So what is the general consensus of Soap-Boxers...Are the Mid-East Muslims waging a world-wide war to bring every country under their control?Larry Elder thinks so.. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51148..Or are they just mad at the West for placing troops in their sacred lands, interfereing with their government and culture, and supporting their arch enemy Israel? Pat Buchanan thinks so ...http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51164Our ultimate decision on the underlying reasons for these events determines our response. If it's an all-out war, and the Islamo-Fascists want to destroy us, then we have to stop pussy-footing around..get in there and wage total war.On the other hand, if they just want us out of there...let's get out. America should be neutral, and not get between warring countries. Is it one..or the other..or both?
7/22/2006 11:54:13 AM
obviously either larry elder or pat buchanan (or a combination of the two) has the answer to all our foreign policy questions.[Edited on July 22, 2006 at 12:40 PM. Reason : actually buchanan is pretty reasonable in that article.]
7/22/2006 12:36:53 PM
7/22/2006 2:08:58 PM
7/22/2006 2:17:36 PM
well, lets just get the hell out and let them continue living in the stone ageand if they fuck with us, kill them all
7/22/2006 2:21:05 PM
^^It does make a difference in the middle east, actually, since they view the romping grounds of muhammad as holy. That reminds me -- muhammad himself is revered as a great military leader who fought for islam. This stuff is at the foundation of their religious mythos.[Edited on July 22, 2006 at 2:25 PM. Reason : sdf]
7/22/2006 2:24:57 PM
the answer is: GWB is looking for an excuse to wage war upon Iran. theres a lotta damn oil over there.
7/22/2006 6:25:13 PM
Leon Hadar, correspondant for The Business Times of Singapore explains how we are playing with fire....http://www.lewrockwell.com/hadar/hadar66.htmlOn the other hand, Victor David Hanson says the answer is for the US to scold Israel in public, while giving them a knowing wink...http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072106.htmlEx military officer and libertarian Karen Kwiatkowski offers some challenging insight from someone who was a Pentagon insider...http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski155.html
7/24/2006 12:14:02 AM
joe_schmoe... oil oil oil oil oil oil... what a joke... looks like we really went after oil in the middle east... i guess that's why gas prices have us by the balls rather than anything ever getting better
7/24/2006 12:29:28 AM
wow, pat buchanan, larry elder, and some libertarians. we've got some good solid foreign policy experts here.clearly this groundbreaking perspective was worth yet another thread on this subject.[Edited on July 24, 2006 at 12:40 AM. Reason : .]
7/24/2006 12:38:21 AM
Trolling and ad hominum aside...the thread asks the question..Do we take Osama at his word? That the Muslim world is simply upset that we have troops in their holy land. And once we return to neutrality, America won't be as hated and targeted.or is this an actual all-out assault by radical muslims to destroy western civilization because the Quran tells them to. Our answer to this question influences our strategy quite a bit. But as some of the op-eds I've presented point out, it doesn't seem like we have much agreement on the basic problem.
7/24/2006 1:29:41 AM
Dar al-Harb (offensive jihad) is largely a product of feudal times long past. Dar al-Islam (defensive jihad) is what endures, especially since muslim countries are now only able to wage defensive wars.People who interpret what bin Laden and muslims in general express as "an actual all-out assault by radical muslims to destroy western civilization because the Quran tells them to" are idiots and/or have an agenda. Bin laden has been surprisingly credible in following up on his specific threats and claims, maintaining the integrity of his dar al-Islam rhetoric. Some people don't want to consider the strategy the notion of a principled bin laden would dictate, so they have lot to gain by painting bin laden as wholly irrational.The way bin laden carries himself and the way he tries to control al quaeda doesnt account for the behavior of all terrorists, but the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence shows that muslims will fight any non-muslim -- whether they are american, soviet, turk, persian, or shia (in the view of most muslims) -- before submitting to their rule. This islam-inspired resistance to outsiders floats just under the surface throughout the middle east. Any strategy that discounts the fundamental, principled, and widespread nature of these beliefs is doomed to failure.This is why US-installed, US-friendly (now that US-friendly is synonymous with zionist-friendly), secular, or minority-run governments will fail in arab countries. Any modernization can only come from within. Because we are so buddy-buddy with Israel and the other oppressive, apostate regimes in the region, anything we do is viewed with (rightful) suspicion. If we support something, it is like a kiss of death.The US had far, far better relations with the middle east when we were not active in the region. The same can be said for most any other non ME country.[Edited on July 24, 2006 at 2:52 AM. Reason : sdf]
7/24/2006 2:51:27 AM
^ exactly, gg
7/24/2006 12:25:13 PM
http://majpalmer.com/therealwar/therealwar.html
7/24/2006 1:21:15 PM
Why don't you just ask Osama Bin Laden?This is his "Letter to America"
7/24/2006 6:24:39 PM
7/24/2006 6:26:56 PM
7/24/2006 6:28:30 PM
^you should be ARRESTED and THROWN in JAIL with the staff of the NY TIMES for even POSSESSING that!!!111
7/24/2006 7:35:23 PM
hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
7/24/2006 7:36:55 PM
7/24/2006 8:14:40 PM
I think "both" would be the best answer.I don't think anyone would label bin laden as a pragmatist.[Edited on July 24, 2006 at 8:43 PM. Reason : .]
7/24/2006 8:42:14 PM
So Clinton's blow-job was one of the causes of 9/11?Some of Bin Laden's arguments sound faintly similar to the complaints of the American Indians.
7/24/2006 11:23:43 PM