quote Originally posted by Euterpe: edit: "i don't understand that", or "i don't understand this opinion about that" is different from "i don't understand how anyone could hold this opinion about that."

Thanks for the lesson. Honestly, I do appreciate it. It is though much more effective without insults.
Do you hit on your students?

quote Originally posted by Vonov: Actually, most wars that have been fought throughout history have been either a large-scale armed robbery (such as Saddam's invasions of Kuwait and Iran) fought because one nation was trying to grab resources from another; or a clash precipitated by one group of people encroaching on another group's territory, (such as the Hebrews invading Canaan, or the people who now occupy the area we know as Vietnam, who were pushed there by the Manchu invaders of what is now China) and displacing the people who originally lived there. Wars over ideology have been fairly rare until the Twentieth Century, with the notable exception of the Crusades.

this is a great statement and is the root in what most people think war is.
and why most americans are so frustrated with the "war in iraq". everyone knows the key is OIL. no one really cares about Saddam killing his own people - or even Saddam killing his neighbors. there are leaders all over the world doing the EXACT same things to their people and their nieghbors - but noone cares. you probably couldnt even name 2 other leaders who are killing their people and their neighbors. but - there are at lest 5 of them RIGHT NOW. who are just as bad - if not worse - than Saddam was.

and - now - we cant leave - because when we do - someone WILL do what we wont do - TAKE Iraq & TAKE the oil. how about N.Korea? how about China? how about - most likely - Iran? what is to stop them? Iraq cant defend itself. which sounds funny - since they are kicking our ass.

make it our 51'st state. hoist the flag & claim it. or else - someone else will. or does someone actually think the little baby nation, left naked in the street, sitting ontop of pile of cash is gonna be left alone? the whole world is just gonna say - awww....looky the baby with all the cash.....and walk on by.....

how about PFF takes it. we are international, arent we? free fuel for Fiero's worldwide.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: You just can't use yourself or an idea to generate an accurate picture of someone Else's personality or their reason for doing something.

I don't think I was but perhaps its because you know me well enough to draw the conclusion that I was applying my own sense of personal responsibility and discipline to this guy. Fair enough.

I wasn't doing that. What I was trying to say was that he made a decision to serve his country once before because he must have believed it to be the right thing to do. Now he is making a decision to NOT serve his country for the same reasons. My point is that how can we trust this guy (or anybody) whose convictions blow with the wind? I don't trust anything he says anymore than I would trust the legal testimony in a court of law of a witness caught in a lie.

Now I will concede that youth has it's indiscretions. We all had passionate convictions at one time or another in our lives that with the benefit of time we have come to learn were pretty ill informed. But I can not reconcile any decision, youthful or otherwise, with a desire to escape the responsibility of that choice without consequence. If my son were to commit a crime, I don't care what his motives are, he is going to have to pay the price.

In short, I am not calling this guy a coward because he does not believe in the war, I am calling him a coward for trying to avoid punishment for his choice to go back on his word.

quote originally posted by Euterpe who knows? i might even be persuaded. but not by your self-aggrandizing blowhardiness.

I'm underwhelmed by your lack of sincerity. Like I said, an open mind is more interested in the content, not the delivery. In many cultures it is typical to stand within 12 inches of the person you are talking to. Are you saying that you would invalidate their opinions because it made you uncomfortable? Take a good look around you Euterpe...you don't have any allies here.

Oh, and if you find my replies to you overgeneralized all I can say is that I do my best to talk to the level of understanding of the audience. Show us a little perspicacity and I'll ratchet it up a bit.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-15-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I'm underwhelmed by your lack of sincerity. Like I said, an open mind is more interested in the content, not the delivery. In many cultures it is typical to stand within 12 inches of the person you are talking to. Are you saying that you would invalidate their opinions because it made you uncomfortable? Take a good look around you Euterpe...you don't have any allies here. Oh, and if you find my replies to you overgeneralized all I can say is that I do my best to talk to the level of understanding of the audience. Show us a little perspicacity and I'll ratchet it up a bit.

and i'm underwhelmed by your pretensions.

take a look around, yourself. people regularly dismiss each other on much more superficial grounds than the textual equivalent of standing too close. you are yourself a prime example, so convinced are you of your own supremacy, and your apparent compulsion to puff your chest about it all the time.

as it happens, i find your content redundant and self-serving, and your means of presenting it, fatuous. there are many people here who provide me with interesting alternative perspectives to my own. you are simply not one of them.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: so we're back to the original question: how to wage war with a non-entity.

