POL - a horrible thought but a good idea?

[Flasch186]

Alright, so I was thinking and I came up with an idea but Im sure that some of you all can poke holes in this idea and make me see that it isnt all its cracked up to be.

The state of affairs today has the Islamic spectrum torn between two seperate ends. On one end is Shiite and the other Sunni, however there is also Al-Qaeda and its affiliates extremists that perhaps fall more in step with one side or the other but whatever dealings exist with the moderates of that spectrum, they are certainly under the table and not admitted to. The one thing both sides of the spectrum have in common is, to some degree a hatred of America, and a much more commonality in their hatred for Israel. So be it.

What the above leads me to and perhaps our government to is an inability to "spot" the enemy, know thy enemy, and deal with the "friendlies" because they shapeshift all the time and change on a monthly basis. What we end up with are enemies behind every corner but an unknowing of who that enemy is.
These two ends of the spectrum, certainly fomented through our flipping the IRaq table on its head, are now at "War" with eachother. If not admittedly than certainly behind the scenes, there are major sections of both ends that would like to see nothing more than the destruction of the other, yet we stand in the middle as a moralistic referee, however succesful or failing it may be.

What if Western forces pulled out of ALL Islamic held areas, other than those where we can strategically accomplish a humanitarian goal, ie. Darfur, with the UN, Nato, African union and on a shorter term basis. The two ends of the spectrum fall into all out civil war engulfing most Islamic states. At some point wouldnt one of the groups begin to get the upper hand leading to an eventual powerful group, yet only one group.

At that point we would know our enemy, and have one Major enemy, IE. USSR to deal with as opposed to this hybrid islamic army that exists in the alley down below? Couldnt we then regroup and fight one large scale battle instead of the battle that is going on now where we see a future of small bleeds? Is it possible that someday down this path there could be a D-Day to "save the West?"

I understand that this is not PC and would be unworldly bloodshed that would certainly be on our hands. When looking at the saving of a civilization, long term, is this something that is bantered about in the halls at the Pentagon or DoD? Is this totally left field? what are the economic ramifications? What if "they" get a nuke? What about the Muslims who believe in peace (I once stated that I felt the only way to win the war on terror is to have the moderates of Islam fight the extremists - I still beleve this but see no impetus or motivation for the moderates to actually do this due to their economic worries and protection)

What do you think?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I doubt it gets much play at DoD, simply because it's a virtual political impossibility that it would be allowed to happen. "Oh those poor <insert some group here>, we've got to do something to help them, it's our moral duty", the speeches just write themselves really.

Politics aside, the biggest downside I see is that, prior to "D-Day", you're opening the door to allowing the surviving group to have too much influence over the world's oil supply even for a limited time.

It's a reasonably pragmatic approach but one that I really don't see as being implemented absent a wholescale shift in the American psyche.

[Flasch186]

I hadnt thought about the oil implications which are exacerbated by the recent crap going on with Chavez down South...talk about handing your freedom over.

[albionmoonlight]

Leaving aside humanitarian concerns, what would we (and the rest of the world) do for oil while they were fighting it out among themselves?

It seems that we have to be there, in part, to make sure that there is at least enough stability in the region to keep the oil flowing.

While it might be in our long term interests to let them fight it out among themselves, no politican is going to win re-election when gas is $7.00/gallon.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

beat to the punch.

[Flasch186]

The humanitarian concerns and moral effects could be humongous too in the era of information and instant news too, not to mention the REAL effect that people would die in enormous proportions which any sensitive human being, including myself, might have a very hard time swallowing. The oil effects would be tangible immediately though and devastating worldwide, right? This keeps us locked to the ME and this referee position.

[JPhillips]

There's also no reason to think the Shias or Sunnis would come out dominate in any reasonable length of time. Look at how long it took Europe to stop fighting over religion. Are we prepared to let the Middle East be a free fire zone for a decade? Two decades? One hundred years?

Now if could find an energy source that freed us from ME oil this is something to think about. Eventually the problems within the Muslim world have to be solved by Muslims. Letting it happen while we look on from afar is a much better option than getting stuck in the middle, which is what I hope the folks at DoD are thinking about.

[Dutch]

What if Western forces pulled out of ALL Islamic held areas, other than those where we can strategically accomplish a humanitarian goal, ie. Darfur, with the UN, Nato, African union and on a shorter term basis. The two ends of the spectrum fall into all out civil war engulfing most Islamic states. At some point wouldnt one of the groups begin to get the upper hand leading to an eventual powerful group, yet only one group.

A phased withdrawl from the entire Middle East in order to create an all out civil war that we wouldn't be involved in at all, unless this "all out civil war" somehow reached the scale of Darfur? Doesn't that sound completely plausible given your 'what if'?

Mark me down as skeptical. :)

[st.cronin]

If it wasn't for oil, that's exactly what we would do, imo.

[Telle]

If it wasn't for oil, that's exactly what we would do, imo.

If it wasn't for oil we probably wouldn't be there in the first place.

[flere-imsaho]

At that point we would know our enemy, and have one Major enemy, IE. USSR to deal with as opposed to this hybrid islamic army that exists in the alley down below? Couldnt we then regroup and fight one large scale battle instead of the battle that is going on now where we see a future of small bleeds? Is it possible that someday down this path there could be a D-Day to "save the West?"

The USSR was a country. Islam is a religion. Completely different things.

For one, history shows that generally-speaking if you fight a religion, you only make it stronger in the long run.

For two, think about your contention that Islam would eventually coalesce into one bloc for us to take on. Could you show me an example of where this has happened in history? Christianity is 2000 years old, but has a large number of very well-defined factions. Judaism is even older, and has some pretty distinct groupings.

The humanitarian concerns and moral effects could be humongous too in the era of information and instant news too, not to mention the REAL effect that people would die in enormous proportions which any sensitive human being, including myself, might have a very hard time swallowing.

We've had this conversation before. The populaces of first world countries are, on the whole, not willing to commit their troops, long-term, to purely humanitarian missions in hostile environments.

There's also no reason to think the Shias or Sunnis would come out dominate in any reasonable length of time. Look at how long it took Europe to stop fighting over religion. Are we prepared to let the Middle East be a free fire zone for a decade? Two decades? One hundred years?

Absolutely agree. Various Islamic factions have been fighting for almost 1200 years. What's to think they'll stop anytime soon?

Frankly, I've always thought the best avenue for peace in the region was to be found in the rise of secularist states, whose leaders (even if they were/are dictators) valued stability as a way to enhance their commercial endeavors.

My solution? Pull out and implement a policy of "back-door" support for secularist states in the Middle East. Encourage them to, over time, develop essentially free-market states. In the end, the rational, self-interested citizen of these states is more likely to choose a route to attainable material goals and personal comfort over religious radicalism. I'm not saying such a plan would have quick results, but it probably wouldn't take 1200 years, either. ;)

[Dutch]

If it wasn't for oil we probably wouldn't be there in the first place.

Obviously.

[Dutch]

My solution? Pull out and implement a policy of "back-door" support for secularist states in the Middle East. Encourage them to, over time, develop essentially free-market states. In the end, the rational, self-interested citizen of these states is more likely to choose a route to attainable material goals and personal comfort over religious radicalism. I'm not saying such a plan would have quick results, but it probably wouldn't take 1200 years, either. ;)

Are you sure it will work?

[flere-imsaho]

Are you sure it will work?

Are you sure your plan will? Oh yeah, you haven't articulated a plan.

[st.cronin]

If it wasn't for oil we probably wouldn't be there in the first place.

Well, duh.

[Groundhog]

What if Western forces pulled out of ALL Islamic held areas, other than those where we can strategically accomplish a humanitarian goal, ie. Darfur, with the UN, Nato, African union and on a shorter term basis. The two ends of the spectrum fall into all out civil war engulfing most Islamic states. At some point wouldnt one of the groups begin to get the upper hand leading to an eventual powerful group, yet only one group.


