Foreign policy 'spurs Muslim extremism'

[emad]

Guardian


The group of Muslim advisers hand-picked by the government in the wake of the July 7 bombings has attacked Tony Blair's anti-terrorism plan, just hours after the 90-day detention rule was defeated in parliament.

In a report released today, the Islamic experts said the new measures risked alienating law-abiding Muslims and driving fanatics underground.

They concluded that British foreign policy was a "key contributory factor" in spurring UK Muslims to extremism. Downing Street has repeatedly denied that the Iraq war has caused terrorism at home.

"Radical impulses" among the Muslim community were often triggered by "perceptions of injustices inherent in western foreign policy", the report said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1639511,00.html

[PDJane]

1. Quelle Surprise.........

[ananda]

2. Didn't we all know that western foreign policy..

.. was turning nice people into desperate, hopeless, suicidal terrorists wayyy back?

It's nice to see people catching up...

[rodeodance]

3. these headlines need to be in our press----all across the land!

[Bacchus39]

4. so muslims should determine western foreign policy??

n/t

[Just Me]

5. No. Muslims are members of "the people" and their interests must,...

,...be equally protected. Now, if you object to fundamental democratic and constitutional principles, you'd say "to hell with Muslims or Jews or Christians or Blacks or Women".

Get it? :grr:

[Bacchus39]

7. we are talking foreign policy here, not domestic

liberties aren't we?

[IA_Seth]

8. No, but...

But to expect to create foreign policy independent of others worldviews, and then get all in an uproar when they react contrary to your wishes is foolish.

Civilization is an amalgamation of all cultures, and CIVILIZED people would do well to at least keep those other cultures in mind when dealing with FOREIGN policy.

[Bacchus39]

9. I believe foreign policy reflects a country's own interests

not necessarily the interests or influence of other nations.

[Just Me]

10. You weren't referring to "other nations" but rather "Muslims".

That would be biggotry, through and through.

If you were truly an advocate for democracy, you would demean rather than embrace discrimination against a people within your own and other "western" nations. But, no,...you perpetuate prejudice, inequality and biggotry.

SICK!!!

[Bacchus39]

11. what are you talking about??

do you believe western foreign policy is the reason for extremist muslims and terrorism.

I say its an excuse. Religious fanaticism is the reason.

[IA_Seth]

12. Right, and then...

You are right, that isn't what is being argued. What is being argued is whether the US and other Western powers should or should not expect a violent or otherwise reactionary view by Muslims or other cultures when we base our foreign policy SOLELY on our desires and either ignore or exploit their own.

I don't think a true bastion of freedom and democracy, you know, the OLD US should continue to base our foreign policy on our needs alone. It is "in our country's interests" to be mindful of how our actions are viewed by other cultures, and what sort of blowback our imperialistic approach might cause.

[Bacchus39]

13. sure, the consequences of a particular policy should be analyzed

but not determined by one particular group.


for example, religious freedom is a policy that the US should support worldwide. there won't be much enthusiasm for this in many muslim countries, that doesn't mean we should abandon this principle does it??

[IA_Seth]

14. No

But by the same token we should realize that our push for religious freedom will "spur Muslim extremism", right?

The consequences of our foreign policy must be just as important as the ideals of our foreign policy if we wish to continue as a nation.

[Bacchus39]

15. no, because I really don't believe that foreign policy causes

terrorism. I think it is an excuse to deflect blame away from the people responsible for the violence.

are you saying we should sacrifice our ideals for fear that it might provoke a negative reaction in other nations??

[IA_Seth]

17. No, I dont think that is what I said.

I do think we should be MINDFUL of what consequences our "ideals" cause. We can't continue to project our model of culture upon everyone else and expect them not to react violently, or at least adversely.

Sweden, France, Norway, etc...all great places to live - do you see them projecting their worldview on everyone else?

Do you think it is within "our interests" to make enemies?

I suggest "Blowback" and "Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson.

[Bacchus39]

20. mindful is fine, I agree with that

but sacrificing ideals because some other country doesn't like your policy is no way to run a country.

