Bush wants a "War Czar" for Iraq, Afghanistan

[Soxy]

This is a difficult one... because I don't think the ideals of Islam and "capitalism"/"democracy" really coincide. Am I wrong about that? And, if they don't coincide, then you all are right, and we really are wasting our time.

Well, Christianity and capitalism don't go together either. Heck, none of the Big 5 Religions go with capitalism.

 

Democracy I don't know.

[kapkomet]

They seem to just fine in Dubai FWIW.

Yea, that's true... but why? Why is Dubai so different then the rest of the Middle East?

[southsider2k5]

Yea, that's true... but why? Why is Dubai so different then the rest of the Middle East?

 

Well for one thing they are pretty tolerant of different people and ideas...

[kapkomet]

Well, Christianity and capitalism don't go together either. Heck, none of the Big 5 Religions go with capitalism.

That's very true - capitalism leads to 'coveting', and that's against the rules as far back as the 10 commandments. That's a whole 'nother interesting discussion.

 

 

Well for one thing they are pretty tolerant of different people and ideas...

Then they are infidels, according to the idealism we're fighting (supposedly). So - why isn't Dubai getting the crap bombed out of it, if they are like the "EVIL" Westerners?

[NorthSideSox72]

Yea, that's true... but why? Why is Dubai so different then the rest of the Middle East?

The following countries have tens or hundreds of millions of muslims, have at least partially democratic and/or capitalistic societies, and are neither cesspools of debilitating violence (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine) nor promoters of said violence (Iran, Syria, etc.)...

 

India

Turkey

Jordan

Egypt

U.A.E.

Bahrain

Kuwait

Qatar

Oman

Bangladesh (though they have many other problems)

Indonesia***

Pakistan***

 

*** = countries teetering on the edge

 

There are some others too that may fall in this category, I'd need to research further. Those are the ones I know for sure.

 

The point is... Islam doesn't conflict with democracy or capitalism directly as a religion in an absolute way. They can coexist. Some of those countries (Turkey and India for example) have large populations of multiple major religions intermingled, and make it work. It is not impossible.

Edited April 13, 2007 by NorthSideSox72

[kapkomet]

The following countries have tens or hundreds of millions of muslims, have at least partially democratic and/or capitalistic societies, and are neither cesspools of debilitating violence (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine) nor promoters of said violence (Iran, Syria, etc.)...

 

India

Turkey

Jordan

Egypt

U.A.E.

Bahrain

Kuwait

Qatar

Oman

Bangladesh (though they have many other problems)

Indonesia***

Pakistan***

 

*** = countries teetering on the edge

 

There are some others too that may fall in this category, I'd need to research further. Those are the ones I know for sure.

 

The point is... Islam doesn't conflict with democracy or capitalism directly as a religion in an absolute way. They can coexist. Some of those countries (Turkey and India for example) have large populations of multiple major religions intermingled, and make it work. It is not impossible.

Thank you. So why shouldn't we try... to instill this in Iraq again? 4 years over a period of history is awful short. It took 20+ years to rebuild Europe after WWII... but I suppose that's different, right? And I'm asking a serious question.

[Soxy]

Thank you. So why shouldn't we try... to instill this in Iraq again? 4 years over a period of history is awful short. It took 20+ years to rebuild Europe after WWII... but I suppose that's different, right? And I'm asking a serious question.

Well, yes, I do think Europe was different. First, after V-E day the fighting stopped. It wasn't a matter of civil war. Yes, there was some political differences (obviously resulting in the Iron Curtain), but overall there was a pretty international united front going on there.

 

And a couple of years AFTER the war ended there still weren't bombings and heavily military action going on there. And Religion wasn't much of a factor in post-war Europe. So, um, yeah I would say it IS different and I imagine most history people would agree with me there.

[kapkomet]

Well, yes, I do think Europe was different. First, after V-E day the fighting stopped. It wasn't a matter of civil war. Yes, there was some political differences (obviously resulting in the Iron Curtain), but overall there was a pretty international united front going on there.