If Western forces pulled out of all Islamic held areas than the threat of terrorism in the West would fall to about zero. As others have said though, it's just not a realistic option because it's not a "War on Terror" that's being waged, it's a war on resources.

[st.cronin]

If Western forces pulled out of all Islamic held areas than the threat of terrorism in the West would fall to about zero.

Um, no. Unless you consider "Islamic held areas" to include Israel, and perhaps Italy and Spain.

[Klinglerware]

And parts of Idaho...

[Groundhog]

Um, no. Unless you consider "Islamic held areas" to include Israel, and perhaps Italy and Spain.

I wouldn't call what's going on in and immediately around Israel terrorism neccessarily - certainly not one-sided terrorism, anyway.

[Flasch186]

If Western forces pulled out of all Islamic held areas than the threat of terrorism in the West would fall to about zero. As others have said though, it's just not a realistic option because it's not a "War on Terror" that's being waged, it's a war on resources.

The war wouldnt end, it would be titled something else because according to the Quran, as far as I know, the end goal for Islam is One Islamic world.

[flere-imsaho]

The war wouldnt end, it would be titled something else because according to the Quran, as far as I know, the end goal for Islam is One Islamic world.

Read Revelations? Same idea, but for Christianity. Religion is what you make it - don't believe the propaganda.

[Groundhog]

The war wouldnt end, it would be titled something else because according to the Quran, as far as I know, the end goal for Islam is One Islamic world.

Amongst extremists it is, yeah. Extremist make up a small minority however, and like flere says, that's the goal for just about every religion. All this "War on Resources" is doing is creating more and more extremists.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wouldn't call what's going on in and immediately around Israel terrorism neccessarily - certainly not one-sided terrorism, anyway.

Y'know, until this moment I never really considered you an idiot. Thanks for the clue, I can't believe I hadn't noticed. Either you've got a good disguise going or my perceptive abilities have slipped a lot lately.

[molson]

Now if could find an energy source that freed us from ME oil this is something to think about. Eventually the problems within the Muslim world have to be solved by Muslims. Letting it happen while we look on from afar is a much better option than getting stuck in the middle, which is what I hope the folks at DoD are thinking about.

Anyone know what the current line of thinking is on oil shale? We have something like 95% of the world's supplies, and it's the equivalent of several trillion barrels. I always heard it was financial feasable assuming a permanent oil price of above $50 dollars. Is the answer to so many of our problems right under our noses?

[Groundhog]

Y'know, until this moment I never really considered you an idiot. Thanks for the clue, I can't believe I hadn't noticed. Either you've got a good disguise going or my perceptive abilities have slipped a lot lately.

What can I say, I'm a master of disguise.

But do feel free to do a little research in to Palestine sometime. More specifically, Israel's annexing of regions that is leaving Palestinian cities completely cut off from their actual country, not to mention water, electricity, etc., and making them prisoners inside their own towns, being forced to travel on dirt roads because they aren't allowed on the highways that now fall under Israel's jurisdiction.

I'm not saying that Palestine and Hamas are the good guys and Israel the baddies, I'm just saying that it's plain ignorance and hypocrisy that allows Israel to get away with what it does.

To quote Noam Chomsky from his book Failed States, page 262:

"...if Hamas were to agree that Jews may remain in scattered areas in the present Israel, while Palestine constructs huge settlement and infrastructure projects to take over the valuable land and resources, effectively breaking Israel up into unviable cantons, virtually seperated from one another and from some small part of Jerusalem where Jews wouuld also be allowed to remain. And they might agree to call the fragments "a state." If such proposals were made, we would-rightly-regard them as virtually a reversion to Nazism, a fact that might elicit some thoughts. If such proposals were made, Hamas's position would be essentially like that of the United States and Israel for the past five years, after they came to tolerate some impoverished form of "statehood.""

And to beat you to it, yes, Noam Chomsky is about as left as they come, and is no fan of Israel, but that doesn't refute the facts.

[st.cronin]

And to beat you to it, yes, Noam Chomsky is about as left as they come, and is no fan of Israel, but that doesn't refute the facts.

You should read what Noam Chomsky wrote about Cambodia sometime.

[Flasch186]

perhaps im mistaken to think that A chiristian effort to Convert the world for the most part, unless you consider Bush a crusader, et al, would remain mostly non-violent means. Id bet there are some that would use the argument that that is exactly what is happening, but back to the point of the first post. Outside of oil, if we pulled out, I DO believe that the shia and sunni contingent would battle. I DO think it would take too long to settle itself out for us to wait. The OIL issue makes it a non-starter, as pointed out.

All of the rest of the hoohah in here is undebatable at FOFC, only a few times has someone changed their mind about something in a political thread AND that wasnt the point of this thread anyways. I was ONLY limiting my line of thought to the hypothesis above, NOT the state of Palestine, or the caliphate, etc. perhaps you cant delineate between them i dunno, but the point of this thread was NOT to have the same debate over and over again. This would hopefully be something new, a new hypothesis although one that is unfeasible.

[Groundhog]

You should read what Noam Chomsky wrote about Cambodia sometime.

I have. By no means do I agree 100%, or even probably 60%, with Chomsky's views, even in the book I quoted. But again, that doesn't refute the facts, which are available in plenty of other sources outside of this particular book.

[Groundhog]

All of the rest of the hoohah in here is undebatable at FOFC, only a few times has someone changed their mind about something in a political thread AND that wasnt the point of this thread anyways. I was ONLY limiting my line of thought to the hypothesis above, NOT the state of Palestine, or the caliphate, etc. perhaps you cant delineate between them i dunno, but the point of this thread was NOT to have the same debate over and over again. This would hopefully be something new, a new hypothesis although one that is unfeasible.

The problem with any political thread that deals with the Middle East is that it just completely sets off my hypocrisy alarm. Usually I'm a pretty calm, laid back kind of guy that doesn't get worked up easily, but when it comes to this topic it just ticks me off when I see people who, just a year or two ago, scoffed at the idea that the US was only in Iraq for the oil, yet now accept that obviously that's what they went in there for, and that it was always the case. And that's just one of the many issues to do with Middle East that boils my blood.

I really try and stay out of these threads, but they make me so angry that I can't just sit back and not say anything. Not angry at the posters I disagree with mind you, just angry at the politicians who are able to subtlely sway people's opinions on serious issues to serve their own selfish interests. It's a topic that seems to work me up like no other.

I know this wasn't the thread for it though, and I'll try not sabotage political threads in the future. I'm well aware of how futile it is, but like I said, I find it hard to ignore at times.

[st.cronin]

it just ticks me off when I see people who, just a year or two ago, scoffed at the idea that the US was only in Iraq for the oil, yet now accept that obviously that's what they went in there for, and that it was always the case

I'm not sure who you're talking about, but it's never been that simple. The most simple way to put it is that our interest in the region is based on two factors, the existence of Israel, and our economy's need for affordable energy. Our interest in Iraq stems from our interest in the region, and is not neccesarily directly connected to either of those.

imo

[Klinglerware]

Flasch, how are you defining "Islamic held areas"? Does that include parts of Dearborn too? All kidding aside, it does sound like you are conflating "Middle-eastern" and "Islamic"...

[Groundhog]

I'm not sure who you're talking about, but it's never been that simple. The most simple way to put it is that our interest in the region is based on two factors, the existence of Israel, and our economy's need for affordable energy. Our interest in Iraq stems from our interest in the region, and is not neccesarily directly connected to either of those.

imo

Ok, even though I promised to try stay out, I'll chime in again. :D

I pretty much agree with you, but I still think that it is that simple. It's not just the need of oil for the US's economy though, but also the need to keep the oil in the Middle East under a decent amount of control - and hence out of the control of other nations. Even the support of Israel is probably, again IMO, due to the need to have a trusted and well supported ally in the region, which comes back again to the importance of the region as a rich source of oil.