No Euterpe. We are not. In case you've missed the last 3 pages we've all long acknowledged that an Idea IS an entity. And an evil idea is one just as powerful as a Hydrogen Bomb, just as prolific as a virus, and just as necessary to defeat as the most entrenched mechanized military machine imaginable. And a good idea can revolutionize the attitudes of an entire species and change paradigms long since conceeded as cast in steel.

Don't agree? Who's birthday is it today!?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: No Euterpe. We are not. In case you've missed the last 3 pages we've all long acknowledged that an Idea IS an entity. And an evil idea is one just as powerful as a Hydrogen Bomb, just as prolific as a virus, and just as necessary to defeat as the most entrenched mechanized military machine imaginable. And a good idea can revolutionize the attitudes of an entire species and change paradigms long since conceeded as cast in steel. Don't agree? Who's birthday is it today!?

whaddaya mean "we", lone ranger?

nice rhetoric, but not up to the standard of what you invoke.

the questions all still stand. but for the moment, i'll make it easy for you, and ask just one:

how do you know when the war's over?

and please don't just say "when 'they' stop attacking us." try to follow out the idea, rather than just pontificate.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: how do you know when the war's over?

Oh gee, tough one. Hmmm, how about when they stop their attacks. I'm perfectly happy for locals to take care of the one off freak show insane MFs, but when you are talking about Hamas, Al Qaeda, The Al Axa Martyrs Brigade, etc. you are talking about government sanctioned and heavily funded militias. YES, that is a war. And when they are all dead, in jail, or just so exhausted trying to push their ideology up a hill they can't climb because we kick their asses with overwhelming force and extreme predjudice, THEN you will have the means of establishing a lasting peace becasue they will conclude that the only option is compromise and negotiation.

You and Jimmy Carter want to negotiate with murders while they are still killing people. I saw in interview with a Palestinian ******* who answered the question : What will it take for you to give up the fight with this answer, "When every Jew and American is dead". THAT is the ideology we are fighting. you CAN'T negotiate with that kind of thinking. And as long as you turn you nose up at people smart enough to understand that as if somehow we are war mongering killers beneath your uber-intellectual sophistication then you will continue to be ridiculed for the fool that you are. Get used to it. I'm only the most recent battle you will face until you accept the limitations of your ability to influence others to your way of thinking.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-15-2007).]

hehehehe... "try not to be so obvious," i say, in not so many words.... and you're so much of a little bulldog, you really just can't help yourself.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: when you are talking about Hamas, Al Qaeda, The Al Axa Martyrs Brigade, etc. you are talking about government sanctioned and heavily funded militias.

ah, so my observation was correct after all. very good.

quote You and Jimmy Carter want to negotiate with murders while they are still killing people.

you're taking up the Wichita technique, now? talk out of your ass about people and pretend to argue with your assumptions about them? for a brief period, i thought that of the two most argumentative ideologues on this forum, you were the least likely to be so absurd. -shrug-. ah well. it's in keeping with your habitual over-statement of just about everything.

quote I'm only the most recent battle you will face until you accept the limitations of your ability to influence others to your way of thinking.

do you really think that everyone is as ego-bound as you? i don't suffer your pretensions of "influence." nor do i in any way see this exchange as "battle," of ideologies or anything else. get some perspective.

all the breast-beating aside, the essence of your reply is that you disagree with my thought that directly taking on every national sponsor of terrorists might not be such a good idea. that's a legitimate disagreement, and one which i would be willing to consider, if it didn't arrive crusted over with your typical puffery.

for those who might be reading this who are not more concerned about "debate tactics" than actually trying to communicate (or even for toddster, if he wants to stop playing Master Podium), i have a related question: how do you think The Troubles in ireland actually came to a (comparitive) end? was it the exhaustion by force of the IRA? loss of sympathy among the ones they thought they were fighting for, and thus loss of purpose? negotiation? i do not mean to suggest that the siutations are the same... in the true spirit of "inquiry" (as opposed to todd's leaden speechifying), it's something that occurs to me, as i think about the question at hand.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-15-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Euterpe about Toddster: you're taking up the Wichita technique, now? talk out of your ass about people and pretend to argue with your assumptions about them? for a brief period, i thought that of the two most argumentative ideologues on this forum, you were the least likely to be so absurd. -shrug-. ah well. it's in keeping with your habitual over-statement of just about everything.