 

And a couple of years AFTER the war ended there still weren't bombings and heavily military action going on there. And Religion wasn't much of a factor in post-war Europe. So, um, yeah I would say it IS different and I imagine most history people would agree with me there.

All true. WWII was a more "traditional" war... which is something that Bush has said lots, and that a lot of people here dismiss - that this is a war of ideals, not a "traditional" war with a "traditional enemy". All that said, I just don't think we should just say "meh, it's a sectarian (or civil) war, screw 'em, let them all kill each other and go home". More or less, that's what we're advocating with all of this. Is that ok?

 

(By the way, for once, I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I'm asking serious questions.)

[BigSqwert]

Kap, with all of your interest and concern in this matter perhaps Dubya will appoint you as the new "War Czar"?

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And it's because the "American People", er I mean the American POLITICIANS (yes, both parties) don't have the balls to "get 'er done" and get ya'll back home.

 

Everything has to be all "PC" so that we don't "offend" anyone. IT'S A WAR, start acting like it.

 

I know, I know, it's easy for me to say this behind my keyboard not getting shot at. But, you either have to poop or get off the pot sometime, because the tact taken right now is not working.

 

 

You are absolutely right and I want to key in on one thing you said in particular which is about not offending anyone. We've got our hands tied in many different respects. 2 weeks ago one of our platoons had a line on where to find a major player in the Shiite militias in this area. Unfortunately, we were told not to pick him up because our higher headquarters was, and I quote, "afraid there would be a negative reaction in the community".

 

Excuse me but aren't these the very people driving the sectarian violence and killing our people? And so it goes.

 

We run into similar problems dealing with the local mosques. If we want to go into one to do a search we basically need permission from Allah himself, the red tape is so bad. If we take fire from one, which we have several times, then we can shoot back but these "sacred places of worship" are where they stash their weapons many times.

[Soxy]

All true. WWII was a more "traditional" war... which is something that Bush has said lots, and that a lot of people here dismiss - that this is a war of ideals, not a "traditional" war with a "traditional enemy". All that said, I just don't think we should just say "meh, it's a sectarian (or civil) war, screw 'em, let them all kill each other and go home". More or less, that's what we're advocating with all of this. Is that ok?

 

(By the way, for once, I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I'm asking serious questions.)

To be honest, I agree with your general principle. I don't think we can just leave Iraq in a mess that we, basically, created with the war. But our current strategies are obviously not working. So, unless we're going to change strategies (and I have no idea to what) I don't see this getting any better.

 

We need to change something somehow in our approach over there (and I don't count the surge as a new idea), so I'm not exactly sure what fresh ideas are being brought forth. All I know is if we keep doing the same stuff (that isn't working) then we're never going to make any headway. But I don't think we can, in good conscience, leave it in such a mess.

[kapkomet]

Now all of that I agree with as well. I can't stand it that our government is toying around with this whole mess instead of getting to real solutions. It's a mess we indeed created, now can we please get someone to fix it with new ideas?

 

BigSqwert, I wish I were smart enough to fix it.

[Balta1701]

We need to change something somehow in our approach over there (and I don't count the surge as a new idea), so I'm not exactly sure what fresh ideas are being brought forth. All I know is if we keep doing the same stuff (that isn't working) then we're never going to make any headway. But I don't think we can, in good conscience, leave it in such a mess.

So now, I'm going to fire one more bit of reality into this discussion. There is one more key point, and that is that George W. Bush thinks that things over there are doing fine. He has acted this entire time like he has thought everything is great, and all we need are patience. George W. Bush wants us 100% to stay the course, exactly as it currently is.

 

No matter how many great plans we come up with here, no matter how many problems we identify, no matter what people think the solution is, George W. Bush will not accept them, because anything that would acknowledge even the slightest mistake or failure seems anathema to him.

 

Therefore, there are 3 things that can happen. Either we have to take control of this war away from Mr. Bush, which essentially can't happen because he can give orders to the military, or the Congress makes use of its budgetary authority to take the troops out of his hands. Or...we sit around just like this until January 21, 2009, at which point we'll have been nearly 6 years into a civil war, thousands more will be dead, and the situation will be 18 months further into the depths of Hell.

