The War on Terror is over! (political)

[rgraham666]

At least it is if you follow the money.

Now the only question remaining is, "Did we win?" Or is that not important?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

No, Rob. This is an old Republican Party trick. Create some huge, expensive beuracracy at the tax payer's expense, then shift the cost to the State and Local governments when they think nobody is watching.

Homeland Security (now there's a somewhoat Nazi-esque oximoron!) has passed and funded stringent rules for everyone, now they are pulling the funding. Who do you think is going to pay to continue the insanity?

 

[rgraham666]

And when it all goes to shit, I guess it will be the Democrat's fault.

I wonder where people get the idea that those on the edges of political discourse are stupid?

 

[Handley_Page]

It ain't over 'till it's over

Why is it that normal, ordinary, people seem to shriek that it's the 'other' political party's fault ?

First it seemed that the West (-ern coalition) was fighting an ordinary foreign war. Sadly, few (apart from the poor bastards at the 'front') have noticed that it's a guerrrilla war. And, whilst we all moan about our various Leaders not doin' this or that, explosives get moved to wherever and explosions happen; then everyone gets worried and we all wear our hearts on our sleeves. Ask anyone who was in London . . .

Time, I think, to stop playing the blame game and do some cooperating with all parties and stop the East thinking that we in the West are the Devil's Brood.

No, it ain't over 'till the Diplomats have finished.

 

[emap]

Because they are doing the pass the blame game. Besides most of the people blaming the democrats or republicans are card carrying members of the other party and their party does nothing wrong, why they are with that party.

Diplomats actually never finish anything, they will spend three weeks arguing over where a period should be.

There can't be an end to terrorism, think about it this way, it is impossible to please everyone. If the whole world picked one religion, would the whole world be happy with it? Even if you combine all of them into one, they contradict each other, they contradict themselves. You can be close, but there will always be people unhappy. Heck look at the whole christmas thing, for the longest time the state would do a manger scene every year, then it was called insensitive so no more manger, the tree is insensitive so most tree's are gone. Are Christians happy with that? Is anyone happy with happy holidays? I was happier with merry christmas happy hanuhkah.

I seriously hope I spelled it right.

 

[sr71plt]

Diplomats actually never finish anything, they will spend three weeks arguing over where a period should be.

Sorry, this is naive sterotyping based in ignorance. Diplomats keep issues from exploding on a daily basis. They are constantly cleaning up after both public and private stupidity and arrogance. Just because they can't keep a tally of all that they do posted for everyone to see doesn't mean they aren't working their tails off--often with guns pointed at them while they are working for people who are smugly sleeping in their comfortable beds or stretched out on their Lazyboys watching the football game on TV.

 

[cloudy]

Sorry, this is naive sterotyping based in ignorance. Diplomats keep issues from exploding on a daily basis. They are constantly cleaning up after both public and private stupidity and arrogance. Just because they can't keep a tally of all that they do posted for everyone to see doesn't mean they aren't working their tails off--often with guns pointed at them while they are working for people who are smugly sleeping in their comfortable beds or stretched out on their Lazyboys watching the football game on TV.

She's quite good at that stereotyping thing. I don't think she gets out much.

 

[sr71plt]

She's quite good at that stereotyping thing. I don't think she gets out much.

I'm criticizing the statement (which is the type of thing people often say glibly just because they don't understand what's actually going on--and assume they do [possibly by osmosis?]--a trap I sometimes find myself falling into because such stereotyping is so easy to do). I'm not just trying to make us/them points against a particular poster, in contrast to . . .

 

[cloudy]

I'm criticizing the statement (which is the type of thing people often say glibly just because they don't understand what's actually going on--and assume they do [possibly by osmosis?]--a trap I sometimes find myself falling into because such stereotyping is so easy to do). I'm not just trying to make us/them points against a particular poster, in contrast to . . .

Well, she hasn't stereotyped your race - yet.

I'm not "trying to make points" - I just have a limited tolerance for stupidity.

 

[cantdog]

Possibly you could rise above...?

Stupidity is ubiquitous. We've all done it, and we have to move on; we can't afford to dwell on it.

 

[cloudy]

Possibly you could rise above...?