[st.cronin]

Even the support of Israel is probably, again IMO, due to the need to have a trusted and well supported ally in the region, which comes back again to the importance of the region as a rich source of oil.

The US support for a Jewish state goes back to before the Civil War, fwiw.

[Groundhog]

The US support for a Jewish state goes back to before the Civil War, fwiw.

That might very well be so, but the amount of money and military aid given to Israel, not to mention the US's policy of overlooking and even supporting Israel's breaches of international law, goes above and beyond merely supporting a Jewish state out of good intentions alone. Surely you would agree that there would be other motives?

[JPhillips]

Not to get all conspiracy theory here, but some of our support of Israel is because of the relatively high representation of Jews in policy making circles.

[Klinglerware]

The US support for a Jewish state goes back to before the Civil War, fwiw.

Although, US foreign aid to Israel was at very low levels until the 1970s. This implies that the motivation for US support is primarily strategic in nature.

[st.cronin]

That might very well be so, but the amount of money and military aid given to Israel, not to mention the US's policy of overlooking and even supporting Israel's breaches of international law, goes above and beyond merely supporting a Jewish state out of good intentions alone. Surely you would agree that there would be other motives?

I think our relationship with Israel is motivated mainly by ideology and culture. The fact that they are in that region is just a silver lining.

imo

[Groundhog]

I think our relationship with Israel is motivated mainly by ideology and culture. The fact that they are in that region is just a silver lining.

imo

If you are talking about the American public in general, then I agree with you that it is the ideology behind Israel and the right of a Jewish state that fuels support for that nation over it's neighbouring Arab countries.

At a political high policy level however, we'll have to agree to disagree. Klinglerware raises a great point, and that's what I was leading up to.

[st.cronin]

If you are talking about the American public in general, then I agree with you that it is the ideology behind Israel and the right of a Jewish state that fuels support for that nation over it's neighbouring Arab countries.

At a political high policy level however, we'll have to agree to disagree. Klinglerware raises a great point, and that's what I was leading up to.

I happen to think those two things cannot be so easily separated in our country. Call me a silly patriot who believes in freedom and the flag and all that.

[Groundhog]

I happen to think those two things cannot be so easily separated in our country. Call me a silly patriot who believes in freedom and the flag and all that.

I used to think that was true too, in my own country as well as yours. The past few years I've gained a much deeper & direct understanding of how international (as well as national) politics works. Sometimes I wish I hadn't, but forces outside of my control made that impossible. That's what has turned me so cynical.

[Flasch186]

I think that I wouldnt have a hard time drawing lines around the sections of the world that would get involved in a internal religious Islamic war and which side some of the people in some cities in the ME would fall on. I think that this could be done with some gray areas as well. I dont think its naiive to be able to see that Syria is Sunni and some of Lebanon is Shiite, etc. etc. etc.

regardless the whole idea was kaybashed when oil got thrown in, which I naiively forgot about.

[st.cronin]

I think that I wouldnt have a hard time drawing lines around the sections of the world that would get involved in a internal religious Islamic war and which side some of the people in some cities in the ME would fall on. I think that this could be done with some gray areas as well. I dont think its naiive to be able to see that Syria is Sunni and some of Lebanon is Shiite, etc. etc. etc.

regardless the whole idea was kaybashed when oil got thrown in, which I naiively forgot about.

I believe that in my lifetime oil will be obsolete. So it's not a stupid question; what happens then?

[Glengoyne]

The problem with any political thread that deals with the Middle East is that it just completely sets off my hypocrisy alarm. Usually I'm a pretty calm, laid back kind of guy that doesn't get worked up easily, but when it comes to this topic it just ticks me off when I see people who, just a year or two ago, scoffed at the idea that the US was only in Iraq for the oil, yet now accept that obviously that's what they went in there for, and that it was always the case. And that's just one of the many issues to do with Middle East that boils my blood.

I really try and stay out of these threads, but they make me so angry that I can't just sit back and not say anything. Not angry at the posters I disagree with mind you, just angry at the politicians who are able to subtlely sway people's opinions on serious issues to serve their own selfish interests. It's a topic that seems to work me up like no other.

I know this wasn't the thread for it though, and I'll try not sabotage political threads in the future. I'm well aware of how futile it is, but like I said, I find it hard to ignore at times.

I'll call bullshit on the US only being in Iraq for the oil. Well, I'll call bullshit on the specific motivation I believe you are levelling. We are involved in the middle east, generally, because we don't want our economy screwed up by having our access to oil cut off. We aren't in Iraq, specifically, to lay claim to their oil. This wasn't a case of "Blood for oil", or any sort of Empire building exercise to grab petroleum reserves. The motivations were many, and have been discussed at length, but staking a direct claim to Iraqi oil simply wasn't on the list.

If I've mistaken your position then I apoligize for any insult. If however, you are one of those morons running around with "No Blood for Oil" bumper stickers, then I think I understand your position, and you understand what I think of it.

[Glengoyne]

Not to get all conspiracy theory here, but some of our support of Israel is because of the relatively high representation of Jews in policy making circles.

Lieberman is simply surrounded by peers in Congress.

[Groundhog]

If I've mistaken your position then I apoligize for any insult. If however, you are one of those morons running around with "No Blood for Oil" bumper stickers, then I think I understand your position, and you understand what I think of it.

Yes, you are mistaken. I'm certainly not one of those people, and I think I made my position understood a few posts later. While I think oil is the dominating factor, it's more to do with keeping control of the resource in friendly hands than the actual oil itself.

[Glengoyne]

Yes, you are mistaken. I'm certainly not one of those people, and I think I made my position understood a few posts later. While I think oil is the dominating factor, it's more to do with keeping control of the resource in friendly hands than the actual oil itself.

Whew. I'm actually glad, because I had you pretty well in the "he's a reasonable chap" poster category. I thought I had badly misjudged you for a bit.

As for Israel, and the US support for them. I think we simply sympathize more with Israel. In broad strokes, they won the war, it should be pretty clear that they get to draw up the lines on the map. The US public typically finds it pretty difficult to side with terrorists that target and kill Civilians including women and children. Now the Palestinians can make a good case about simply being oppressed, and the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory are a huge incursion, but those things somehow pale in comparison to suicide bombers taking out whole families in restaurants.

For me, I could back Palestine, if they took their sovereignty seriously, and cracked down on the millitant groups. If you want to be a sovereign nation, then you damn well better be able to keep elements of your society from launching rockets at your neighbors. If a bunch of rebels in Ciudad Juarez started lobbing explosives into El Paso, you'd damn well bet that if Mexico turned a blind eye to the acts, the US wouldn't hesitate to do many of the same things that Israel has done. In short, I think the Israelis present a more sympathetic cause for most in the US.

[Wolfpack]

Well, there is one rather ugly thing that I don't think has been brought out yet in this debate. And that would be Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons (public statements to the contrary not withstanding). If the Iranians acquire the ability, then the whole Sunni-Shi'a conflict gets really, really scary, I think. A lot of other Mideast states (all Sunni) I think are chirping they'll get into the club if the Iranians do, particularly Saudi Arabia. They've got the money and can certainly acquire weapons or the brains to make weapons in short order. Now, all of the sudden, you've got oil-and-water religious factions talking about "consuming our enemies in holy fire" and similar terms and this time pretty much meaning it. The US and USSR were able to walk the nuclear tightrope for 50 years without falling off (though coming close a number of times) because both sides knew that nuclear armageddon would leave winners and losers much worse off than before. Deterrence and MAD in some sense did work because the winner's victory was certain to be pyhrric. When you have individuals who are convinced that death in martyrdom will lead to great rewards from your God, what incentive is there to care about the world you're leaving behind? I think if the Iranians get nukes, then a region-wide holocaust is a very real possibility (laying aside the possible destruction of Israel or various cities in the US and Europe as an outgrowth of the Iranian program).

[Qwikshot]

The situation is f#$ked.

