OT: What should we do in Iraq?

[Merry]

While I dont doubt that your precious Marines are of much higher fighting power than the average Muslim Soldier, Marines need sleep to. Marines need to drive over roads to get to places. Planes need to land. etc.

And thats why i seriously doubt 1:50 is still possible, nowadays. A grenade falling down a house where a group of marines is doing a search goes a long way. Unless you shoot everyone wearing a burka or a turban, 1:50 is very, very difficult to get to.

Ofc. the Hisbollah conflict lately was kind of interesting, when it comes to efficiency: 100 Rockets fired, 20 hit a town (its not like they where aiming at small targets there) and 5ish people killed, 15 wounded.

[TMLutas]

...We'd actually need something like a propaganda department to do this, though. 'Cause so long as the Liberal Media keeps up the Doom and Gloom reporting, we're our own worst enemies here.

A great part of the problem is that the media analysts love picking apart our propaganda (but not theirs for some reason) severely reducing its effectiveness.

[TMLutas]

.... Congratulations, you've just proven every extremist right in their mad ravings that we are indeed out to get Islam. We don't need warfare here, because we CANNOT and WILL NOT be able to overpower Islam, and attempting to use the military as a solution will make the problem worse. It didn't work back during the times of the Crusades, and it won't work now either.

Um, Xellas... when somebody declares war on you, and then proves it by attacking you, the STUPIDEST thing you can do is to make the Walmart Happy Smily Face your front line soldier. No, you send the Marines to kick their rears out their front ends. Military action didn't work so well in the Crusades, because the Crusaders didn't have any Marines.

Actually the Crusades didn't work very well as counter-attack because the muslims were:

a. just as stubborn then as they are now
b. in an economically superior position to the West at the time. This one has changed.

The military sustainability of any endeavor ultimately rests on the economics of the underlying society. That's where Walmart comes into the picture legitimately.

[LoneWolf23k]

A great part of the problem is that the media analysts love picking apart our propaganda (but not theirs for some reason) severely reducing its effectiveness.

And that in itself is a serious problem. To quote Sun Tzu:
"The Monarch and his people should have the same aspirations. If the government and the people don't have the same aspirations, victory is unachievable."

[TMLutas]

No, military action didn't work so well in the Crusades for the same reason that it won't work so well here. The problem is one of numbers. You've basically declared war on all of Islam here, demanding that basically the entire Islamic world roll over and become nice moderate democratic people like the USA.

Here's your first mistake. Historically, muslims have their own factions in favor of moderation, democracy, and liberalism. They're so tiny today in large part because the West and the Soviet bloc supported competing authoritarians during the Cold War. This is why GWB apologized for US foreign policy "realism" in the ME. Liberals in the ME were stomped by the big boys for decades and now you're trying to make them out like they're some foreign "bought and paid for" lackeys. That's just historically wrong.

The problem is that their faith DEMANDS that they rail against that, and when you attempt to use military force you will actually recruit MORE people for their cause. Military might only works when you either have a hard target that you can destroy and end the war, or have a well-defined group of people who you can eliminate to end the war. In this case, we have no hard targets to sepak of, and the only groups we have to target are ever-changing and can recruit pretty much at will from a pool thats three times the size of our entire nation, much less our military forces. They also feel they have absolutely nothing to lose by doing any of these things, and only their salvation and souls to gain by winning.

Since you're mistaken about the nature of Islam, it's led you into error on the way recruitment works. Al Jazeera is viewed in some quarters as a US tool, with some justification. They slam the US at most turns but they establish a principle that is deadly to the long-term viability of our enemies, information source choice. They provide an alternative viewpoint that cracks the information vacuum that is necessary for sustainable large scale extremist recruitment.

Shouting out "God is great" while sawing off heads is an acquired taste. If you've not acquired it yet, it's a great turn-off which is why we were intercepting messages telling Zarqawi to stop that sort of thing.

The difference between the rise and fall of the Taliban and the longevity of Khomenist extremism in Iran is that the Taliban were under constant military pressure and that led to a speed up in showing the people how ugly and degraded their form of Islam is. Military pressure is useful for more than killing hard targets. It stresses the enemy throughout their systems and exposes inherent flaws. The islamists have a lot of flaws that get exposed that way.

Little hint about Islamic peoples. They do NOT recognize separation of church and state in ANY form. For the average Muslim, that applies to other countries as well, so they assume that the USA government is overtly controled by Christian affairs.

But we've got millions of muslims here who know better. There are millions more muslims in Europe who can see how little christianity there guides political action. Again, an information vacuum is a necessary precondition for success in Islamic extremism. They'll shut down independent media voices if they can, no matter how friendly. Because to crack that vacuum kills their chances. The truth will out over the long run. Our job is to spread it and spread hope for victory.