Don't know about Sweden or Norway but I'd say France plays a heavy hand in the foreign policy arena particularly in Africa.

[IA_Seth]

21. yeah ok..I was waiting for that..

France was probably not a good example. They too have experienced their own versions of "blowback" since the end of colonial times.

But the rest of my argument I stand by. I think there are a lot more reasonable approaches to foreign policy than those put forth by our leadership over the last few decades at least.

[Bacchus39]

23. I'd love to hear some specifics you'd like to change

n/t

[IA_Seth]

24. In a nutshell...

I am sorry, I really don't want to be one of those guys that posts and then drops out on you, but I AM supposed to be working so any sort of extensive answer just can't come right now.

In a nutshell I would say that we need to begin to rely more heavily on diplomacy than military action.

If we were able to reduce our military spending to fall more in line with that of other world powers (I realize we will always spend more, but our rate at this point is ridiculous) we would have additional money to spend on humanitarian aid as well as research for alternative energy sources.

We also should reduce our empire of military bases. Our military bases have consistently proven to be a reason for blowback and for ill-will towards the US by "occupied" people.

Honestly, try to read "Blowback" or "Sorrows of Empire" sometime, they are both well worth the read. I would recommend sorrows more so because it is newer.

[Bacchus39]

25. I agree with that

n/t

[ktlyon]

44. we never have to sacrifice our ideals and values

rest assured to my ideals remain intact no matter who is in the WH.
I think what is being said here is that foreign policy does matter and that we need to look at other's needs and make our decisions in away that is a win win situation. Now we are raming our way of life down the throats of the rest of the world and maybe the rest of the world doesn't appreciate it. We should be reaching out with a kind helping hand not demanding adherence to corporatism and privatization.
History is full of problems caused by the interference of countries like England, France and now us. We should stop continuing to make the same mistakes. History will tell you how this will all turn out. The pendulum always swings back to the other side. Feel it move?

[Bacchus39]

55. actually, I'd like to "feel" some concrete examples

of what you would believe would be effective foreign policy.

[pop goes the weasel]

19. you can think that, and you'd be wrong

In the late 1960s/early 1970s, there were anti-war protestors who, hypocritically enough, engaged in terroristic actions because they thought that they had to take the most extreme action in the name of their beliefs. They should have stayed with peaceful methods, sure, but the point is that they felt that their voices were not heard so they turned to dramatic moves to get attention.

Governments do a disservice to themselves and their nations when they don't take into account the feelings of all sectors. Obviously, no policy can please everyone, but making the effort to include the voices of all groups, and making real efforts at using that information in concrete ways, goes a long way toward heading off extremism. The Bushies have been so resistant to listening to anything they don't want to hear that I have been surprised at the restraint of the antiwar movement here. I don't expect restraint to last if voices aren't heard.

[Bacchus39]

22. taking into account is fine

basing your foreign policy on what one focus group thinks is ill advised.

to come up with a coherent foreign policy, may run contradictory to some segments of society.

however, ideals such as freedom of expression, religious freedom, Democracy, free press, opposition ot government oppression are pretty difficult to argue with.

some of the more tangible policies are the ones that are problematic. Immigration policy for example. still, countries are obligated to determine their own policies. which is actually more a domestic policy than foreign. Every country has the right to determine its own policies.

[pop goes the weasel]

16. a country's own interests

include the interests of the people who live within that country. Furthermore, the British government asked these leaders for their opinion. You ask, you get. If you don't want an answer you may not like, then don't ask. Of course, staying ignorant has its price.

[Bacchus39]

18. sure, but there are conflicting interests

especially if you ask the opinion of just one small segement of society.

[pop goes the weasel]

26. there's nothing in the article to suggest

that the UK will base its foreign policy on "one small segment of society." The government wanted to know these community leaders' opinion of the source of domestic terrorism, and now the UK knows that, in the opinion of these leaders, the young men committing the acts of violence feel that they can't have an impact on Britain's policy any other way. The obvious answer, then, is to make sure that no group feels excluded from the national conversation. That doesn't mean that one small segment dictates national policy, but that national policy reflect a considered appreciation of all parts of the nation's viewpoints. Making sure that every stakeholder has a place at the table goes a long way toward keeping domestic peace. It isn't the whole answer, but it is part of it.