It's going to get really interesting when and if Iran possesses nuclear weapons.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't see any support to the assumption that the ME would devolve into Sunni/Shiite infighting if we bolted. The only even slightly religious war between Arabic countries since WWII was Iran/Iraq, and that wasn't really rooted in religion as both are Shiite (but the rulers of Iraq have traditionally been Sunni). In fact, only Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan are majority Shiite, and Iraq is the closest of any ME country (save Lebanon, which has a large Christian population) to being 50/50, and even there the ratio is 2-1, so there isn't much internal turmoil.

[EagleFan]

It's sad that "the animals learning to respect human life and differences in beliefs" is not an option.

I know it's obviously not that simple and I may get ripped for that but hey, I'm not the one blowing up innocent people because they don't believe what I believe.

[Cringer]

Too many guys talking about pulling out, I got distracted from what this thread is even about.

[Flasch186]

I don't see any support to the assumption that the ME would devolve into Sunni/Shiite infighting if we bolted. The only even slightly religious war between Arabic countries since WWII was Iran/Iraq, and that wasn't really rooted in religion as both are Shiite (but the rulers of Iraq have traditionally been Sunni). In fact, only Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan are majority Shiite, and Iraq is the closest of any ME country (save Lebanon, which has a large Christian population) to being 50/50, and even there the ratio is 2-1, so there isn't much internal turmoil.

obviously

[SFL Cat]

My solution? Pull out and implement a policy of "back-door" support for secularist states in the Middle East. Encourage them to, over time, develop essentially free-market states. In the end, the rational, self-interested citizen of these states is more likely to choose a route to attainable material goals and personal comfort over religious radicalism. I'm not saying such a plan would have quick results, but it probably wouldn't take 1200 years, either. ;)


Worked real well with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein didn't it?

[st.cronin]

obviously

LOL

I <3 Flasch

[M GO BLUE!!!]

It's a reasonably pragmatic approach but one that I really don't see as being implemented absent a wholescale shift in the American psyche.

The "American psyche" is such that all we would need to do to divert attention from such bloodshead and the whole "Those poor people" crap is to have some blonde disappear on vacation followed by a kid in a well or something. :D (I'm half kidding/half disgusted)

[MrBigglesworth]

obviously
I don't get it.

[MrBigglesworth]

It's sad that "the animals learning to respect human life and differences in beliefs" is not an option.

I know it's obviously not that simple and I may get ripped for that but hey, I'm not the one blowing up innocent people because they don't believe what I believe.
From your location, I am going to assume that you are an American citizen. Which means that you are currently blowing up innocent people (along with some guilty ones) because they don't believe what you believe, namely in Iraq.

It's amazing to me that some people can be this racist, to think that Middle Eastern Muslims are the only ones that don't have sufficient respect for human life. If you look at the costliest wars in terms of human life of the 20th century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-list.htm), 13 of the top 20 wars involved European countries. The largest ethnic cleansing on record was done by a European country, and then there was also the Yugoslavia mess recently.

I think it would be great if everyone "learned to respect human life and differences in beliefs", but that's not human nature. If we respected human life like you are suggesting we should, we would never have invaded Iraq.

[st.cronin]

From your location, I am going to assume that you are an American citizen. Which means that you are currently blowing up innocent people (along with some guilty ones) because they don't believe what you believe, namely in Iraq.


LIES

The US is trying to KEEP things from blowing up.

[MrBigglesworth]

LIES

The US is trying to KEEP things from blowing up.
In light of recent debate and the findings of the NIE, I would characterize our current plan as more of a political gambit to fend off the inevitable, but it is true that in the past we were trying to keep things from getting out of control. However in the decision to launch the war, there was a very cavalier attitude towards human life, and many innocent people have been killed and continue to be killed because of it. Furthermore, more innocent people were killed by Israel's invasion into Lebanon this summer than were killed by Hezbollah in Israel. I'm not saying we are the evil ones in the world, just that characterizing one as 'animals' that don't 'respect human life' and not the other is incorrect.

[Flasch186]

From your location, I am going to assume that you are an American citizen. Which means that you are currently blowing up innocent people (along with some guilty ones) because they don't believe what you believe, namely in Iraq.

It's amazing to me that some people can be this racist, to think that Middle Eastern Muslims are the only ones that don't have sufficient respect for human life. If you look at the costliest wars in terms of human life of the 20th century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-list.htm), 13 of the top 20 wars involved European countries. The largest ethnic cleansing on record was done by a European country, and then there was also the Yugoslavia mess recently.

I think it would be great if everyone "learned to respect human life and differences in beliefs", but that's not human nature. If we respected human life like you are suggesting we should, we would never have invaded Iraq.

IMO, you are as equally stuck on youre side of the spectrum as those you accuse of the opposite stances. Neither open minded or progressive, instead you put that badge up and then crow equal but opposite rhetoric which is borne fruit when taking the sum of your stances in multiple threads regarding such matter instead of the parts.

I understand that my viewpoint is anchored by the fact that Im American, Middle class, Jewish, liberal, 30, brown haired, 6' tall etc. but we all are and should not be afraid to hold our own opinions put through our filter. It is absolutely wrong to assume that Americans should not see Al-Qaeda as a threat, which is solely 100% Muslim, if only in name and not think that that might be some correlation just as the KKK were almost 100% caucasian. Are all Caucasians KKK member's, no? Are all KKK members white, yes? to not be able to let your brain draw common sense assumptions without having to defend such a process as racist is also racist, equally and opposite.

One can look at other parts of the world and draw comparisons to ourselves. If we then determine that we want to help in the Sudan great!! However, to not see that Sunni and Shia factions are boiling if not already boiled over is asinine. Call it racist, blame Europe, but get the idiot fuckers who are killing eachother today over a uncle of a brother who was killed in 500bc (i generalize), or agree that it is just that, asinine, not culturally acceptable, but asinine and either agree to let them kill eachother until one subjugates the other or we continue to try to play referee. Then talk to me about equality of actions.

[st.cronin]

From your location, I am going to assume that you are an American citizen. Which means that you are currently blowing up innocent people (along with some guilty ones) because they don't believe what you believe, namely in Iraq.

I'm not saying we are the evil ones in the world

I really can't believe that you haven't been banned yet. What I don't understand is why you continue to post here when nobody buys your bullshit.

[MrBigglesworth]

I really can't believe that you haven't been banned yet. What I don't understand is why you continue to post here when nobody buys your bullshit.
Perhaps you misread what I wrote, because I don't understand what you think is ban-worthy. What you quoted that I said:

1) The US is not evil.

I'm pretty sure that is neither ban-worthy nor a particularly incendiary statement

2) Innocent people are being killed in Iraq

You are going to tell me that every person killed in Iraq deserves to die? The women or children being hit by stray shots, or stray bombs, or unexploded bombs, or malnutrition, or dehydration or whatever else are the dangers of being in a war zone?

If I had said that the Americans are "animals that need to learn to respect human life and differences in beliefs", I might see your point, but I did not say that nor do I believe it.

[st.cronin]

I can think of at least half a dozen times when Mr. B has called a board member racist. As always, I am calling for his banning. Does he ever post in non-pol threads?

[MrBigglesworth]

IMO, you are as equally stuck on youre side of the spectrum as those you accuse of the opposite stances. Neither open minded or progressive, instead you put that badge up and then crow equal but opposite rhetoric which is borne fruit when taking the sum of your stances in multiple threads regarding such matter instead of the parts.

I understand that my viewpoint is anchored by the fact that Im American, Middle class, Jewish, liberal, 30, brown haired, 6' tall etc. but we all are and should not be afraid to hold our own opinions put through our filter. It is absolutely wrong to assume that Americans should not see Al-Qaeda as a threat, which is solely 100% Muslim, if only in name and not think that that might be some correlation just as the KKK were almost 100% caucasian. Are all Caucasians KKK member's, no? Are all KKK members white, yes? to not be able to let your brain draw common sense assumptions without having to defend such a process as racist is also racist, equally and opposite.
Flasch are you on a tablet PC or something? Usually your grammar and punctuation isn't this bad, and it's giving me a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Are you saying it's ok to hate all Muslims because Al-Q is Muslim and we are white?