That means US military force against an Islamic government is construed not only as a military attack but a religious one as well. And I think we all know that there is nothing so fanatical as a zealot. Basically, if you send your precious marines in to try and curbstomp this down, for every one you shoot down ten more WILL take his place, and that will continue well up into the hundreds of thousands numbers. Twenty marines against five thousand screaming maniacs who don't care if they die. You do the odds.

Given the right terrain and enough ammunition, I'll take the marines every time. I find the comment "your precious marines" to be somewhat harsh though. If I might ask, where are you from that you feel justified to use that formulation?

Even if we COULD win this war on a military front, heavy moral questions come into play. Is it worth it to slaughter literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS over this? That's the cost your looking at on THEIR side. That doesn't even touch the cost we will pay in men and money here. I personally don't think what was done on 9/11 is an excuse to declare war on one billion people and start slaughtering. We called it genocide when Hitler slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Holocaust... well those numbers will be MILD if we decide to actually try to use military might to put down any resistance from the Muslim world.

In short, the job of the guys behind the lines, you and me both, is to find a way to win without going the genocide route. The military's job is to keep us from getting our throats slit while we figure out how to do that and, if we fail to find better answers, to kill until the other side gives in no matter what the cost. The moral responsibility for genocide is, in my opinion, on us. We either find a better win or we are responsible for the blood that flows.

But defanging our military is not the answer because it is the one institution that allows us the liberty to find the better way. It must be used or we fall into dhimmitude.

I find it offensive to cast us in the Hitler role in a replay of the 3rd Reich. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was an Okhrana forgery. The Islamist enterprise to create a caliphate and eventually rule the world is a real endeavor. That makes all the difference in the world.

[TMLutas]

The question is not "are all muslims bad people?"
The question is "Is Islam a bad religion?"
The answer to that question is yes, yes it is.

I would agree with you here. But you so greatly foul up why and how Islam is a bad religion that if you were a missile on a test range I'd push the self-destruct button because you're a hazard to your own side.

Islam is a bad religion because it denies the divinity of Christ, end stop. The consequences of that are large and far reaching and end up with people hacking heads off with blunt knives shouting God is great but that denial is the ultimate root of the problem.

Islam is the enemy. <I>Precisely because it declared war on us first.</i>

For 1400 years, it has never been anything else. And short of disembowelling itself of its own core tenets and first principles, it will never be anything else.

The nature of the combat is not always physical. The rules of this war are not always savage. A certain civility must be maintained if we are to win without genocide and you are ripping right through the conversational support structure necessary for our ultimate victory, cut it out.

Why do you think that there were such riots over the papal speech at Regensburg? It was one old man setting the table for the gelding of Islamist extremism, a profoundly scary moment for muslims. That's the sort of verbal warfare that is necessary.

Who is our enemy? Anyone who picks up a weapon and tries to kill us. And only fools deny that it is the Koran itself, and not any "radical interpretation" thereof, that is the foundation of their war against us.

But precisely because the Koran is somewhat based on heretical monophysite christianity our condemnation of it must be with precise scalpel cuts and not the bludgeon that you use. Go back to Emperor Paleologos' condemnation. He did not condemn Islam in its entirety but rather what it brought that was new. You fail to make the elementary distinction that he kept (though even his formulation was not perfect) and your effectiveness is radically reduced because of your over-broad swipes.

Again, look at Emperor Manuel II Paleologos. He made his statement in the Sultan's own barracks, arguing with a fellow soldier in the Sultan's army in which he was serving at the time. That's the sort of intimate, close contact that is going to win this war, a level of contact that your broad attacks makes impossible. Think!

[TMLutas]

... Time to clear up something...

The question is not "are all muslims bad people?"
The question is "Is Islam a bad religion?"
The answer to that question is yes, yes it is.

Islam actually has rules based of Judeo-Christian teachings. To condemn one requires condemnation of the others.

Ummm... No. Condemning Islam does not require the condemnation of Christianity as common sense should tell you. Popes have been condemning Islam for over a millenium. Does that mean that a millenium's worth of Popes have been anti-christian? People have made that argument but usually it's protestant bigots who are doing it. You don't seem to be the type to start railing on about the Whore of Babylon.

[TMLutas]

A great part of the problem is that the media analysts love picking apart our propaganda (but not theirs for some reason) severely reducing its effectiveness.

And that in itself is a serious problem. To quote Sun Tzu:
"The Monarch and his people should have the same aspirations. If the government and the people don't have the same aspirations, victory is unachievable."

And here you perceive a great deal of the true nature of this war.

[Calbeck]

Perhaps, we should start by first asking some very basic questions:

1. Who are they?

Primarily, the Sunni population of Iraq.

