A primer on Muslim "Anger"

[Riverwind]

Of course they would sell as much as they could. They would also use the money to arm themselves. And why would Iran having nukes be a good thing?

It would allow them to protect themselves from this Caliphate thingy.

The Taliban got into power because they were better than the anarchy offered by the warlords. They maintained power for the same reasons.

Huh? They got into power because they took it by force. Nobody had a choice in the matter.

Not quite - the Taliban was a grass roots movement that built its base by actually helping the average people in Afghanistan.

Any new gov't in Saudi Arabia would have to provide at least the same level of stability.

Of course it would be stable. All repressive societies are.

A repressive society like Iran is not a threat to world oil supplies - they still ship as much as possible (although none of it goes to the US). They use it to buy weapons and create trouble in places like Israel but they are not threat to our way of life. IOW - even if you are right about this Caliphate thingy it does not appear that it is a threat to anyone other than its immediate neighbors.

BTW - the utter failure of the invasion of Iraq demonstrates that it is no longer economically or militarily possible to invade another country and keep control of it. So this Caliphate thingy might spout a lot of rhetoric and stir up trouble a la the Cold War but it won't be expanding much beyond its initial borders.

[jdobbin]

No. Jihadists believe this is a religious war but I know we certainly don't look at it as a way to further the Christian religion.

I just don't think the majority of Muslims are interested in war. The only people capable of making Iraq work are the people of Iraq itself. We can't "convert" them to democracy. The majority of the Iraqi people now want the U.S. to leave according to an Associated Press poll released Wednesday.

[KrustyKidd]

I just don't think the majority of Muslims are interested in war.

Who is? I ceratinly am not but believe that it is necessay to counter this threat.

The only people capable of making Iraq work are the people of Iraq itself. We can't "convert" them to democracy.

The voter turnouts prove they have taken democracy quite well.

The majority of the Iraqi people now want the U.S. to leave according to an Associated Press poll released Wednesday.

Of course they do. Even the US does not want to be there but, we all know what will happen if they leave. If you look at other questions, you will note that even when they want the US to leave, they don't wish them to leave right away.

[KrustyKidd]

It would allow them to protect themselves from this Caliphate thingy.

Won't need protection as the US has conducted an effective War on Terror.

Not quite - the Taliban was a grass roots movement that built its base by actually helping the average people in Afghanistan.

Taliban

The Taliban quickly swept across Afghanistan, absorbing or eliminating any rivals. The lone holdouts who refused to accept the Pakistan-sponsored Taliban were Northern resistance leader Ahmad Shah Masoud, and General Abdul Rashid Dostum from the communist regime that had collapsed due to the coup attempt. A protracted battle then ensued between Taliban and the Northern Alliance, primarily around the northern outskirts of Kabul, but also raging far and wide across the North, including Herat and Kunduz.

The Taliban were unfortunately extremely callous when it came to successfully running a country. Rather than pursuing responsibile good governance, they instead pursued ruthless oppression and rule of the gun. They overlooked the fact that the nation was starving and facing calamity in every possible way imagined.

A repressive society like Iran is not a threat to world oil supplies - they still ship as much as possible (although none of it goes to the US). They use it to buy weapons and create trouble in places like Israel but they are not threat to our way of life. IOW - even if you are right about this Caliphate thingy it does not appear that it is a threat to anyone other than its immediate neighbors.

Iran is a reppressive society by out standards certainly but is a modern society considered quite liberal by

Jihadists. It also does not have an expansionist policy so they are not a threat at this time.

BTW - the utter failure of the invasion of Iraq demonstrates that it is no longer economically or militarily possible to invade another country and keep control of it. So this Caliphate thingy might spout a lot of rhetoric and stir up trouble a la the Cold War but it won't be expanding much beyond its initial borders.

This Caliphate thingy as you put it is still a threat even if you do not believe it simply because Jihadists do and they will continue to work against regimes and weak governments the world over attempting to topple them and create mayhem. As for expanding beyond it's initial borders, what borders are you talikng about? It has none as it is an entire idealology that encompasses religion, social life, politics, economics leaving no individual choice.

[Riverwind]

It would allow them to protect themselves from this Caliphate thingy.

Won't need protection as the US has conducted an effective War on Terror.