Toddster has that technique patented and brings it to bear every time. I'm mildly surprised you have only been linked with Carter so far in his attempts to marginalize you and imposing his fantasies of what you believe on the forum.

"Take a good look around you Euterpe...you don't have any allies here." Bzzzz... wrong again.

I know I've been enjoying reading your postings. Nice to see someone that asks real questions and is better at piercing the veil of rhetoric than I am.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: everyone knows the key is OIL.

hush, youre frightening the children.

The thought occurs that directly taking on the nation-states which sponsor terrorism might actually be the only effective way of dealing with the problem. Since terrorism is another way of waging war by proxy, would it not dry up funding sources and safe havens for terrorists, if ALL the nation-states involved in the use of asymmetrical warfare were sure of direct action against them by overwhelming force, perhaps by an independent military force? A Pax Romana, if you will. As repugnant as the idea is to me because of the inevitable innocent civilian toll in lives destroyed, perhaps if we remove the "reward" for sponsoring groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, namely, the ability to wage war without being held directly responsible, then the problem might resolve itself. However, since hatred and violence only beget more violence, I think it would/will become much worse before things improve. We have no Charles Martel (sp?) to stand against the tide of Islamist extremism, and the current political climate would likely preclude any action if there were such a person. What is the answer? I wish I knew...

[This message has been edited by Vonov (edited 01-16-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: I have a related question: how do you think The Troubles in ireland actually came to a (comparitive) end? Was it the exhaustion by force of the IRA? Loss of sympathy among the ones they thought they were fighting for, and thus loss of purpose? Negotiation? I do not mean to suggest that the siutations are the same... in the true spirit of "inquiry" (as opposed to todd's leaden speechifying), it's something that occurs to me, as i think about the question at hand.

Why would you not be terribly impressed with someone who had the answer?

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: So what is the real solution, if any? This is not something to which i will pretend to have an answer. I'm not terribly impressed with anyone who would.

Exhaustion by force? Yes. In a sense. People eventually will quit beating their head against a wall. When they realize it is pointless save for the way it hurts themselves. The ideal of force effectiveness exhausted.
Loss of sympathy of those who they were fighting for? That is an assumption. Many in Northern Ireland did not sympathize with the fringe, well... more than a fringe. Many more did not sympathize with the tactics. In fact, the tactics probably hindered the number of sympathizers. Which dwindled in responce due to the tactics. And eventually the responce. To be fair...........
.....it took awhile for the support of the sympathizers to dwindle. Time enough for the realization that force was met with force, ovewhelming force. Which did not overwhelm quickly because innocents were spared in responce to terroristic attacks. Many of these innocents were actually closet sympathizers. As in Iraq. As in Iraq, the humane responce to terroristic tactics cost many many lives on the good guy side.
Negotiation? Yes, of course. Do know that negotiation works best for the one with the most force. Resolve is good but force trumps it. Even a weak force begets negotiation.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: I do not mean to suggest that the siutations are the same...

I beg to differ. Who cares why. The tactical situation is exactly the same. If at any time killing innocents is allowed to succeed, we can expect more and more of it.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: So what is the real solution, if any? This is not something to which i will pretend to have an answer. I'm not terribly impressed with anyone who would.

I have been bullied. I have been beat up. I remember getting my a$$ kicked three times once by the same guy. Not that I was starting $hit with a guy that could beat me up. The forth time I kicked his a$$. The war was over after that when.....