2. What do they want?

Return of control of Iraq's government, economy, and military, all three of which they overwhelmingly dominated since Hussein came to power in 1979, despite being a minority culture.

3. Why do they want it?

Because they can't stand the idea of sharing it with people whom they firmly believe are their social, religious, and ethnic inferiors --- namely, the Shias and Kurds. It is reasonable to say that today's Iraqi Sunnis think of Shias in the same way as American Whites of the 1920s used to think of Blacks. Kurds are considered by Sunnis to be just short of traitorous by birth.

4. And why do they want it so badly?

For much the same reasons White America of 1920 would have a problem with an enforced ending of segregation.

Not to mention simple vengeance: since Sunnis were the far-and-away dominant force in the government, economy, and military, it was Sunnis who were most heavily hit by invasion-era collateral damage because they lived in the high-value districts close to their places of work. Of the 10,000 Iraqi soldiers who died in the invasion, the overwhelming majority were also Sunni.

[LoneWolf23k]

So the question here is, how do we get the Sunnis and the Shiites to co-exist peacefully? It's going to take a lot of work to overcome centuries of schism...

[RHJunior]

The problem with the Islamics is Islam.

As with the Nazis, the KKK, and any other racist, homicidal fanatics, Muslims stop being a problem in the world when they stop being practicing Muslims. When they stop following the leadership of a genocidal pedophilic Jihadist known as Mohammed, they can be tolerated. When they actually turn away from the racist and genocidal teachings of that murdering madman, they stand a fair chance of becoming civilized.

Until then, the results will be the same as if we'd rebuilt Germany and Italy without removing the Nazis and the Fascists from power. So long as the teachings of Islam are accepted as a legitimate theology, it will continue to progenerate what it has always progenerated, from the very first Muslim himself--- misogyny, brutality, racism, enslavement, bloodthirsty violence, and homicide.

Over six thousand deadly terrorist attacks by Islamics worldwide since 9-11, and counting. If it had been done by Baptists, the mainstream couldn't connect the dots fast enough.

[The JAM]

Thanks, Calbeck. Now, you mentioned the Kurds and the Shias, and of them I ask:
5. Are the Kurds and the Shias 100% victims of this whole diatribe, or are they also doing atrocities on their own? (i.e., apply questions 1-4 on them now)

[LoneWolf23k]

Ralph, the fallacy in your argument is that it ignores the many Muslims who live, both here in the West as well as in the Middle-East, without any inclinations towards violence and terrorism.

We can't win this if we treat every Muslim in the Middle-East as being no better then the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.

[Merry]

So Ralph's suggestion is to ban islam from islamic countries.

You might want to check history books: even the romans didnt manage to rout out christians back in the early days, despite throwing them to lions, prosecuting them and even killing them on sight if caching them praying/preaching.

Lets say you liberated germany after ww2, and did try to wrench christianism from them: do you honestly believe you could have done that? (and if you go into brainlock mode by saying christianism cant be routed out because it is the ONE TRUE FAITH or some other garbage, lets say germany was buddhistic).

[Wanderwolf]

Ralph, the fallacy in your argument is that it ignores the many Muslims who live, both here in the West as well as in the Middle-East, without any inclinations towards violence and terrorism.

We can't win this if we treat every Muslim in the Middle-East as being no better then the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.

He also reiterates a point he refuses to argue; the idea that Mohammed was a pedophile. There are sources that say differently...

But, yes. As I often point out when he starts claiming that every Muslim in the U.S.A. is just waiting for a numerical advantage to start slitting throats: I really don't think Muhammad Ali is that kind of person.

"What's really hurting me, the name Islam is involved, and Muslim is involved and causing trouble and starting hate and violence," Ali said during a rare, impromptu speech at the World Trade Center attack command center.

"Islam is not a killer religion," said Ali, who has suffered with Parkinson's disease since 1984 and hasn't spoken at length in public in years. "Islam means peace," he said. "I couldn't just sit home and watch people label Muslims as the reason for this problem."

But Ali said he would back "100%" whatever action the United States takes against the perpetrators of last week's terrorist attack.

Those people, he said, are not followers of Islam. -- September 21, 2001

Me, I still want to get back to Osama-hunting...

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[Axelgear]

So Ralph's suggestion is to ban islam from islamic countries.

You might want to check history books: even the romans didnt manage to rout out christians back in the early days, despite throwing them to lions, prosecuting them and even killing them on sight if caching them praying/preaching.

Lets say you liberated germany after ww2, and did try to wrench christianism from them: do you honestly believe you could have done that? (and if you go into brainlock mode by saying christianism cant be routed out because it is the ONE TRUE FAITH or some other garbage, lets say germany was buddhistic).

Not to be a grammar nazi (No pun intended), it's Christandom and/or Christianity and Buddhist. There's no such thing as Christianism.