ROTFL. That would really funny if it was not so sad. We can't take liquids on planes thanks to the 'home grown' terrorists created by the invasion of Iraq. Hundreds of people have died in bombings in London and Madrid that would have never happened if the US had not invaded Iraq. The US's own spy agencies have admitted the invasion of Iraq has made the terror problem worse. The war on terror has been a complete failure. It is time for a new approach.

This Caliphate thingy as you put it is still a threat even if you do not believe it simply because Jihadists do and they will continue to work against regimes and weak governments the world over attempting to topple them and create mayhem.

No worse than the communists or americans during the cold war.

As for expanding beyond it's initial borders, what borders are you talikng about? It has none as it is an entire idealology that encompasses religion, social life, politics, economics leaving no individual choice.

An ideology that has no appeal outside of a very, very narrow segment of Islamic society. You are afraid of ghosts and phantoms. We should protect ourselves from wannabe bombers with spies and good police work but we should leave Islamic societies alone and let them evolve in the whatever way they choose to evolve.

[KrustyKidd]

Hundreds of people have died in bombings in London and Madrid that would have never happened if the US had not invaded Iraq. The US's own spy agencies have admitted the invasion of Iraq has made the terror problem worse. The war on terror has be a complete failure. It is time for a new approach.

You actually believe that Jihadists don't employ terrorism? Of course they do and they don't stop using that Iraq or no Iraq. So not doing anything and letting Jihadists do whatever they please is better. That's the 'new' approach you are refering to?

No worse than the communists or americans during the cold war.

So you think Afganistan under the Taliban is a good thing and believe that a better thing would be a Taliban style empire from Morocco to Indonesia including over half of Africa?

An ideology that has no appeal outside of a very, very narrow segment of Islamic society. You are afraid of ghosts and phantoms.

Half of Saudi Arabia supports this phiplosophy as does a good protion of Pakistan not to mention other countries such as Somalia, Ethiopia and others. That's hardly a narrow segment of Islamic society.

[Riverwind]

So not doing anything and letting Jihadists do whatever they please is better. That's the 'new' approach you are referring to?

My belief is being involved militarily inside Islamic societies adds fuel to the fire. We protect ourselves at home and let the chips fall where they may abroad.

So you think Afghanistan under the Taliban is a good thing and believe that a better thing would be a Taliban style empire from Morocco to Indonesia including over half of Africa?

Hell no but I know that the chances of a 'Taliban' style gov't showing up anywhere other than Afghanistan is next to zero. Even if the Wahabbis took over Saudi Arabia they would be no worse than the Mullahs in Iran (i.e. they will ship oil as fast as they can pump it).

Half of Saudi Arabia likes this philosophy as does a good portion of Pakistan not to mention many other countries. That's hardly a narrow segment of Islamic society.

And the US intervention in Iraq has given these people a huge political boost. The best way to trigger a revolution is to find a foreign enemy that can be used to unite people. That is why Bin Laden attacked the US. It is time for the US to stop being Bin Ladin's patsy.

[jbg]

Iran is a reppressive society by out standards certainly but is a modern society considered quite liberal by

Jihadists. It also does not have an expansionist policy so they are not a threat at this time.

Their support of Hezbollah indicates they have designs on Israel. Their war with Iraq indicates some interest in expansion.

[KrustyKidd]

My belief is being involved militarily inside Islamic societies adds fuel to the fire. We protect ourselves at home and let the chips fall where they may abroad.

Better to let them take over the societies right? That will stop them for sure.

Hell no but I know that the chances of a 'Taliban' style gov't showing up anyone other than Afghanistan is next to zero. Even if the Wahabbis took over Saudi Arabia they would be no worse than the Mullahs in Iran (i.e. they will ship oil as fast as they can pump it).

And finance arms for their next takeover. Yes, that will be great.

And the US intervention in Iraq has given these people a huge political boost. The best way to trigger a revolution is to find a foreign enemy that can be used to unite people. That is why Bin Laden attacked the US. It is time for the US to stop being Bin Ladin's patsy.

So how would you have gotten Saudi Arabia to take on Al Queda?

[Riverwind]

Their support of Hezbollah indicates they have designs on Israel. Their war with Iraq indicates some interest in expansion.

Wrong again - Iran was attacked by Iraq. Iran was simply defending itself.

[jbg]

Their support of Hezbollah indicates they have designs on Israel. Their war with Iraq indicates some interest in expansion.

Wrong again - Iran was attacked by Iraq. Iran was simply defending itself.

The war went far beyond that phase.

[Riverwind]

Better to let them take over the societies right? That will stop them for sure.