[happydreams]

29. Extremely nationalistic approach even if it

can be argued that stirring up Muslin wrath is somehow in our best interests.

[Bacchus39]

32. of course it is nationalistic

what else should it be? altruistic??

again, whether or not the RESULTS of the policy stir up muslim terrorists should not determine our policies.

religious freedom, women's rights, democracy are all issues that the US should push but in many muslim areas these issues are not often well received if not down right "offensive".

[Enhancer]

46. Little bit of forced relocation, with some "cleansing" is in order?

You do think that? A person doesn't need to be a mind reader to see it. I am not saying that it is completely wrong or evil. Many intelligent people were bigots, racists, and ultra-nationalists, but in case of contemporary "westerners", whatever that means anymore, it is completely wasted and ridiculous. Western nations are losing any traces of national identity, due to globalization, with no specific ethnic foundations, and questionable moral fiber this is creating a very confused generation of "westerners". It is not surprising considering the cultural decay, intellectual regression of the population, and general lack of coherence, or common sense if you will. So your not-so-hidden animosity at "Muslim peoples" in general from what I could gather, is completely inane. It's not entirely your fault, of course. You are what you are, a product of your society, environment, and culture.

[Bacchus39]

51. can I get some freedom fries with that too??

Perhaps you are right but should I respect and tolerate a people or culture who are completely intolerant??

intolerant of other people, other faiths, women for example.

but I am not sure what that has to do with foreign policy. Of coure a nation should promote what it believes is best for itself.

[Enhancer]

61. Excellent.

You proved my point better than I expected.

[happydreams]

28. "Clash of Civilizations"!! That's the book

by Samuel Huntington that does not contain the word diplomacy. Ditto for Brezizinski and the PNAC fascistic approach to international affairs. These loonies depend on violence and chaos for their very survival. IMO they are hell bent on fomenting international tensions and are doing a good job of it.

But they might have grabbed for to much to fast. Plamegate could be their undoing.

[The Stranger]

6. THE NEW TOTALITARIANISM

Government lies, obssessive secrecy, deception, civilian surveillance, detentions, "tribunals", camps, torture.

It is the NEW TOTALITARIANISM.

[happydreams]

31. Yep, Great post!

[Diresu]

27. Muslim Extremism has nothing to do with what the West does

France did everything in it's political power to stop the U.S. from going to war in IRAQ and they've got more Muslim extremism than anywhere in Europe.

Here is an article about Muslim women being attacked and opressed in the now notorious French suburbs by Muslim men.

"feminists say the dominance of traditional cultures among families of Arab and black African origin, combined with the growing role of Islam in the suburbs, have contributed to the harsh treatment girls get there.

Pressure is mounting for Muslim women to wear veils. Forced marriages that snatch them from college and career -- where they do much better than their male schoolmates -- are on the rise."

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005111012160002710349&dt=20051110121600&w=RTR&coview=

--Peace--

[VegasWolf]

30. France was correct in trying to stop America. They knew that the Bush

cartel was basing its decisions on lies to the American people. Germany did not fall for Bush's lies either. Had France succeeded,
many innocent Iraqis and Americans would still be alive today.

[Diresu]

33. France certainly did oppose the war

...as did many other Western European countries. But they've got as much or more Muslim extremism as anywhere else. Theo Van Gogh wasn't murdered in Alabama during a pro war rally. He was murdered in the Netherlands. Jews have been leaving France by the tens of thousands because of the attacks they receive from Muslim extremists. None of that has anything to do with Iraq or the USA.

--Peace--

[VegasWolf]

34. You will have an extremely difficult time proving that the Abu Gahrib

images, the destruction of Iraqi cities and civilians, the use of white phosphorus, the arrogance of Rummy and Chimp haven't inflamed Muslim passions against the West. The Iraqi Oil War has done nothing but imperil western civilization.

[Bacchus39]

35. what was the reason for 9/11 then??

which was well before the Iraq war.