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Oh gee, tough one. Hmmm, how about when they stop their attacks.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Oh gee, tough one. Hmmm, how about when they stop their attacks. I'm perfectly happy for locals to take care of the one off freak show insane MFs, but when you are talking about Hamas, Al Qaeda, The Al Axa Martyrs Brigade, etc. you are talking about government sanctioned and heavily funded militias. YES, that is a war. And when they are all dead, in jail, or just so exhausted trying to push their ideology up a hill they can't climb because we kick their asses with overwhelming force and extreme predjudice, THEN you will have the means of establishing a lasting peace becasue they will conclude that the only option is compromise and negotiation. You and Jimmy Carter want to negotiate with murders while they are still killing people. I saw in interview with a Palestinian ******* who answered the question : What will it take for you to give up the fight with this answer, "When every Jew and American is dead". THAT is the ideology we are fighting. you CAN'T negotiate with that kind of thinking. And as long as you turn you nose up at people smart enough to understand that as if somehow we are war mongering killers beneath your uber-intellectual sophistication then you will continue to be ridiculed for the fool that you are. Get used to it. I'm only the most recent battle you will face until you accept the limitations of your ability to influence others to your way of thinking.

this is a pretty big bucket of truth here.
I am not for the war in Iraq. I think it is stooopid. But, the thinking here is 100% correct. most somewhat educated people just cannot grasp the mentality. these are people who hate other people because of something that happened when Jesus did his dance. how are you gonna negotiate with that? pride is all they have. you cant "talk" to them. the only way to play nice, is to play their way.

but, I must say - waiting for them to get sick of banging their heads against the wall is not gonna work. it builds their pride. just make them bounce harder. you must remember - they have something YOU and everyone else on earth wants. so - this leads to the question/thought - maybe THEY are right - and WE are the assholes. they are, after all - the cradle of civilization. the center of the holy lands.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: ....but, I must say - waiting for them to get sick of banging their heads against the wall is not gonna work. it builds their pride. just make them bounce harder.

Not gonna work? Hmmm....do we have a better option? I am all for a better solution. History does not bare one out. I do have to admit to banging my head against the wall. It does tuff'n the old noggin.
Another key to a solution is education. These people are taught in school to hate Americans and other than their own ideals. The only way they will have an opportunity for a different perspective is if there is other influence in their world/life.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I am not for the war in Iraq. I think it is stooopid.

It is not going good. For many reasons. The main reason is the weakness of the American populace. That is prolonging the war. I don't think it is a stupid war. The original war with Saddam is over. We are now in a different war though a same struggle. The only way to combat the ideology festering and building in the middle east, before it gets world strong, is by enabling the self realization education of a better way. Someone has to make it possible. Before it is too late. It has already been too late for thousands...maybe millions. No, it is in the millions.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-16-2007).]

yes. education really is the key. the actual problem is religion.
and, I understand the frustration with not having a beter idea.
I was all for knocking Saddam off.
and, how long was Germany occupied before US troop left after WWII? TEN YEARS. and that was with a mostly peaceful ending. there is/was history to look at. Bush/advisors must have not looked - and therefor doomed to repeat. even after comparing Saddam to Hitler. back then, we had to worry about russia taking it germany - now we worry about iran taking iraq. it obviously cant just be abandoned. cant leave a huge pile of black gold just laying around unprotected. and, for some reason, cant just take it. and, with germany - germany DID get 1/2 taken. and - while all this fun was going on - who owned the middle east? who owned Iraq during WW2? funny stuff.

Thanks gents. Nice to see some people here can acknowledge the PROBLEMbefore offering their solutions! Comparing the terroists in the Middle East to the IRA for example is ridiculous. The IRA was established for one purpose only, political independence and freedom from religious persecusion. None of these is a problem in Iraq, or Israel, or anywhere else in mid east if you are a muslim. So why are the muslims killing us? Because they have been trained to hate occidentals. Period. How do you un-train someone to hate you? certainly not through negotiations. They will percieve this tactic as a means of lulling you into a false sense of security while you are "secretly" planning your next strike. the mentality is so infected as to be impossible to alter. Ever try to make a bigot unbigoted by talking to them? Think Ebernezer Scrooge would REALLY convert from a lifetime of disdain to philanthropic icon overnight? It makes for great fairy tales but the reality of the human condition is that lessons learned early in life STAY with us forever. It is the very special and very rare person that can have a complete epiphany regarding their core beliefs.