We cannot change what is going to happen in other societies - if the the Islamists take over they will take over it is really not in our power to change that. However, if we waste money and blood trying to stop these changes we will simply make Muslims even more resentful of us and make attacks like 9/11 even more likely.

So how would you have gotten Saudi Arabia to take on Al Queda?

The House of Saud is not stupid. They would have figured out that they need to do something without the invasion of Iraq - self preservation is a powerful persuader.

[jbg]

Better to let them take over the societies right? That will stop them for sure.

We cannot change what is going to happen in other societies - if the the Islamists take over they will take over it is really not in our power to change that. However, if we waste money and blood trying to stop these changes we will simple make Muslims even more resentful of us.

So how would you have gotten Saudi Arabia to take on Al Queda?

The House of Saud is not stupid. They would have figured out that they need to do something without the invasion of Iraq - self preservation is a powerful persuader.

Oh really? They let this situation develop since the 1973-74 runup in oil prices.

[jdobbin]

Who is? I ceratinly am not but believe that it is necessay to counter this threat.

The voter turnouts prove they have taken democracy quite well.

Of course they do. Even the US does not want to be there but, we all know what will happen if they leave. If you look at other questions, you will note that even when they want the US to leave, they don't wish them to leave right away.

That poll that came out Wednesday was a large majority wanting an immediate pull-out. If the U.S. respects democracy and if it is reflected in the next government, the U.S. ought to heed the people's wishes.

[KrustyKidd]

We cannot change what is going to happen in other societies - if the the Islamists take over they will take over it is really not in our power to change that. However, if we waste money and blood trying to stop these changes we will simply make Muslims even more resentful of us and make attacks like 9/11 even more likely.

If we can empower coutries with democracy then Jihadists don't stand a chance. Attacks like 911 are designed not to hurt us but to enrage us into taking action so the Jihadists can rally the people under their cause.

The House of Saud is not stupid. They would have figured out that they need to do something without the invasion of Iraq - self preservation is a powerful persuader.

They continued to appease the Jihadists allowing them to grow, train and buck up right in Saudi Arabia. That was their self preservation method. I can see the similarities between their way of doing things and yours.

[KrustyKidd]

That poll that came out Wednesday was a large majority wanting an immediate pull-out. If the U.S. respects democracy and if it is reflected in the next government, the U.S. ought to heed the people's wishes.

I saw another poll that said Iraqis wanted the US to increase the troop levels. Hmm.

[jbg]

That poll that came out Wednesday was a large majority wanting an immediate pull-out. If the U.S. respects democracy and if it is reflected in the next government, the U.S. ought to heed the people's wishes.

Both of our countries have representative forms of government, yours a constitutional monarchy, ours a people's republic. We elect representatives to make decisions. Other than the identity of the representatives, voters do not, should not and must not make decisions (other than in rare referendums).

[Riverwind]

If we can empower coutries with democracy then Jihadists don't stand a chance. Attacks like 911 are designed not to hurt us but to enrage us into taking action so the Jihadists can rally the people under their cause.

We cannot impose democracy on any society. All we can do is knock out the existing gov't then cross our fingers and hope we end up with a democracy. Even then democracies still elect people like Hamas and Hezbolla so democracy is not a panacea.

I agree that Bin Laden wanted to provoke an over reaction and that is exactly why reacting with a lot more restraint would have been a better response.

They continued to appease the Jihadists allowing them to grow, train and buck up right in Saudi Arabia. That was their self preservation method.

9/11 was a wake up call for everyone in the world. The US needed to go into Afghanistan to clear out the Al Quaeda bases there. I am pretty sure the Saudis would figure that the the US would do the same with Saudi Arabia if another attack was launched from there.

[KrustyKidd]

We cannot impose democracy on any society. All we can do is knock out the existing gov't then cross our fingers and hope we end up with a democracy. Even then democracies still elect people like Hamas and Hezbolla so democracy is not a panacea.

Not imposing, creating the conditions then nurturing it. And yes, they may elect an anti western government but still, that is a government that allows people to have their say and control in their lives. A condition that is not conductive to a Jihadists ability to recruit.

I agree that Bin Laden wanted to provoke an over reaction and that is exactly why reacting with a lot more restraint would have been a better response.

Excellent! What are your tactics of conducting the War on Terror then? Looking forward to hearing them.