However, to not see that Sunni and Shia factions are boiling if not already boiled over is asinine. Call it racist, blame Europe, but get the idiot fuckers who are killing eachother today over a uncle of a brother who was killed in 500bc (i generalize), or agree that it is just that, asinine, not culturally acceptable, but asinine and either agree to let them kill eachother until one subjugates the other or we continue to try to play referee. Then talk to me about equality of actions.
Sunni and Shiite are fighting in Iraq, of that there is no doubt. But I don't see evidence of it boiling over. Saudi Arabia is not threatening Iran, the United States and Israel are threatening Iran. Iran is not threatening Pakistan, Iran is threatening the US and Israel, and India is threatening Pakistan. The worst I see happening is the Sunni states funding the Sunnis in Iraq, and the Shiite states funding the Shiites in Iraq. And even that, there isn't that much of right now (the US says that Iran is interfering, but we are taking the side of the Shiites in Iraq, the same side that Iran is on). I just don't see any aspirations or force projection among either side that would make me believe that they would fight to the death. And plus, all the recent examples of ethnic cleansing were of minorities in civil wars in a single state (Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.). How is Iraq/Iran going to into Saudi Arabia and slaughter 90% of the population? How is Jordan and Kuwait going to go into Iran and kill 90%? These other countries are not as equally split as Iraq. It just isn't feasible, unless you are talking about nuclear attacks, and if the entire ME nukes itself, we are going to end up in a lot worse position than we are right now, which makes the tactic useless.

What makes you think that if we pull out of the ME, that they would immediately start cleansing each other?

[Flasch186]

Ill quote myself since youre the only one who missed the sarcasm from before....

In fact, only Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan are majority Shiite, and Iraq is the closest of any ME country (save Lebanon, which has a large Christian population) to being 50/50, and even there the ratio is 2-1, so there isn't much internal turmoil.

Obviously.

As to your passive aggressive accusation that Im a racist...no I dont think I am. But Im also not so scared of you Super Lefties, (Duckman and Dutch scoff :) ) to not be able to see that Al-Qaeda is Muslim. Until you and others can see this, and the moderate islamist factions step in and battle their own extremists it will ALWAYS be construed that the "war on terror" is a war on Islam....because 100% of Al-Qaeda is Islamic and somehow some portions of Islamic society support them. I hope every member of AlQaeda is killed, every single one, be it Jew, Christian, atheist, black, white, purple, green, so DO NOT try to paint me as Racist....It is Alqaeda's choice to pick a war with America, and their members choice to be a member. If that's Racist then that definition is getting awfully loosey goosey in its usage.

In sum Im saying its ok to hate ALL of All-Qaeda, every member, they just happen to be all muslims, as far as I know...

[MrBigglesworth]

Ill quote myself since youre the only one who missed the sarcasm from before....

Obviously.
I got that there was sarcasm, just not why it was there. I was saying that Iraq is an anomaly in that the population is more evenly split in terms of Sunni/Shiite, and in that the internal strife that you see there is because of a power vacuum externally created (by us). You don't have those conditions in other countries. For example, Saudi Arabia is 90% Sunni, so their minority block is too small to create any real internal problems.

As to your passive aggressive accusation that Im a racist...no I dont think I am. But Im also not so scared of you Super Lefties, (Duckman and Dutch scoff :) ) to not be able to see that Al-Qaeda is Muslim. Until you and others cannot see this, and the moderate islamist factions step in and battle their own extremists it will ALWAYS be construed that the "war on terror" is a war on Islam....because 100% of Al-Qaeda is Islamic and somehow some portions of Islamic society support them.
I never tried to paint you as a racist, passive agressively or otherwise, and if I gave that impression I apologize. I'm also not a Super Lefty any more than you are a Super Righty. In fact, I'd probably be called a conservative in most European countries. What's the deal with accusing me of not seeing that Al-Q is Muslim? Where does that come from? I never said a word about Al-Q I don't think. I don't see why a war against Al-Q should be construed to be a war against Islam, just as the war on the KKK shouldn't have been construed as the war on white people. Doing so leads to bad results, such as the belief that the entire Muslim world are a bunch of animals that should be left to kill each other. It leads to attacks on Presidential contenders because they once went to school with Muslims.

In sum Im saying its ok to hate ALL of All-Qaeda, every member, they just happen to be all muslims...so its the A, not the B, that gets me to C. Im saying Im smart enough to see that, working backwards, my C makes me suspect the B's as members of A and thats not my fault, Its Al-Qaeda's AND the moderate members of the Islamic faith for allowing their religion to be hijacked.
By the same logic, it's ok, and your fault, really, for Al-Q to suspect every American is out to take over their land and resources. Which leads to them bombing the World Trade Center. That is where that logic leads, and though it may be natural to stereotype that way, I think the correct path is to resist such stereotyping, not celebrate it.

[MrBigglesworth]

I can think of at least half a dozen times when Mr. B has called a board member racist. As always, I am calling for his banning. Does he ever post in non-pol threads?
st.cronin ignores what I say and instead calls for my banning. In other news, the sun rose today.

And I just bought 2k7 last night, so expect to see more of my pearls of wisdom in the 2k7 section in the coming days...

[Flasch186]

ahhh, but AL-Q doesnt have a country so unless youre drawing a connection between countries and their governments to ALQ this is invalid and if we pulled out of the areas that ALq is in, the fighting wouldnt stop, the MAJOR fighting that is going on and seething in all muslim countries that dont have a powerful government to stamp it out. AAMOF, ALQ qould begin fighting the Shiites or Sunnis, or both.

It is NOt us that are painting the war on Terror as a war on Islam, it is them and their media that is. That is not my or our fault and doesnt change facts.

BTW - I edited the quoted section for clarity and a more accurate depiction of my feelings.

[MrBigglesworth]

ahhh, but AL-Q doesnt have a country so unless youre drawing a connection between countries and their governments to ALQ this is invalid and if we pulled out of the areas that ALq is in, the fighting wouldnt stop, the MAJOR fighting that is going on and seething in all muslim countries that dont have a powerful government to stamp it out. AAMOF, ALQ qould begin fighting the Shiites or Sunnis, or both.
It's possible that Al-Q could foment trouble in Iraq or Iran (Al-Q is Sunni), but I don't see any evidence of Al-Q wanting to do it because they are Shiite, but rather to piss off the Americans. Al-Q attacks mostly focus on Westerners. So, while it is possible that Al-Q could turn into an organization with aims to wipe out Shiites, I don't see it as being likely or even having a significant chance of happening.

The major Sunni/Shiite fighting you see is not between states, but within states, such as Iraq and Lebanon, where the ethnicities are mixed and one doesn't dominate the other.

[Flasch186]

so youre saying Iran isnt supplementing the battle in Lebanon, along with syria? That doesnt make common sense, ALQ would fight sunnis, shiites (who wont follow their extremist ideals) and all islamic moderates. The weaponry, where the unrest is, most certainly comes from there (Iran, Syria, etc.). same thing with the unrest in Iraq....those weapons absolutely come from Iran & Syria (some would say a proxy war has already begun). Also, just like the past hundreds of years I have no doubt that when the Americans and western powers leave the areas, AlQaeda will follow up on the stated plans, in intercepted correspondences, of attempting to start a civil war in Iraq and then carry that throughout the muslim world. These statement are corroborated so the soapbox youre carrying around with you regarding these matters doesnt hold weight. ALL evidence says the contrary, you say there isnt much unrest but from Indonesia, to Iraq, to Egypt, to Somalia Islam is tearing at eachother. Sure there is unrest elsewhere for many reasons but thats not what were talking about. Islamic nations and territories are on the precipice of war, and it has already begun to top over the edge as witnessed in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, etc.