Yes, I think there is a military solution. But I also agree that a sustained peace is going to be the result of long term education and cooperation with the governments and religious leaders in the mid east. I don't blame "religion" for one simple reason, it can be used to justify any behavior. If the religious leaders get on board and begin teaching Islam as a religion of peace then peace will prevail. If not, the murder will continue. The only way they will be motivated is if they obtain the recognition (neutered and controlled as it must be) to satisfy their desire to be seen as God's chosen ones. Sadr is a wacko who can't be trusted but if you want to establish peace you sometimes deal with the devil. He controls a lot of minds and he alone can encourage suicide bombings to continue or shut them down all together.

The way you defeat an idea is with a better idea. And the idea of prosperity for the Iraqi people WILL take hold if we have the courage to stay there long enough for that idea to take hold in the minds of the youth. Once they see America as their benefactors they will end the fighting. As for the adults?, the fanatics are beyond help. Death is their reason for living and I say give it to 'em.

Watada doesn't get this very simple and plainly easy to understand concept...what is good for our neighbors is good for us. If we free Iraq, WE gain greater security and greater freedom. It is TERRIBLY ironic that the Democrats, who claim the GOP is the war mongering group, wants to withdraw the troops back to America, spend money on "security" (more video cameras, more strip searches, less privacy, etc.), whereas the GOP is looking to take the fight to the cause of the problem and not look for a redoubt. Very telling indeed.

EDIT

quote Originally posted by Toddster: They will percieve this tactic as a means of lulling you into a false sense of security while THEY are "secretly" planning THEIR next strike.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Nice to see some people here can acknowledge the PROBLEM before offering their solutions!

I believe I have only acknowledged the obvious. I see problems I have not even mentioned. Number one, they need a leader. Malakie was publicly elected so we have to work with the chosen democracy. I give his performance a passing grade but Iraq needs better. Democracy(elections) must be given a chance to work at least one more time. One more time may not be enough. In the meantime, democracy must work within the elected government. Benchmarks for American support, not that we can desert them, can be tied to the workings of the government.
Number two, democracy will take time. Something the Watadas, Cindi Shehans, and Democrats do not want to give. They want to snatch victory away from the grasp of victory. Helping snatch victory are papers which print only political news which fit their views. All of our losses will be in vain. It is telling to me that Bush will readily lose popularity for his views. It is telling to me that McCain will risk his political career for the same unpopular views.
I do see more challenges.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: It is TERRIBLY ironic that the Democrats, who claim the GOP is the war mongering group, wants to withdraw the troops back to America, spend money on "security" (more video cameras, more strip searches, less privacy, etc.), whereas the GOP is looking to take the fight to the cause of the problem and not look for a redoubt. Very telling indeed.

oh yes, because the present administration has demonstrated such a steadfast devotion to your privacy rights.

this is also a classic tactic that i've seen a lot among ideologues: accuse the opposition of your own failings. it's a little bit of rhetorical ju-jitsu, that would be interesting if it weren't so played.

what i'm really loving about this whole "argument" is the pretentious tone of it... all "big ideas" which are large, airy and impressive... and of course so much easier than actually taking a look at cases and consequences.

i just spent a half-hour watching pat buchanan on scarborough, and got more cogent analysis than three pages of this nonsense.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: She might do well showing a little perspicacity...

parroting todd?

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-16-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: The way you defeat an idea is with a better idea. And the idea of prosperity for the Iraqi people WILL take hold if we have the courage to stay there long enough for that idea to take hold in the minds of the youth. Once they see America as their benefactors they will end the fighting. As for the adults?, the fanatics are beyond help. Death is their reason for living and I say give it to 'em.

I agree with this partway. A better idea doesn't always win out, look at betamax and other examples where the better idea lost. But, what the extremists have learned is something your leading to... minds of the youth. As I've stated over and over ad nauseum here, I do not want religon taught in school for it's morals. It turns into a control issue, an indoctrination. What has happened in the Arab world is that religion has become government, religion has taken over the schools and hospitals and now everyone is indoctrinated in whatever the religious leader of the moment declares is correct. By supplying the food, the health system, the education system, they took over while we provided weapons, propped up dictatorships, made airstrikes, etc... We fulfill their vision of the enemy every chance we get as they have been taught in school, in daily life. Some occupying soldiers patching up their wounded, giving treats to the kids isn't going to offset the non stop bombardment of the message that we are evil, Allah is great and killing the infidels is a good thing.