9/11 was a wake up call for everyone in the world. The US needed to go into Afghanistan to clear out the Al Quaeda bases there. I am pretty sure the Saudis would figure that the the US would do the same with Saudi Arabia if another attack was launched from there.

So in your mind, the US would have been better off invading Islams holiest property? You figure that would have had less of an impact on Jihadists than taking out an Aposphate corrupt dictator?

[Riverwind]

Excellent! What are your tactics of conducting the War on Terror then? Looking forward to hearing them.

Take out the Al Queda bases in Afghanistan and stick around long enough to ensure the country can get back on its feet. Other than that police work, additional security measures and fixing the communication problems that plaqued the agencies that were already responsible for stopping terrorist attacks before they happen.

So in your mind, the US would have been better off invading Islams holiest property? You figure that would have had less of an impact on Jihadists than taking out an Aposphate corrupt dictator?

The question was what was necessary to convince the House of Saud to take on the Wahabbists. You assert that it was necessary to invade Iraq to convince the House of Saud. I argue the invasion of Afghanistan was sufficient. In both cases the threat of a US invasion of Saudi Arabia is a key element.

I am not a pacificist - I recognize that military action is absolutely necessary at times and that all military action is messy. I simply feel that the choice to invade Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time and that any military action against Iran at this time would magnify the Iraq screw up 100 fold.

[jdobbin]

Both of our countries have representative forms of government, yours a constitutional monarchy, ours a people's republic. We elect representatives to make decisions. Other than the identity of the representatives, voters do not, should not and must not make decisions (other than in rare referendums).

As I said, if the next government reflects the wishes of the people and asks the United States to leave, will they or will they make an excuse and stay anyway.

[KrustyKidd]

Take out the Al Queda bases in Afghanistan and stick around long enough to ensure the country can get back on its feet. Other than that police work, additional security measures and fixing the communication problems that plaqued the agencies that were already responsible for stopping terrorist attacks before they happen.

Figured you had nothing new. Like they did and we took over from them. And the rest is what they did but you never addressed what to do about Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Phillipines and every other country that Al Queda and other Jihadist groups operate within.

The question was what was necessary to convince the House of Saud to take on the Wahabbists. You assert that it was necessary to invade Iraq to convince the House of Saud. I argue the invasion of Afghanistan was sufficient. In both cases the US, the threat of a US invasion of Saudi Arabia is a key element.

Wrong. Invading Saudi Arabia or even threatening to was the worst possible thing imaginable. Being in a position to take action against Al Queda within the kingdom was completely realistic and, rather than suffering incursions by the US, took action themselves.

I simply feel that the choice to invade Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time and that any military action against Iran at this time would magnify the Iraq screw up 100 fold.

And you figure having Saddam without sanctions sitting in the middle of this picture with Al Queda toppling the Saudi government would have added to security of the region? I didn't bringing up Iran. Want to start a new thread for that?

[jdobbin]

I saw another poll that said Iraqis wanted the US to increase the troop levels. Hmm.

Transcript of Meet The Press from Sunday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046615/page/5/

"MR. RUSSERT: Here’s two poll questions that I think caught the attention of a lot of Americans. Let me start with Senator DeWine.

“Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout.” “Most Iraqis.” “A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.”

And then this poll. “Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops. About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces ... [according to] the poll done for University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes.”

Senator DeWine, if they want us out, and they’re in favor of attacking us, why are we still there?"

[KrustyKidd]

Both of our countries have representative forms of government, yours a constitutional monarchy, ours a people's republic. We elect representatives to make decisions. Other than the identity of the representatives, voters do not, should not and must not make decisions (other than in rare referendums).

As I said, if the next government reflects the wishes of the people and asks the United States to leave, will they or will they make an excuse and stay anyway.

US more than likely has a contract to keep so many troops in country on the superbases anyhow but, if asked would certainly scale down. However, as the mission of the US there is to keep the goverment in power until it can do it themselves, I highly doubt they would ever be told to leave unless they were not needed (in which case they would be so happy to leave that you would have to run to keep up with them) so your question is moot.

[jdobbin]

US more than likely has a contract to keep so many troops in country on the superbases anyhow but, if asked would certainly scale down. However, as the mission of the US there is to keep the goverment in power until it can do it themselves, I highly doubt they would ever be told to leave unless they were not needed (in which case they would be so happy to leave that you would have to run to keep up with them) so your question is moot.

Not moot at all. It may just come down to the government asking the U.S. to leave come what may. Just wanted to know if the U.S. would actually do it.