Stupidity is ubiquitous. We've all done it, and we have to move on; we can't afford to dwell on it.

True, but what bothers me is that someone might believe the stupidity, and take it as fact.

Most here are smart enough to look over it. Some aren't.

 

[cantdog]

True, but what bothers me is that someone might believe the stupidity, and take it as fact.

Most here are smart enough to look over it. Some aren't.

I see. Well, carry on, then. I was a teacher, once. It's a very long chase you're on. Worthy, though.

 

[Caitano]

I'm a teacher, right this minute. I mostly get involved fighting ignorance. Stupidity is too big a problem. Do you think you have a way to beat it? I'm willing to drop a big big bet it won't work, if you do.

 

[slyc_willie]

At least it is if you follow the money.

Now the only question remaining is, "Did we win?" Or is that not important?

After more than six years, how many people are actually wondering if we have 'won,' or will?

I'm not a big fan of the Bush administration, but their logic regarding this move may have some merit, at least in their eyes. They feel they are doing a better job of suppressing terrorism at its source, and have been able to prevent further interior terrorist attacks since 9/11.

So I can understand their case.

Personally, though, I'd rather not relax local readiness or funding. Texas, at least, seems to be a prime locale through which terrorists could pass unnoticed.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, she hasn't stereotyped your race - yet.

I'm not "trying to make points" - I just have a limited tolerance for stupidity.

Nah, your M.O. is to jump in from out of the blue and snipe at posters you don't like on any excuse you can think of. I was focused on the substance of what was said. I'm not interested in your cyber-bullying tactics.

 

[cloudy]

Nah, your M.O. is to jump in from out of the blue and snipe at posters you don't like on any excuse you can think of. I was focused on the substance of what was said. I'm not interested in your cyber-bulling tactics.

Lemme check.....nope, still don't care what you think. Sorry.

 

[sr71plt]

After more than six years, how many people are actually wondering if we have 'won,' or will?

I'm not a big fan of the Bush administration, but their logic regarding this move may have some merit, at least in their eyes. They feel they are doing a better job of suppressing terrorism at its source, and have been able to prevent further interior terrorist attacks since 9/11.

So I can understand their case.

Personally, though, I'd rather not relax local readiness or funding. Texas, at least, seems to be a prime locale through which terrorists could pass unnoticed.

I see the point. One aspect of the Bush administration foreign policy doctrine (well, part of the doctrine of every administration since WWII) is that any fighting we do should be done on someone else's soil, not ours (U.S.).

I also agree with suppressing terrorism at its source--and spent decades helping to identify where those sources were. However, the Bush administration didn't put most of it's effort at the source of any terrorism. Iraq/Saddam Hussein was a nuisance thorn, most certainly. But this was a secular country that we actually used for years in the secret war against Muslim terrorism. (The war has been going on for decades before the American public actually noticed it was going on.) Iraq was opposed to and anathema to Muslim terrorism. What we have done in Iraq now is to open it up to being an ally and hotbed of Muslim terrorism.

The hottest war we had/have going on that's actually focused on Muslim terrorism is in Afghanistan and in the Pakistan border regions--and we've so overextended ourselves that not only can't we manage to cope with what's going on in either Afghanistan/Pakistan or Iraq, but we couldn't possible add places like Iran, Indonesia, and parts of Africa to the effort now--which these terrorist organizations jolly well know and will take/are taking advantage of to expand Muslim terrorism--using what we're doing to help them recruit.

 

[sr71plt]

Lemme check.....nope, still don't care what you think. Sorry.

Not required. Just shedding light on your bullying tactics when you use them. What you think isn't an issue.

 

[slyc_willie]

I see the point. One aspect of the Bush administration foreign policy doctrine (well, part of the doctrine of every administration since WWII) is that any fighting we do should be done on someone else's soil, not ours (U.S.).

I also agree with suppressing terrorism at its source--and spent decades helping to identify where those sources were. However, the Bush administration didn't put most of it's effort at the source of any terrorism. Iraq/Saddam Hussein was a nuisance thorn, most certainly. But this was a secular country that we actually used for years in the secret war against Muslim terrorism. (The war has been going on for decades before the American public actually noticed it was going on.) Iraq was opposed to and anathema to Muslim terrorism. What we have done in Iraq now is to open it up to being an ally and hotbed of Muslim terrorism.