[VegasWolf]

36. Nobody denies Muslim extremism. That is a given. The Iraqi Oil

War was the WRONG solution. What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

[Bacchus39]

37. nothing, but muslim extremism was there well before

Iraq, not caused by it as your previous post seemed to insinuate.

[VegasWolf]

38. Don't know how you read that into my statement. I said that the Iraqi

Oil War has increased Muslim extremism.

[Bacchus39]

39. yes

but then again, beheadings, suicide bombs, bombings of European transit centers, hijackings, and riots certainly haven't helped muslims' standing in the West either.

[VegasWolf]

40. of course, your point is? That the Iraqi Oil War is a good thing???

[Bacchus39]

42. of course not, but going back to the original post

I do not agree that foreign policy is the cause of muslim extremism.

I tend to take a somewhat pessimistic view that many if not most muslim countries are "incorrigible" because of islamic fanaticism.

[VegasWolf]

43. One last time, I never said that. I said the Iraqi Oil War fueled it. nt

[Aimah]

94. I think the real question you're missing is...

What is causing the Islamic Fanaticism?

[The Stranger]

68. Where to start?

"Shock and awe," wars launched on the basis of fabricated lies, uncounted stolen natural resources, 100,000 civilians killed in an illegal war, the destruction of a whole country's civilian infrastructure, historical and cultural artifacts, civilian health care, civilian hospitals, civilian lives, "food for oil" and 100,000 dead children (Madeline Albright), occupation, invasion, mass murder, white phosphorous, detentions without trial or hearing, innocents held for years without trial, torture camps, legalized torture, child rape . . .

Are you still there?

[Bacchus39]

70. well, Saddam is still alive

we can give the country back to him. Our bad. go on get on with your own version of brutality, we won't disturb you again.

[The Stranger]

73. Let's see: torture rooms -- check, use of chemical weapons -- check,

klling civilian population -- check, indiscriminate murder -- check . . .

Not much has changed. Only now Bush and Rumsfeld are in charge.

[Diresu]

41. true but....

"Oil War has increased Muslim extremism."

That is about as true as saying that throwing a book of matches into the sun will increase the heat it creates.

I guess it's true but it's only a tiny fraction of the story.

Russia strongly opposed the war and they've got a huge problem with Muslim extremists. I don't remember India sending troops into the gulf and they've been fighting Muslim extremists for decades. Indonesia has the same problem. Jews in France are under constant threat of attack from Muslims. Arabic and African girls in France aren't being bullied and threatened because Bush and Company screwed up in Iraq.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005111012160002710349&dt=20051110121600&w=RTR&coview=

--Peace--

[VegasWolf]

45. Your opinion, I guess. Everyone has one. If you believe all that has

occurred as a consequence of this ill-begotten war is just a little
piddle of a "matchbook flame" then well you certainly have your opinion!!!

Our own country has treated the Indians and blacks like crap. You think
that France is the first country to treat its minorities poorly? Simply look at US history.

I do believe the the Iraqi Oil War has inflamed Muslims across the world and has been a great recruiting tool for terrorists.

Back to matchbooks I guess!

[brentspeak]

57. The point I think that the other posters are making

- and one that I share - is that majority of Muslim extremism plaguing the world has not been caused by the Iraq War, but, in fact, had already existed prior to the war. While the Iraq War has certainly made a bad situation worse (especially among Iraqi youths, many of whom will almost certainly become fodder for Islamic terror groups when they ordinarily would not have), Islamic extremism had much earlier begun to spiral out of control.

[VegasWolf]

59. Yes of course, that was clear. My point is that I think that they have

dramatically understated the effect that the Iraqi Oil War has had on Muslim youth. Cause is a pebble rolling down a mountainside. Effect is an avalanche. Look no further than the US for ill treatment of minorities. Our race riots! With Muslim extremism, it is my thought that gasoline has been thrown on the fire by this incompetent administration.

[Enhancer]

47. Joseph Kony would disagree...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x34974

[ElectroPrincess]

48. Yes, and we have done the Iraqi people a horrid dis-service by

inviting in all these Muslim extremists by invading their (yes, THEIR!) country!

