quote:


:
:
I'm not one who thinks that, frankly, law enforcement is something that's going to win this war for us. As I said, it's a nice accompaniment, but it's not ever going to be the main driver.

So it's a policy issue really.
It's a policy issue for the United States. Bin Laden is fighting against us not because of who we are or what we do or that we have elections or women in the workplace -- none of that stuff that the president and Mr. [John] Kerry say, and Mr. Clinton before them. They give those as the reason. They hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. There's nothing further from the truth than that.

Bin Laden has had success because he's focused on a limited number of U.S. foreign policies in the Muslim world, policies that are visible and are experienced by Muslims on a daily basis: our unqualified support for Israel; our ability to keep oil prices at a level that is more or less acceptable to Western consumers.

Probably the most damaging of all is our 30-year support for police states across the Islamic world: the Al Sauds and the Egyptians under [Hosni] Mubarak and his predecessors; the Algerians; the Moroccans; the Kuwaitis. They're all police states. ...

So America is in a fix. As long as the policies remain the same, we only have two options to fight this war: the military option and the intelligence services. That's it.

If our policies stay the same, no one is going to listen to our diplomacy. No one will listen to our propaganda. We are just not heard in the Islamic world. It's not a matter of them not knowing what we're up to. The problem we have is they think they know what we're up, to and that's supporting tyrannies; we're after their oil; we're supporting the Israelis over the Palestinians at all times; we're supporting governments that oppress Muslims elsewhere, such as the Chinese, the Indians and the Russians. It's a matter of policy.

quote:


Do you think the war in Iraq has created more danger for Europe?
... The invasion of Iraq was a godsend to Osama bin Laden, very literally, because it validated so much of what he has said and told Muslims: that the Americans want Arab oil; that the Americans will destroy any Muslim regime that appears to be powerful; the Americans will destroy any country that appears to be a threat to the Israelis; and they're willing to invade any Muslim country if it suits their interests.

So the invasion of Iraq just validated everything that he said in the past decade about the United States. And so that's just not a problem for the Europeans; it's a problem for any country that has a population of expatriate Muslims, especially Sunnis, who are young, not fully assimilated.

Iraq has become an agent of transformation for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is moving from being a man and an organization to being a movement and a heroic symbol of leadership, a philosophy.

That's what Iraq has done. It's increased danger in Europe, but also [in] the United States, Canada and Australia, the Far East -- danger in the sense of not bin Laden command and control, but danger in the sense of Muslims striking back for the invasion of Iraq, which, after all, is the second holiest place in Islam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

So, all we have to do is stop supporting our best allies in the region, and around the world, and these people will stop attacking us?
 
The greatest mistake we could make as a very powerful nation, is to allow our policies to be dictated by unfriendly nations and groups. That's only going to give everyone a clear model of how to get your way with the United States.

quote:

 
This is going to sound harsh, but please read the entire thought before you flame me.
 
The most humane thing we can do right now, is to crush these people without mercy. I know ... that makes me sound like a war monger, and will probably make CrappyDom call me "sick" again ... but at least hear out the point of view, before you completely thrash it.
 
If we use our military options now, thousands of innocent people will be killed along with the guilty ... a very awful thing to be sure. Allow this to go on, and on, and on ... and ignore the simple truth that there isn't going to be a peacful solution to this, and it will escallate to the point where tens-of-millions will die, most of them innocent civilians.
 
Is that what the peacenicks of today want ... to feel good about peace today, so that millions can die tommorow? Just for the record, "peace in our time" never happened, and even if it had, it was a poor legacy to pass on to the next generation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
So, all we have to do is stop supporting our best allies in the region, and around the world, and these people will stop attacking us?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
The most humane thing we can do right now, is to crush these people without mercy. I know ... that makes me sound like a war monger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus
This didn't work for Nazi Germany, what makes you think it will work for us?   

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus
This didn't work for Nazi Germany, what makes you think it will work for us?   

What? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
I just knew someone would take a single line to trash the whole point ... a very weak debate tool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
I clearly wasn't calling for indiscriminant slaughter ... but you of course know this already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I just knew someone would take a single line to trash the whole point ... a very weak debate tool.
 
I clearly wasn't calling for indiscriminant slaughter ... but you of course know this already. Clearly, the point I was making, is that sometimes there are no good choices, and in those instances you have to take the choice that saves the most lives.
 
In a few years, these groups will have access to nukes. We already have access to nukes. If we wait now, we will be doing this in a few years with nukes in the mix ... and a bunch of fucking "experts" will be saying things like, "We should have taken care of this problem back in 2006, and we could have saved millions of lives!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Exactly how many times do you have to prove to yourself that you can take a half sentence out of context, and make it mean whatever you want it to mean?
 
I have to believe you realize that anyone worth discussing this with here, can see through this tactic, like it was made of glass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

meatcleaver and offering the West Bank and Gaza and pulling out of South Lebanon in 2000 (I belive) was not an offer of LAND for Peace???

They offered a two state solution something that has been held as the only reasonable solution for over a decade. They pre emptively pulled out even under fire, destroyed the homes and forced their own people to leave land they were giving back. And they got what?
Homicide bombers continued, rockets continued, Isreali people continued to be killed for years before they finally snapped and decided Lebinon will never disarm Hezbolah, and the UN will never do it either. Faced with promises not fullfilled and terorist homocide bombings weekly what is your suggestion move to the ocean and let them have all of Palistine?

Isreal isn't blameless but they were working towards the reasonable two state solution (even though JORDAN is the Palistinian/Arabic state of what was Palistine.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Exactly how many times do you have to prove to yourself that you can take a half sentence out of context, and make it mean whatever you want it to mean?
 
I have to believe you realize that anyone worth discussing this with here, can see through this tactic, like it was made of glass.

We're still waiting for you to clarify, hun.  Why don't you try doing that instead of trying to make thinly-veiled insults?

I didn't see them as thinly veiled.

Answers in the next post.