The hottest war we had/have going on that's actually focused on Muslim terrorism is in Afghanistan and in the Pakistan border regions--and we've so overextended ourselves that not only can't we manage to cope with what's going on in either Afghanistan/Pakistan or Iraq, but we couldn't possible add places like Iran, Indonesia, and parts of Africa to the effort now--which these terrorist organizations jolly well know and will take/are taking advantage of to expand Muslim terrorism--using what we're doing to help them recruit.

The majority of the public in the US (and most of the western world) would never understand why this entire 'War on Terrorism' began in the first place. The popular misconception is that terrorists, out of nowhere, flew planes into the WTC towers for no other reason than because they hate Americans.

It's a war of ideology. Religion and politics play fluctuating roles in it, and it goes back decades. Back to the US backing of the independent Jewish state of Israel in 1947. Back to the "invasion' -- in the eyes of many Muslims -- of western thinking into their midst.

And there I see a big part of the problem. Fundamentalist, extremist Islam is fighting a religious jihad against forces they feel are at work to destroy their way of life. While we, their Western opponents, are fighting to express political and economic opportunities. It's Capitalism vs. Islam. Apples and oranges.

If it was Catholicism vs. Islam, the stakes would be simpler to understand.

 

[emap]

sr I am surprised at you. What I said is a joke, first said by I beleive General Macarthur. Or at least attributed to him in various movies, books and games.

I know they have lots of thing to argue over, did not know it was every day but well I suppose makes sense if they truly never do finish anything.

 

[sr71plt]

The majority of the public in the US (and most of the western world) would never understand why this entire 'War on Terrorism' began in the first place. The popular misconception is that terrorists, out of nowhere, flew planes into the WTC towers for no other reason than because they hate Americans.

It's a war of ideology. Religion and politics play fluctuating roles in it, and it goes back decades. Back to the US backing of the independent Jewish state of Israel in 1947. Back to the "invasion' -- in the eyes of many Muslims -- of western thinking into their midst.

And there I see a big part of the problem. Fundamentalist, extremist Islam is fighting a religious jihad against forces they feel are at work to destroy their way of life. While we, their Western opponents, are fighting to express political and economic opportunities. It's Capitalism vs. Islam. Apples and oranges.

If it was Catholicism vs. Islam, the stakes would be simpler to understand.

Agree that it's basically Capitalism vs. Islam. (Although I don't agree with what Cantdog said on another thread about the history of the forces moving through that region not mattering--the accummulation of history and relationships very definitely added up to what we have now, I think--and one of the strongest roots of that was the contrasting religions element--and which does include, yes, as you note, the U.S. backing of the Jewish state from 1947.) Heavy dose of Haves and Have Nots, too, with oil certainly being a strange wrinkle. From where they sit they should have, but when they look up, we have and the only ones of "them" who are smiling are a small handful of superrich royals who made a deal for us to have it--and who we prop up. If we really wanted to get to the root of the forces of terrorism, we'd have troops in Saudi Arabia and Egypt--that's where most of the brains of the organizations are coming from. But these are regimes we keep propped up.

To fair, I think, we need to concede that, at the base, those in the West are just as terrified of living an Islamic life as militant Muslims are of their environments being taking over by Hard Rock Cafe T-shirts.

I'm just as terrified at the prospect of living an Islamic life as anyone else--and I've seen it up close and can spiel off what parts of it I couldn't possibly stomach. I do know, however, that the only way to deal with/accommodate to such a force in the world is to fully understand what makes it tick--and why. It certainly isn't making sweeping "my-mindset-centered" assumptions about it and discounting its actual and potential power.

 

[sr71plt]

sr I am surprised at you. What I said is a joke, first said by I beleive General Macarthur. Or at least attributed to him in various movies, books and games.

I know they have lots of thing to argue over, did not know it was every day but well I suppose makes sense if they truly never do finish anything.

Yes, well, General MacArthur was often a self-possessed ass.

Your continued falacy (from my perspective) is in saying they truly never do finish anything. That's a ridiculous statement that could only be made from ignorance and stereotyping. If you embrace that statement, I can't pretend I don't call you out as being ignorant on the subject. Sorry, but there it is.