We have made, a secularly controlled state into a hot-bed of extremism JUST BECAUSE we wanted to fight them OVER THERE?!?

I guess we must (USA) as a nation, consider the "average" Iraqi Citizen less valuable than the "average" American citizen? That makes us Nationalists in the most extreme and ugly sense. Ugly, self-adoring Americans. Disgusting behavior (and white-wash) to not have begun IMPEACHMENT hearings for the whole damn Executive Branch.

I am so damn ashamed of what we have done to that country in the name of "democracy on the march."

We need to get out NOW!

[Bacchus39]

49. and will you be even more ashamed when there is a civil war??

we have stayed in Germany and Japan (whose populace had a similar fanaticism) for over 60 years. and now look at those countries.

do you think long term (decades) in Iraq would produce the same result??

by the way, I am not advocating this position but have heard it discussed.

I say a couple of more years to do all we can and then turn it over to the Iraquis. others like you say get out now, and others say indefinitely.

I am not optimistic.

[VegasWolf]

50. There will be a civil war regardless. Staying there will only kill more

Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians.

[Bacchus39]

53. with a civil war many Iraqi civilians will die

more than now I imagine.

I don't have the answer either. the US needs to leave ASAP but not until they have done all they can to ensure Iraq is at least able to stand up for itself.

[VegasWolf]

56. That MAY be true and it MAY NOT. That is an unknown. What is a known

is that our military presence there IS killing innocent Iraqis. Iran
will force Iraq to become a Islamic theocracy. The Kurds will be left holding the bag. The US has neither the military nor economic capability to conquer Iran. A civil war in Iraq is destiny thanks to Bush's awkward and greed motivated intervention.

The only solution is to get the hell out now.

Vietnam - Part Deux.

[ElectroPrincess]

52. We will decide to leave when TOO MANY of our troops have died

FOR A LIE, or when we are kicked out.

There's no GOOD strategy here. One way or another, Civil War is coming to Iraq. If we honestly care about the "average" Iraqi citizen we will promptly pull out and let the score get settled by the locals.

Nothing, I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING *good* will be accomplished by our continued stay there.

Out NOW! Remember Vietnam? I do. Nationalism will prevail, we can kill MILLIONS of Iraqis and they will still fight us. We must declare victory and promptly plan an EXIT before the end of 2006. I hope and pray for our leaders to WAKE UP and read their Military History books. Iraq has NOT EVER been conquered. The native are serious about kicking our Christian butts out of Baghdad, i.e., their Dodge City for the yokels. :P

[Bacchus39]

54. yes, so that means in a couple of years

I don't see how an immediate exit is a display of caring for the Iraqis.

Is that an example of tough love??

Again, not to get into a pissing contest with you, but leave ASAP when Iraq has at least a semblance of a government and security force.

[ElectroPrincess]

58. No, no pissing contest, but it AIN'T going to get any better ...

This is as good as it gets = terrible! It's all down hill from here. NO, the Iraqis want us out so "the powers that remain" can stabilize the country.

We can get out by the end of 2006 without "running" but OUT we must get A.S.A.P.

Again, I lived through Vietnam. This is beyond a "quagmire" and turning into the FIFTH RING OF HELL for our troops in quick fashion.

Trust me on this, the average Iraqi don't give a shit anymore about the American's presence in THEIR COUNTRY.

Iraq is after all considered "The Cradle of Civilization." Those "little brown people" are intelligent and will get along "just fine" (if not better after the initial meltdown) without the DOMINATING presence of our Empire of Christian Soldiers.

Bank on it and get the hell out of the Middle East by the end of 2006. The foregoing is for the benefit of the American Soldiers as well as the average Iraqi Citizen.

We do NOT belong as the "all knowing" RULERS on Arab soil. Sent to care for the poor, ignorant "brown people". That is so damn racist! The Iraqis will get along just fine. If not have them send in the Bush Twins and all the other children of the Investor Class to secure their blessed OIL INTERESTS. :puke:

[Bacchus39]

63. yes I agree

you say about one year and I say about two. so we are just disputing a short timeline.