I think taking over the schools, indoctrinating them in western thought is part of the answer. I think taking the gloves off when it comes to Imans that preach violence and terror... take them, their mosques and their congregations all out. They've shown that while they preach that the mosque is off limits and holy ground, they attack the other sects any chance they get. Well, I think we should do the same. No more kid gloves for 'holy ground' when they are firing from it, storing weapons in it, etc... Blow it all to hell and show them that their version of god loses. Peaceful ones... help them rebuild etc.

Schools... get the damn preachers out and get people in that can teach them critical thinking, teach them that you can disagree with others and not kill each other. Teach them to read and write.

And get them hooked on the good life. Poverty drives a huge part of this, if they are working and earning and buying stuff, they don't have time for war.

It's not about seeing America as the benefactors, then we are just another group to try and use while avoiding getting killed. It's about getting them to see themselves as self sufficient, having self worth that isn't based on killing someone in the name of Allah. Get them to want to be like us... that's what probably stopped a nuclear war from happening a few years back between India and Pakistan. They got westernized and when the leaders started saber rattling to the point of a showdown, the corporations said... Hey, chill or we leave. They didn't want to lose all the tech support lines, the coke plants etc.. If something like that happened in the mid east, could it help moderate the nutcases... or at least cause them to lose their influence?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Watada doesn't get this very simple and plainly easy to understand concept...what is good for our neighbors is good for us. If we free Iraq, WE gain greater security and greater freedom. It is TERRIBLY ironic that the Democrats, who claim the GOP is the war mongering group, wants to withdraw the troops back to America, spend money on "security" (more video cameras, more strip searches, less privacy, etc.), whereas the GOP is looking to take the fight to the cause of the problem and not look for a redoubt. Very telling indeed.

Here you just dive right back into declaring other peoples thoughts. You have absolutely nothing to base this on. It's TERRIBLY ironic that you don't have a clue what Democrats want... but you make blanket statements anyway. One of the problems the Democrats have had gaining a majority is that they are made up of very diverse groups. But that doesn't fit your simplistic world view. Easier to shout "Liberal!"

[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 01-16-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: parroting todd?

Actually, no. "Search" is your friend.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Actually, no. "Search" is your friend.

-sigh-

quote todd: Show us a little perspicacity and I'll ratchet it up a bit.

polly want a biscuit?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Maybe she is capable of introspection.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: Polly want a biscuit?

Evidently not.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: A related question: are there any other shiia-majority nations from whom they might draw recruits? ... quick google... Pakistan. lovely.

No brass ring. Pakistan is just 25% Shiite. About 26,700,000 in total. Try a little closer. Iran. 93% Shiite. About 61,000,000 in total.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: One of the things that was tossed around last night was some backchannel noise relating to the possiblity of direct Saudi involvement in the conflict. I wonder why, exactly? Have we softened things up enough that they finally feel comfortable entering into a war which was launched at least as much, if not more, in their interests than ours? Or have we bollocksed it up enough that they feel they need to take a more open hand?

For not knowing you sure make a lot of assumptions. Please do tell. I might learn something. How do you figure...I can't see how someone can think the war was launched at least as much, if not more, for the interests of the Saudis than ours? I can't see how someone can think we have testicled it up enough that the Saudis need to correct the situation.
While your at it, care to venture a guessumption as to why the Saudis did not launch a war if it were more in their interests?

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: I wonder why, exactly?

The reason is...because the dumbocrats want to pull out. 'Ya see, the Saudi population is 90% Sunni. Contrast that to an Iraqi Sunni population of 35% vs a 65% Shia population. United States involvement in Iraq is comforting to the Saudis that a minority can exist. A minority of which they have close ties. A minority of which was not threatened with Saddam in power. How again was our war in their interests?
Without US involvement and the fact that the minority Sunnis had been brutalizing the Shiias for decades, sectarian violence in the revenge realm is a given. Add to it the Iranian and..oh yeah..Pakistani Shiiias and it looks very bad for the Iraqi Sunnis. The Saudis have other reasons also. It is becoming more in their interests. Let's see if I can find an example....ahhh...

quote Originally posted by Toddster: ...what is good for our neighbors is good for us.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: No brass ring. Pakistan is just 25% Shiite. About 26,700,000 in total. Try a little closer. Iran. 93% Shiite. About 61,000,000 in total.

