jihad.

But losing Iraq would be a huge win for global jihadists and it would prove to be a huge problem for us.

Inestimable problem.

[Helmling]

Marden, why do you give them such consequence? For eons of human history various cultures and ideologies have tried to conquer the world or large swaths of it and none have succeeded--except maybe American consumerism. So why are you so terrified of these medievalists? Do you really think they can do what you claim they want to, Iraq or no Iraq? I don't and I'm not afraid of them. They're petty, small little men and our only interest in them should be in bringing them to justice for their crimes.

We should never validate their delusions of grandeur by quaking in our boots at their boasts...as you seem to be doing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Staying in Iraq is not ALL it takes to save the world from the global jihad.

Then, you have yet to answer besson's question.