[MrBigglesworth]

so youre saying Iran isnt supplementing the battle in Lebanon, along with syria? That doesnt make common sense, ALQ would fight sunnis, shiites (who wont follow their extremist ideals) and all islamic moderates. The weaponry, where the unrest is, most certainly comes from there (Iran, Syria, etc.). same thing with the unrest in Iraq....those weapons absolutely come from Iran & Syria (some would say a proxy war has already begun). Also, just like the past hundreds of years I have no doubt that when the Americans and western powers leave the areas, AlQaeda will follow up on the stated plans, in intercepted correspondences, of attempting to start a civil war in Iraq and then carry that throughout the muslim world. These statement are corroborated so the soapbox youre carrying around with you regarding these matters doesnt hold weight. ALL evidence says the contrary, you say there isnt much unrest but from Indonesia, to Iraq, to Egypt, to Somalia Islam is tearing at eachother. Sure there is unrest elsewhere for many reasons but thats not what were talking about. Islamic nations and territories are on the precipice of war, and it has already begun to top over the edge as witnessed in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, etc.
I said there is not much Sunni/Shiite unrest. And there isn't. Indonesia is something like 98% Sunni, the unrest there is because fundamentalist groups want a more Islamic government. The Sudan conflict is mostly ethnic, not religious, as almost everyone in Darfur is Sunni Muslim. Same with Somalia, nearly everyone there is Sunni Muslim. I don't know of any Sunni/Shiite fighting in Gaza, they have their hands full with Israel. So that leaves...Lebanon and Iraq, the two I said before which were unique in that they have more evenly split populations and weak central governments.

You might have Saudi Arabia and Egypt interested in helping out the Sunnis in Iraq, but you don't hear anything about them wanting to invade Iran and kill or convert all the Shiites, because that is a dumb thing for them to do. Same thing with Iran invading Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. It's in nobody's best interests to do so. The amount of investment into the military for that kind of force projection in today's age would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible for those countries, for an end result that would be a huge gamble and even if they win wouldn't really help them much. So, best case scenario (in terms of your goals) is that we have a couple of proxy wars in Iraq and Lebanon, and maybe Bahrain's minority Sunni government gets toppled.

So while it is certainly possible that every Arab country will become completely irrational if we remove our interests from the region, it's not a good idea to base your foreign policy on it.

[Flasch186]

you flip flop between religious strife, sectarian strife, and governmental strife whenever convenient to your thoughts or stance. To me, it doesnt matter and there is no need to break it up because on the one hand you say ALQ isnt linked to a government but then on the other switch to actual governments to debunk the talk. ALQ went to Sudan, AlQ went to Lebanon, ALQ went to Iraq, ALQ went to Afghanistan, ALQ went to Indonesia very likely without the government's position and the governments are helpless to stop their operations and intentions(ALWAYS to foster fighting and death), for the most part.... ALQ wants ALL those muslim countries to become a Caliphate. It doesnt matter Sunni or Shiite because as they move along on their timeline, their friend today, or someone who supports their fight, one day, wont be extreme enough and theyll turn on them. Somehow, you seem to be the ONLY one who doesnt think that the Muslim countries pointed out before aren't fighting and killing eachother. good luck with that and I hope that Island doesnt get lonely...you are wrong in this case sir as ALL evidence daily says so unless your only source of news at all is Al Jazeera.

[MrBigglesworth]

Dola, let me be more clear and bring the focus back. Your original post said:

What if Western forces pulled out of ALL Islamic held areas, other than those where we can strategically accomplish a humanitarian goal, ie. Darfur, with the UN, Nato, African union and on a shorter term basis. The two ends of the spectrum fall into all out civil war engulfing most Islamic states. At some point wouldnt one of the groups begin to get the upper hand leading to an eventual powerful group, yet only one group.

Your basic assumption is that there will be an all out civil war engulfing most Islamic states, Sunni against Shiite. But that is a flawed premise, because in most countries that are predominantly Muslim, there is also a vast preponderance of either Sunni or Shiite. For example, Indonesia has about 174 million Sunnis and 2 million Shiites. So any Civil War will be short lived, as the Shiites will get crushed. Saudi Arabia has something like 20 million Sunnis and 2 million Shiites. Iran has 60 million Shiites and 6 million Sunnis.

To give you an idea, Methodists take up a similar percentage of the US population. If the Methodists rose up against the US, how long would that war last?

So you can't rely on civil wars, you would need to rely on states acting against each other. And the states don't have the means nor really the desire to act against each other in such a way. So the end result would be that the US would have no influence in the ME, not a desirable outcome.

[MrBigglesworth]

you flip flop between religious strife, sectarian strife, and governmental strife whenever convenient to your thoughts or stance. To me, it doesnt matter and there is no need to break it up because on the one hand you say ALQ isnt linked to a government but then on the other switch to actual governments to debunk the talk.
I don't know what you are talking about here.

ALQ went to Sudan, AlQ went to Lebanon, ALQ went to Iraq, ALQ went to Afghanistan, ALQ went to Indonesia very likely without the government's position and the governments are helpless to stop their operations and intentions(ALWAYS to foster fighting and death), for the most part.... ALQ wants ALL those muslim countries to become a Caliphate. It doesnt matter Sunni or Shiite because as they move along on their timeline, their friend today, or someone who supports their fight, one day, wont be extreme enough and theyll turn on them.
Flasch, Al-Q has been successful in turning exactly zero countries into Caliphates. And here you are screaming like Chicken Little that Al-Q will take over the entire ME. Let's keep it real. Al-Q is a terrorist group that so far has attacked Western targets. Let's not base a foreign policy on assuming they are omnipotent.

Somehow, you seem to be the ONLY one who doesnt think that the Muslim countries pointed out before aren't fighting and killing eachother. good luck with that and I hope that Island doesnt get lonely...you are wrong in this case sir as ALL evidence daily says so unless your only source of news at all is Al Jazeera.
Indonesia, Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Somalia and Gaza are fighting and killing each other? Only in Iraq are Sunnis and Shiites killing each other. Can you please point this evidence out? You reference it continually, but I don't know where it is.

[Flasch186]

just do a search ont he internet, I typed in just a few words in google and got a gazillion hits THEN if you read a few they will spell out exactly, Al Qaeda's presence, support of the sudanese gov't. who in turn support the Janjaweed, Indonesia and its bombings, attacks in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan...

[MrBigglesworth]

just do a search ont he internet, I typed in just a few words in google and got a gazillion hits THEN if you read a few they will spell out exactly, Al Qaeda's presence, support of the sudanese gov't. who in turn support the Janjaweed, Indonesia and its bombings, attacks in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan...
1) Janjaweed are Sunnis fighting Sunnis. No Sunni/Shiite violence there.

2) Indonesia bombings are Sunnis fundamentalists bombing Sunni moderates. No Sunni/Shiite violence there.

3) The targets at Egypt (Western vacationers), Saudi Arabia (US military), and Jordan (American hotels) were all Western targets, not Shiite targets nor secular Sunni targets. No Sunni/Shiite violence there.

I'm still seeing zero evidence for your assumption that the entire region would be engulfed in Sunni vs. Shiite civil war if we pulled completely out.

[Flasch186]

you conveniently ignore the evidence of ALQ and their encouragement of death and support of the janjaweed's ethinc cleansing, the boiling war in gaza, the civil strife in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Indonesia (all conveniently muslim countries).

MRB, Im finished talking to you as you ignore ALL the evidence and want to stand on your island. So be it. Your stubbornness bores me and you have won by tiring me out. Id venture to guess that 90% of people disagree with you...that doesnt mean that 10% is always wrong but being the contrarian doesnt always make you right.

[MrBigglesworth]

you conveniently ignore the evidence of ALQ and their encouragement of death and support of the janjaweed's ethinc cleansing, the boiling war in gaza, the civil strife in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Indonesia (all conveniently muslim countries).
How does any of this in any way relate to your position that the entire ME would get involved in a Sunni/Shiite civil war if the West pulled out?