i know that pakistan is not a "majority" shiite nation. the "quick google" i referred to revealed only populations, not percentage, and the shiite population of pakistan came out as significant. as for iran: i already mentioned them (in the same sentence as syria), as has everyone else, pretty much constantly. i was looking for other possible actors in the scenario.

so, no biscuit for you.

quote The reason is...because the dumbocrats want to pull out. ...Without US involvement and the fact that the minority Sunnis had been brutalizing the Shiias for decades, sectarian violence in the revenge realm is a given.

so if i understand this correctly, then one reason for our staying is to keep the saudis from intervening, and re-asserting sunni oppression of the shiites?

even though it's the shiites with whom we are mostly fighting, and who most certainly don't want our patronage?

-shrug-. it's in keeping, i suppose. there has been more and more chat about accomodation with al-sadr.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: As for Iran: I already mentioned them (in the same sentence as Syria), as has everyone else, pretty much constantly. I was looking for other possible actors in the scenario.

No one qualified their involvement especially due to religion as you did. Iran and Syria have political motivations as well. Which, considering their dictorial governments, negates religious aspirations. Not that they would not exploit them.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Actually, no, it was not. Scott, when have you seen me parrot Todd or anyone else for that matter. When have you seen me side with anyone unless I did agree. What, I can't agree with someone? It is wrong for me to use a new word? You accuse Todd of...

Ok, I didn't see it an issue of agreeing with someone. It's a stupid word to use where 99% of the people need to look it up unless there just wasn't anything else that would have gotten the point across. Insightful, knowledgeable, astute... wouldn't any of those worked as well or better if someone wasn't trying to show off a big word for the purpose of appearing superior? Shall we start speaking in French or Latin... because it gets the nuance in a manner English just doesn't afford?

I've just never seen anyone in my life use that word before on an internet forum, and then after Toddster starts flinging it about, you tossed it out there. My apology if it was just using a new word, I got an impression there was a reason someone might be using that word, and it wasn't to be concise.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The reason is...because the dumbocrats want to pull out.

this is so stupid right here. this should not even have become an issue, should it? but you're gonna call democrats dumb.
try it this way. the freezing pole. stick your tongue on, or no? well - the tongue got stuck on. now your gonna call then dumb for suggesting pull it off.
I agree - pulling it off would be dumb. but nowhere near as dumb as sticking it on in the first place. no matter how stupid any idea is at this point - it will never match the stupidity of the situation created. you can only go uphill from here.

and - I agree 100% that we cannot leave now. and - I even more than 100% agree that education & leading by example has the best chance of calming the flames. anyone who beleive "those who ignore the past, are doomed to repeat it" should check into a important fact: there is NEVER peace in the middle east. dont forget that. there WILL NOT be peace.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I agree with this partway. A better idea doesn't always win out, look at betamax and other examples where the better idea lost.

I don't think the example is very good but I take your point. Beta lost a marketing war. This could lead down a convesational path earmarked with thousands of examples when a better idea lost. And if your point is that the new government MUST market themselves to the people to be effective, I couldn't agree more. But the idea of freedom over slavery invariably wins. Look at Mahatma Ghandi; never picked up a single rifle and won a major war. Jesus Christ too, MLK, etc.

Islamic Terrorists are not like the IRA. The IRA (despite their terror tactics) actually had an agenda for a political goal of freedom and independence, not domination and power. hence, a political solution was possible. They had achievable goals and leaders rational enough to negotiate that goal to a conclusion. The Islamic terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, yada yada have a goal of enslaving the world under their interpretation of Allah with themselves as devinely appointed leaders. They are on a mission from god...in their opinion. They are not rational, they have no achievable goals that do not invlove our enslavement or death. Hence, no negotiation is possible as long as they continue to believe that!