It's not arms and legs, of course. You can believe what you like--and the world won't shatter in two at the disagreement.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It's a war of ideology. Religion and politics play fluctuating roles in it, and it goes back decades. Back to the US backing of the independent Jewish state of Israel in 1947. Back to the "invasion' -- in the eyes of many Muslims -- of western thinking into their midst.

Sorry, Willy, but you have to go back about a thousand years farther to the time of Sullaman. This is a religeous war. With that I agree. But the war is between the various political and religeous factions in the middle east. Our government was simply stupid enough to (a) insist on backing the Israeli State and (b) interfere with the various factions, thus inviting the attack. Our government chose a side in a war it didn't even know was going on, not knowing which side it chose to back and even who the players were. Then when the shit hit the fan on 911, the Bush Administration screamed, "Sneak Attach!" and invented the whole war on terror.

To quote Walt Kelly, "We has met the enemy and they is us."

 

[slyc_willie]

Agree that it's basically Capitalism vs. Islam. (Although I don't agree with what Cantdog said on another thread about the history of the forces moving through that region not mattering--the accummulation of history and relationships very definitely added up to what we have now, I think--and one of the strongest roots of that was the contrasting religions element--and which does include, yes, as you note, the U.S. backing of the Jewish state from 1947.) Heavy dose of Haves and Have Nots, too, with oil certainly being a strange wrinkle. From where they sit they should have, but when they look up, we have and the only ones of "them" who are smiling are a small handful of superrich royals who made a deal for us to have it--and who we prop up. If we really wanted to get to the root of the forces of terrorism, we'd have troops in Saudi Arabia and Egypt--that's where most of the brains of the organizations are coming from. But these are regimes we keep propped up.

To fair, I think, we need to concede that, at the base, those in the West are just as terrified of living an Islamic life as militant Muslims are of their environments being taking over by Hard Rock Cafe T-shirts.

I'm just as terrified at the prospect of living an Islamic life as anyone else--and I've seen it up close and can spiel off what parts of it I couldn't possibly stomach. I do know, however, that the only way to deal with/accommodate to such a force in the world is to fully understand what makes it tick--and why. It certainly isn't making sweeping "my-mindset-centered" assumptions about it and discounting its actual and potential power.

I'm wondering what 'parts,' exactly, of Islam you have seen and could not stomach. There's nothing wrong with Islam, in the broad scope. I take offense at the way women are treated in Islamic countries, but I have noted that, for the most part, here in the states Muslim women are treated *almost* with equanimity. In time, I think, many Muslim women will feel equal in this country.

A cab driver who often takes me to work (since I don;t drive, by choice), has a prayer hanging from his rear-view mirror. The message is entirely positive. A prayer for the day, with hope for guidance and fortune. Not at all different from many Christian prayers I have seen hanging in stores, windows, and on the walls of Christian homes.

I agree that the only way to deal with Islam is to understand it, and then accept it. To deal with extremist Islam is to understand it. And then attack it. Destroy it. The majority of the Islamic world would agree, I believe.

 

[slyc_willie]

Sorry, Willy, but you have to go back about a thousand years farther to the time of Sullaman. This is a religeous war. With that I agree. But the war is between the various political and religeous factions in the middle east. Our government was simply stupid enough to (a) insist on backing the Israeli State and (b) interfere with the various factions, thus inviting the attack. Our government chose a side in a war it didn't even know was going on, not knowing which side it chose to back and even who the players were. Then when the shit hit the fan on 911, the Bush Administration screamed, "Sneak Attach!" and invented the whole war on terror.

To quote Walt Kelly, "We has met the enemy and they is us."

I certainly do understand that, Jenny. Since Muhammed took Mecca and praised Allah, the long-standing persecution of those who followed Judaism was kicked up a few notches. The religion of Islam was the newest kid on the block, and it happened to clash with one of the oldest organized religions on this planet.

What I was alluding to was the recent (as in, the last century) developments regarding religion vs. economic policy.

And I do not think it was ever stupid for the US to back the formation of Israel as a political state in the Middle East. What has been stupid is that we have not backed them enough.