MRB, Im finished talking to you as you ignore ALL the evidence and want to stand on your island. So be it. Your stubbornness bores me and you have won by tiring me out. Id venture to guess that 90% of people disagree with you...that doesnt mean that 10% is always wrong but being the contrarian doesnt always make you right.
If you haven't even attempted to explain how a Sunni/Shiite civil war could break out in Iran or Saudi Arabia, besides saying "Al-Q" over and over. How could Al-Q do that? Why would they WANT to do it in the case of Saudi Arabia?

Where do you get the idea that you are with the majority? Can you find a single foreign policy expert that believes that Al-Q can start a Sunni/Shiite civil war in Saudi Arabia? Or Egypt? Or Indonesia? Where did you even get the idea that they could?

If there is evidence that I am ignoring, it is because you haven't shared it yet.

[Flasch186]

just a quick one since Im at work:

hxxp://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060306-092601-1772r.htm

[MrBigglesworth]

just a quick one since Im at work:

hxxp://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060306-092601-1772r.htm
The relevant part seems to be:

Civil war has been a stated goal of the al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi from the beginning...

Ok, that's already been established: Al-Q wants to drive the US out of Iraq and have a Sunni government put in place. I mentioned that a few posts up. What that doesn't do is give any kind of evidence to the suggestion that Al-Q can create a civil war in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Pakistan or Iran or anywhere else, let alone all of them.

[flere-imsaho]

Worked real well with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein didn't it?

There's a difference between supporting a native secularist government (Jordan, Egypt) and installing your own puppet dictator (Shah, Hussein). I invite you to understand that subtlety.

[flere-imsaho]

I really can't believe that you haven't been banned yet. What I don't understand is why you continue to post here when nobody buys your bullshit.

I can think of at least half a dozen times when Mr. B has called a board member racist. As always, I am calling for his banning. Does he ever post in non-pol threads?

If MrB is banned, and PSUColonel (who's just started posting again after his boxing) is not, it'll be a really sad day (relatively-speaking). I think if you're fair, you'll admit that at least MrB makes an honest effort to underpin his arguments with at least a semblance of logic and supporting evidence. This as opposed to PSU, who posts (and deletes) threads that are little more than diatribes, and litters other threads with mean-spirited vitriol.

I guess what I'm saying is yes, I know where you're coming from, but there are far worse offenders in the board-wide POL-baiting game than MrB.

Ok, that's already been established: Al-Q wants to drive the US out of Iraq and have a Sunni government put in place. I mentioned that a few posts up. What that doesn't do is give any kind of evidence to the suggestion that Al-Q can create a civil war in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Pakistan or Iran or anywhere else, let alone all of them.

If I may, I think the disconnect is here: Al-Qaeda has a stated goal of using terrorism and insurgency to destabilize moderate or secularist muslim governments to create a fundamentalist caliphate. I think Flasch is conflating the existence of this goal with the actual means to bring this goal about.

On one hand, I think Flasch is suggesting that in the absence of the U.S. in the region, Al-Qaeda would have the means to achieve their goal.

On the other hand, I think MrB is suggesting that it is the presence of the U.S. in the region that gives Al-Qaeda the means (or at least a lot of help, by destabilizing the region, spurring recruitment, etc...) to achieve their goal.

Does that help? Or should I not have bothered? ;)

[Flasch186]

I think that was helpful but I dont think MRB will admit that AlQ and the civil strife are connected.

[PSUColonel]

IMO, you are as equally stuck on youre side of the spectrum as those you accuse of the opposite stances. Neither open minded or progressive, instead you put that badge up and then crow equal but opposite rhetoric which is borne fruit when taking the sum of your stances in multiple threads regarding such matter instead of the parts.

I understand that my viewpoint is anchored by the fact that Im American, Middle class, Jewish, liberal, 30, brown haired, 6' tall etc. but we all are and should not be afraid to hold our own opinions put through our filter. It is absolutely wrong to assume that Americans should not see Al-Qaeda as a threat, which is solely 100% Muslim, if only in name and not think that that might be some correlation just as the KKK were almost 100% caucasian. Are all Caucasians KKK member's, no? Are all KKK members white, yes? to not be able to let your brain draw common sense assumptions without having to defend such a process as racist is also racist, equally and opposite.

One can look at other parts of the world and draw comparisons to ourselves. If we then determine that we want to help in the Sudan great!! However, to not see that Sunni and Shia factions are boiling if not already boiled over is asinine. Call it racist, blame Europe, but get the idiot fuckers who are killing eachother today over a uncle of a brother who was killed in 500bc (i generalize), or agree that it is just that, asinine, not culturally acceptable, but asinine and either agree to let them kill eachother until one subjugates the other or we continue to try to play referee. Then talk to me about equality of actions.



agreed. But I wouldn't try to be too right around here too often...you'll inflame those who don't think rationally(or at least differently than you might), and then find yourself in the penalty box. Somehow people are no longer allowed to express their views here because this forum has become a complete bastion for liberalism.

[MrBigglesworth]

If MrB is banned, and PSUColonel (who's just started posting again after his boxing) is not, it'll be a really sad day (relatively-speaking). I think if you're fair, you'll admit that at least MrB makes an honest effort to underpin his arguments with at least a semblance of logic and supporting evidence. This as opposed to PSU, who posts (and deletes) threads that are little more than diatribes, and litters other threads with mean-spirited vitriol.

I guess what I'm saying is yes, I know where you're coming from, but there are far worse offenders in the board-wide POL-baiting game than MrB.



If I may, I think the disconnect is here: Al-Qaeda has a stated goal of using terrorism and insurgency to destabilize moderate or secularist muslim governments to create a fundamentalist caliphate. I think Flasch is conflating the existence of this goal with the actual means to bring this goal about.

On one hand, I think Flasch is suggesting that in the absence of the U.S. in the region, Al-Qaeda would have the means to achieve their goal.

On the other hand, I think MrB is suggesting that it is the presence of the U.S. in the region that gives Al-Qaeda the means (or at least a lot of help, by destabilizing the region, spurring recruitment, etc...) to achieve their goal.

Does that help? Or should I not have bothered? ;)
I agree with what you are saying here, but the problem is that it is pretty much irrelevant to the question at hand. Read again Flasch's first post, which is what I have been responding to:
The state of affairs today has the Islamic spectrum torn between two seperate ends. On one end is Shiite and the other Sunni...

What if Western forces pulled out of ALL Islamic held areas, other than those where we can strategically accomplish a humanitarian goal, ie. Darfur, with the UN, Nato, African union and on a shorter term basis. The two ends of the spectrum fall into all out civil war engulfing most Islamic states. At some point wouldnt one of the groups begin to get the upper hand leading to an eventual powerful group, yet only one group.

At that point we would know our enemy, and have one Major enemy, IE. USSR to deal with as opposed to this hybrid islamic army that exists in the alley down below...
Flasch's goal is to have one Major Enemy. To accomplish this goal, Flasch says Western forces should pull out of all Islamic held areas so that the two ends of the spectrum (Sunni and Shiite) will battle it out amongst themselves in civil wars until one side gains an upper hand and crushes the other.

My disagreement is that Sunni and Shiite won't battle it out to the death in civil wars in a majority of countries, because most countries are predominantly of only one type. The Al-Q question is irrelevant. For example, let's bestow upon Al-Q infinite civil war creating powers, let's say they can create a civil war in every majority Muslim country just by snapping their fingers. So Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, etc, all break out into civil war. Well, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Sudan, Somalia, etc, are all 90% Sunni. So those rebellions will be crushed, and the Sunnis will be in charge of all of them. Azerbaijan, Bahrain, and Iran are all majority Shiite. Their Sunni insurgents are crushed, and they become Shiite countries. So after the civil wars, we will have a situation where Iran, Bahrain and Azerbaijan are Shiite, while Iraq and Lebanon are still fighting it out. Which is almost exactly the situation we currently find ourselves in! In other words, it's exceedingly difficult for a 10% minority to win a civil war and take all power away from the other 90%.