[Sapphire]

So Ralph's suggestion is to ban islam from islamic countries.

You might want to check history books: even the romans didnt manage to rout out christians back in the early days, despite throwing them to lions, prosecuting them and even killing them on sight if caching them praying/preaching.

Lets say you liberated germany after ww2, and did try to wrench christianism from them: do you honestly believe you could have done that? (and if you go into brainlock mode by saying christianism cant be routed out because it is the ONE TRUE FAITH or some other garbage, lets say germany was buddhistic).

Not to be a grammar nazi (No pun intended), it's Christandom and/or Christianity and Buddhist. There's no such thing as Christianism.

To the contrary: One, it's "Christendom," and second, Christianism is a neologism for a Christian form of American Dominionism.

[BrockthePaine]

Why can't people seem to call us by our proper name? We are Christians and we practice Christianity. We are not "Christianists".

[LoneWolf23k]

So Ralph's suggestion is to ban islam from islamic countries.

You might want to check history books: even the romans didnt manage to rout out christians back in the early days, despite throwing them to lions, prosecuting them and even killing them on sight if caching them praying/preaching.

Lets say you liberated germany after ww2, and did try to wrench christianism from them: do you honestly believe you could have done that? (and if you go into brainlock mode by saying christianism cant be routed out because it is the ONE TRUE FAITH or some other garbage, lets say germany was buddhistic).

Not to be a grammar nazi (No pun intended), it's Christandom and/or Christianity and Buddhist. There's no such thing as Christianism.

I've heard it called Chretianism in french, but I doubt that's what he meant...

[Xellas]

The problem with the Islamics is Islam.

As with the Nazis, the KKK, and any other racist, homicidal fanatics, Muslims stop being a problem in the world when they stop being practicing Muslims. When they stop following the leadership of a genocidal pedophilic Jihadist known as Mohammed, they can be tolerated. When they actually turn away from the racist and genocidal teachings of that murdering madman, they stand a fair chance of becoming civilized.

Until then, the results will be the same as if we'd rebuilt Germany and Italy without removing the Nazis and the Fascists from power. So long as the teachings of Islam are accepted as a legitimate theology, it will continue to progenerate what it has always progenerated, from the very first Muslim himself--- misogyny, brutality, racism, enslavement, bloodthirsty violence, and homicide.

Over six thousand deadly terrorist attacks by Islamics worldwide since 9-11, and counting. If it had been done by Baptists, the mainstream couldn't connect the dots fast enough.

... Wow. Just WOW. You have one HELL of a warped view of Islam.

Are there completely and utterly screwed up people who practice Islam? Yes. Yes there are. I'll freely and openly admit that extremist Muslims are some of the lowest, filthiest, most despicable creatures to ever slither on the face of this planet. But MOST MUSLIMS ARE NOT EXTREMIST.

The VAST majority of Muslims are peaceful people who disdain violence far more than most Christians. The only exception to that is when they are confronted with people who want to convert them to another religion, and even then the majority of them will simply ignore you.

Let's suggest that behind EVERY one of those 6000 attacks you mentioned, there was a support network of 100 people, and no support networks had ANY overlaps (more than likely a gross overestimation). That makes 600,000 different people supporting this extreme, bloody version of Islam. Or less than 5% of the estimated worldwide total of Muslims. If the religion itself was at fault, that number would be at least up in the 20% range, more than likely higher.

Until then, the results will be the same as if we'd rebuilt Germany and Italy without removing the Nazis and the Fascists from power. So long as the teachings of Islam are accepted as a legitimate theology, it will continue to progenerate what it has always progenerated, from the very first Muslim himself--- misogyny, brutality, racism, enslavement, bloodthirsty violence, and homicide.

They are also known for organized charity, advancement of the medical world by leaps and bounds in their time, and uniting of a horribly bloody segment of the world under one rule that minimizes the violence and bloodshed. At least up until we walked in and started stirring things around because we didn't agree with who was in charge.

To be honest RHJ, I'd say that a vast part of the reason that Muslims have a problem with us is is because of Christians like you who are too eager to react in rage and hate. Why don't you take a long look at your bible about forgiveness and judgement. If I remember correct, you are to forgive freely, and avoid judging lest you be judged by the same measure, and as people here have shown, Christianity is guilty of mysogyny, brutality, racism, enslavement, bloodthirsty violence, and homicide as well. Would you call US an evil religion? I think not, so try extending the same open-mindedness to Islam.

Like I said before, you are taking what is a minority among Muslims and giving it far more power than it really has. You need to actually study what Islam has done for the world and talk to people who have lived among Muslims before you can start making widespread assumptions like that. Take a week to really dig into Islam's history and see what you find. I think you'll be suprised.[/quote]