[NorthSideSox72]

So now, I'm going to fire one more bit of reality into this discussion. There is one more key point, and that is that George W. Bush thinks that things over there are doing fine. He has acted this entire time like he has thought everything is great, and all we need are patience. George W. Bush wants us 100% to stay the course, exactly as it currently is.

 

No matter how many great plans we come up with here, no matter how many problems we identify, no matter what people think the solution is, George W. Bush will not accept them, because anything that would acknowledge even the slightest mistake or failure seems anathema to him.

 

Therefore, there are 3 things that can happen. Either we have to take control of this war away from Mr. Bush, which essentially can't happen because he can give orders to the military, or the Congress makes use of its budgetary authority to take the troops out of his hands. Or...we sit around just like this until January 21, 2009, at which point we'll have been nearly 6 years into a civil war, thousands more will be dead, and the situation will be 18 months further into the depths of Hell.

Unfortunately, I think that last one is what will happen. I don't see this Congress finding 2/3 of each house willing to pull the financial reigns back on the war.

[kapkomet]

There is one more key point, and that is that George W. Bush thinks that things over there are doing fine. He has acted this entire time like he has thought everything is great, and all we need are patience. George W. Bush wants us 100% to stay the course, exactly as it currently is.

 

No matter how many great plans we come up with here, no matter how many problems we identify, no matter what people think the solution is, George W. Bush will not accept them, because anything that would acknowledge even the slightest mistake or failure seems anathema to him.

I disagree, but whatever. You'll always see it that way.

[Texsox]

I disagree, but whatever. You'll always see it that way.

 

Which part are you disagreeing with?

 

A. That it is going poorly

or

B. Bush won't admit it?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Which part are you disagreeing with?

 

A. That it is going poorly

or

B. Bush won't admit it?

 

 

Read the latest entry in my blog.

[southsider2k5]

To be honest, I agree with your general principle. I don't think we can just leave Iraq in a mess that we, basically, created with the war. But our current strategies are obviously not working. So, unless we're going to change strategies (and I have no idea to what) I don't see this getting any better.

 

We need to change something somehow in our approach over there (and I don't count the surge as a new idea), so I'm not exactly sure what fresh ideas are being brought forth. All I know is if we keep doing the same stuff (that isn't working) then we're never going to make any headway. But I don't think we can, in good conscience, leave it in such a mess.

 

Great so we have begun fighting this just like Vietnam. We might as well pull out, because we have already quit.

[kapkomet]

Great so we have begun fighting this just like Vietnam. We might as well pull out, because we have already quit.

Pretty much. What a great day for us.

[Soxy]

Great so we have begun fighting this just like Vietnam. We might as well pull out, because we have already quit.

I don't think I said that. I mean, we just need to think of a new way to approach.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think I said that. I mean, we just need to think of a new way to approach.

 

I'm not talking about what you said, I am talking about what Nuke referred to in his post, and in his thread about the way we are fighting this. If we are letting things like this go on, we aren't fighting anymore anyway. This is a miserable PR campaign now, and is doomed to failure. Fighting not to lose, just means you are not fighting to win. Bring the boys home, because this is over.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I meant to quote NUKE!

[kapkomet]

And that's been my whole premise - you have to fight a war to win...

 

Congratulations, you people on the hard left... you got EXACTLY what you wanted.

[BigSqwert]

Congratulations, you people on the hard left... you got EXACTLY what you wanted.

Really? I wanted us to never go to war with Iraq so I didn't get EXACTLY what I wanted.

[kapkomet]

Really? I wanted us to never go to war with Iraq so I didn't get EXACTLY what I wanted.

But we did... and so now, the next best thing is to "get the hell out" (at any cost).

 

WOOT!

[BigSqwert]

But we did... and so now, the next best thing is to "get the hell out" (at any cost).

 

WOOT!

Sure beats staying there for the next 50 years. I'd rather see the billions of dollars spent there being used on health care, poverty, infrastructure, alternative fuel research, etc.

Edited April 16, 2007 by BigSqwert