That means that for one side to beat the other, states would have to fight each other. But does Saudi Arabia have the means to project force and invade and occupy Iran? No. Do they have the desire? No, the ruling elite wouldn't gain anything by doing it. While they fight for influence, nobody in the region has expressed a desire to invade and cleanse any country not named Israel.

[JPhillips]

Somehow people are no longer allowed to express their views here because this forum has become a complete bastion for liberalism.

Insightful.

[st.cronin]

If MrB is banned, and PSUColonel (who's just started posting again after his boxing) is not, it'll be a really sad day (relatively-speaking). I think if you're fair, you'll admit that at least MrB makes an honest effort to underpin his arguments with at least a semblance of logic and supporting evidence. This as opposed to PSU, who posts (and deletes) threads that are little more than diatribes, and litters other threads with mean-spirited vitriol.

I guess what I'm saying is yes, I know where you're coming from, but there are far worse offenders in the board-wide POL-baiting game than MrB.

I agree with the first part, the difference is that when PSU comes along and shits all over the board, he ends up in the box. At least that has happened a couple of times.

Mr B does not make an honest effort at anything except twisting people's words to make them appear racist and/or rotten. He has done this over and over again. I think it's actually far worse than what PSU does - PSU says "I'm a racist," leaving the board free to ignore him. Mr. B argues that everybody else is racist, creating a much worse dynamic.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

you conveniently ignore the evidence of ALQ and their encouragement of death and support of the janjaweed's ethinc cleansing, the boiling war in gaza, the civil strife in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Indonesia (all conveniently muslim countries).

MRB, Im finished talking to you as you ignore ALL the evidence and want to stand on your island.

Mr. B is actually pretty well correct in terms of evidence. There is a great deal of conflict in Muslim states, but outside Iraq virtually none of it falls on a Sunni/Shia axis and relatively little of it is tied to Al Qaeda. If you actually look into the fighting in places like Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia, you'll see this.

Obviously Al Qaeda has been involved in Afghanistan, and reports have also tied them to attacks in Indonesia, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But in none of those states have they been able to sustain or inspire any sort of real conflict.

What has happened in Iraq, where Al Qaeda has successfully precipitated a Sunni/Shia war is unique to Iraq, and it is highly doubtful Al Qaeda could have ever succeeded at that without our (unwitting) help.

[st.cronin]

Mr. B is actually pretty well correct in terms of evidence. There is a great deal of conflict in Muslim states, but outside Iraq virtually none of it falls on a Sunni/Shia axis and relatively little of it is tied to Al Qaeda. If you actually look into the fighting in places like Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia, you'll see this.

Obviously Al Qaeda has been involved in Afghanistan, and reports have also tied them to attacks in Indonesia, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But in none of those states have they been able to sustain or inspire any sort of real conflict.

What has happened in Iraq, where Al Qaeda has successfully precipitated a Sunni/Shia war is unique to Iraq, and it is highly doubtful Al Qaeda could have ever succeeded at that without our (unwitting) help.

The implication that the Arab states will all be happy and peaceful without any western presence there doesn't seem well thought out to me, though. There are a number of sides that would aspire to a type of hegemony, and violence will clearly be a tool at their disposal.

[st.cronin]

dola

The new version of firefox has SPELLCHECK. This is a great day.

[MrBigglesworth]

I agree with the first part, the difference is that when PSU comes along and shits all over the board, he ends up in the box. At least that has happened a couple of times.

Mr B does not make an honest effort at anything except twisting people's words to make them appear racist and/or rotten. He has done this over and over again. I think it's actually far worse than what PSU does - PSU says "I'm a racist," leaving the board free to ignore him. Mr. B argues that everybody else is racist, creating a much worse dynamic.
You sure do get the vapors easy. [southern woman falsetto]'My God, he called the guy that called Muslims animals a racist! What will we tell the children?!?!' [/falsetto] Saint Cronin would never call anyone names, like 'troll' or 'nimrod', or call anyone a racist.

I don't know if democracy WILL work in Iraq but it certainly CAN work. It works in quite a few places worldwide. It works (more or less) here in the US (despite, or perhaps thanks to, a Civil War of our own) I think it's possibly racist to assume it can't work in a Muslim country. I think overall the question is too complicated for anybody with mortal understanding to know for sure the answer. I strongly suspect that nobody can predict the future.
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=783628&highlight=iraq+racist#post783628

Huh. I guess that's not it. But I don't want to have you banned st.cronin, because we wouldn't be able to do without your prescience:

It puzzles me that Bush has been a disastrous leader in terms of domestic policy, and a brilliant leader in terms of his foreign policy, yet all the opposition party talks about is 'Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.'

Bush's legacy for generations will be his brilliant, bordering on genius, foreign policy, and it only hurt the Dems in the midterms talking about Iraq. Sorry to single you out, it's actually quite a trip reading through the old Iraq threads, and I certainly wasn't right about everything.

st.cronin, I think you'll see that my discussion with Flasch was a discussion, and at least on my part didn't involve any personal attacks. So I don't know why you have to go trolling in this thread trying to get a rise out of people.

[MrBigglesworth]

The implication that the Arab states will all be happy and peaceful without any western presence there doesn't seem well thought out to me, though. There are a number of sides that would aspire to a type of hegemony, and violence will clearly be a tool at their disposal.
I love the new Firefox spell check too. I won't speak for Mojo, but I am not saying that everything would be peace and flowers if the West left. I am just saying that there wouldn't be a monumental show down that would leave either Sunni or Shiite standing and not both. Probably like everywhere else in the world, there would be fighting over borders, fighting for influence, fighting for resources, etc. I just don't believe that the demographics are set up in such a way as to make pan-Arab Sunni vs. Shiite battles a reality.

[dawgfan]

Id venture to guess that 90% of people disagree with you...that doesnt mean that 10% is always wrong but being the contrarian doesnt always make you right.
Firstly, I'd venture to guess you'd be wrong about that. Secondly, I'd venture to guess that most people haven't spent nearly as much time as Mr.B. in examining this topic in detail.

[dawgfan]

Somehow people are no longer allowed to express their views here because this forum has become a complete bastion for liberalism.
Quoted for hilarity. This board is "a complete bastion for liberalism" - I guess that's true so long as one defines "liberalism" as anything left of "extreme right winger".

[flere-imsaho]

The implication that the Arab states will all be happy and peaceful without any western presence there doesn't seem well thought out to me, though. There are a number of sides that would aspire to a type of hegemony, and violence will clearly be a tool at their disposal.

I don't think anyone's implying that, to be honest. If that's the impression I gave, then I apologize, because that really wasn't my intention.

I know my responses have merely been to the contention in Flasch's original post that, upon a U.S. withdrawal, the ME would dissolve into an all-out holy war that would decide the fate of the region for once and for all. The reasons I don't find this argument compelling are all listed on page one of the thread.

The removal of the U.S. as an "overt" presence in the Middle East, which is what I'm suggesting on page two of the thread, would probably not result in a "happy and peaceful" Middle East, but is, in my opinion, more likely to result in a marginalization of the radical elements of Islam and a resurgence of secularist/modernist states which is, I think, the way to go.

[PSUColonel]

I agree with the first part, the difference is that when PSU comes along and shits all over the board, he ends up in the box. At least that has happened a couple of times.

Mr B does not make an honest effort at anything except twisting people's words to make them appear racist and/or rotten. He has done this over and over again. I think it's actually far worse than what PSU does - PSU says "I'm a racist," leaving the board free to ignore him. Mr. B argues that everybody else is racist, creating a much worse dynamic.

Contrary to this statement, I can honestly tell you I am not a racist. If somehow I have appeared that way, I apologize. I may have very different views on how to fight the war on Islamo-fascisim, but am not, nor ever have been a racist.