That is the key to the solution. We must hit them so hard that they either come to the conclusion that god is not with them and they have been misled, and we must educate those in their mist that oppose violence to become a force for changing opinions, and we must destroy those who continue to hold onto the "faith".

quote But, what the extremists have learned is something your leading to... minds of the youth. As I've stated over and over ad nauseum here, I do not want religon taught in school for it's morals. It turns into a control issue, an indoctrination. What has happened in the Arab world is that religion has become government, religion has taken over the schools and hospitals and now everyone is indoctrinated in whatever the religious leader of the moment declares is correct. By supplying the food, the health system, the education system, they took over while we provided weapons, propped up dictatorships, made airstrikes, etc... We fulfill their vision of the enemy every chance we get as they have been taught in school, in daily life. Some occupying soldiers patching up their wounded, giving treats to the kids isn't going to offset the non stop bombardment of the message that we are evil, Allah is great and killing the infidels is a good thing. I think taking over the schools, indoctrinating them in western thought is part of the answer. I think taking the gloves off when it comes to Imans that preach violence and terror... take them, their mosques and their congregations all out. They've shown that while they preach that the mosque is off limits and holy ground, they attack the other sects any chance they get. Well, I think we should do the same. No more kid gloves for 'holy ground' when they are firing from it, storing weapons in it, etc... Blow it all to hell and show them that their version of god loses. Peaceful ones... help them rebuild etc. Schools... get the damn preachers out and get people in that can teach them critical thinking, teach them that you can disagree with others and not kill each other. Teach them to read and write. And get them hooked on the good life. Poverty drives a huge part of this, if they are working and earning and buying stuff, they don't have time for war. It's not about seeing America as the benefactors, then we are just another group to try and use while avoiding getting killed. It's about getting them to see themselves as self sufficient, having self worth that isn't based on killing someone in the name of Allah. Get them to want to be like us... that's what probably stopped a nuclear war from happening a few years back between India and Pakistan. They got westernized and when the leaders started saber rattling to the point of a showdown, the corporations said... Hey, chill or we leave. They didn't want to lose all the tech support lines, the coke plants etc.. If something like that happened in the mid east, could it help moderate the nutcases... or at least cause them to lose their influence?

I can't say that I disagree with that except to say that I do not blame religion, I blame people who use religion as a justification for bad behavior. I have no problem with someone who believes in the Bible, Koran, Tora, or Archie Comics for that matter as long as they beleive it to be a tool for peace. If the wacko Mullahs continue to misuse their power for evil then we have few alternatives but military action. Saddam's death is a great example of WHY god was not with him. For some Iraqis, the finality of his rule wasn't certain until 2 weeks ago.

The problem is not dissimilar to the Hitler Youth. ALL ideologies need to be set deep in the minds of the young to flourish. Cleasing the youth of those ideas is just as time consuming

An idea for good is what we are trying to plant in the Mid East now and THAT is why our presence there will be required for a generation or more, just like in Germany and Japan.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: So if i understand this correctly, then one reason for our staying is to keep the Saudis from intervening, and re-asserting Sunni oppression of the Shiites?

No. We are not doing anything for, or in prevention of, Saudi interests.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: Even though it's the Shiites with whom we are mostly fighting, and who most certainly don't want our patronage?

No again. We are fighting an idealog. Fact of the matter I believe, we would be more likely fighting the Sunnis who want their power back. Their special status. Their perks. As far as the Shiites not wanting our patronage, I fear you may be partially correct. We have freed them. Now they do want autonomy.
This is a problem I see. We made it possible for them to be in power. Eerily, we did the same for Saddam when we backed him after he invaded Iran. Another reason Iran has it in for us. I will not say fight, but we will need to work with the Shiites on the workings of democracy. Granted, there will be fringes who perpetuate violence to free themselves from supervision by us, so they can run amok, but by and large, a greater percentage of the population believes in civility and can tolerate differences.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: No. We are not doing anything for, or in prevention of, Saudi interests.

it seems to me that the current conlict is a direct extension of the original gulf war, which was explicitly fought, in part, for saudi interests. that could be described as simply standing by an ally, but i think that's a bit simplistic, given the importance - and complexity - of our relationship with them.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: It seems to me that the current conlict is a direct extension of the original gulf war, which was explicitly fought, in part, for Saudi interests.

In what way?
The first gulf war had a more cohesive international coalition. It was sanctioned by the UN. Interestingly, the Saudis contributed no troops...nor money I think. Perhaps because they did not want to fight fellow Sunnis. They did however allow us to use Saudi soil as bases and their airspace for missions. Something a before unknown guy named Osama Bin Laden despised.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-18-2007).]