I just think you give Iraq a fighting chance, I think we owe them that.

[ElectroPrincess]

66. Bravo Bacchus39 ...

I salute your magnanimous compromise - "One to Two years" --> it is agreed! Now if the leaders would only listen to us. :P :hi:

[Bacchus39]

67. thank you, no real disagreement I think

ASAP is open to some interpretation. I just think we need to at least TRY to stabilize the government and security forces and then get the hell out.

[ElectroPrincess]

69. Yes, we must try, but I don't have much hope with THIS LEADERSHIP ...

I'm Praying for George W. Bush to resign! But you make a good argument, peace will not be gained through ONLY military involvement. But again, we MUST try ... for the "short term" 1-2 years.

[IA_Seth]

60. Reasons

I can think of several of the top of my head:

Saudi Bases - infidels in the kingdom so to speak.

Blowback from all over - Afghanistan (in Russia-US days), Indonesia, Phillipines, Iraq Part I, Eastern Europe....

Israel - Our unconditional support for a nation that has at times a borderline human rights record towards Palestinians has inflamed Muslims for years.

-----

was your question rhetorical or do you honestly think there were no reasons for 9/11

[Bacchus39]

64. are you rationalizing or justifying 9/11??

the "reasons" you gave are no reasons at all for flying airplanes into buildings.

[Tom Bombadil]

92. How would you explain

people flying planes into buildings?

Islamic Fascists they may be, but in order to defeat such people you must first understand their motives. The 'War on Terror' only exists in the simple minds of the Republicans. If you can work out why 19 men did what they did on Sep 11 then you're already one step ahead of your President.

[Bacchus39]

96. and how does understanding lead to victory??

is not religious zealotry beyond the realm of comprehension?

[Tom Bombadil]

100. The ' global war on terror'

only exists in the neocon mindset, which you seem to adhere to. In this victory you talk of, who are you fighting? The entire Islamic world? Iraqis? A small number of religious zealots?

You can't 'win' this, all you can do is gather intelligence, infiltrate terrorist organisations, minimise the threat to your homeland. It's a clandestine operation that requires a sensible foreign policy and it will never end.

As for Iraq, down that road lies only ruin.

[Bacchus39]

101. you just said that in order to "defeat" this people

you must understand their mindset. now you are saying they can't be defeated

but beyond that glaring contradiction, what would you say is a sensible foreign policy?

[Tom Bombadil]

102. Perhaps defeat was the wrong word.

A better term might be 'to defend against.'

Sensible foreign policy would be one of containment, impartial treatment of the Israel/Palestine issue, no pre-emptive wars. Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and that did not harbour terrorists was a shambolic foreign policy and the world is more dangerous because of it.

[IA_Seth]

104. LOL

Is that how you read that?

You asked for the reasons they did what they did. I gave you possible answers, injustices carried out by western powers that both frustrated entire cultures and alienated countries from the world stage.

Please don't try to make the argument that Islam has always been this way. At one time Muslim, Christian, and Jew lived in peace, albeit tenuously. We are all "men of the book".

Western actions did much to enable religious extremism to take hold.

[Solon]

62. I can answer that...

From Osama's own words it was because, at the result of the first gulf war, the United States based its operations in Saudi Arabia. Osama himself felt stabbed in the back by his staunchest allies in America, Raygun specifically, when left out to dry against the Soviets in the Afghanistan War. We trained the Mujadheen, we armed and encouraged religious fanatics, and then we are supposed to be surprised when we double crossed them that they decide to declare war on us? 9/11 was not only predictable, but given our foreign policy, it was inevitable.

[Bacchus39]

65. you and the other poster are almost seem to be saying

it was deserved.

Infidels in Saudi Arabia. Oh my goodness!! what about muslims in the USA?? there is a rhetorical question for you.

[The Stranger]

71. One way the Neocons keep the U.S. locked into the illegal wars

is by trying to keep people from realistically looking at the reasons for the September 11 attacks.

The Neocons often proclaim the fallacy that trying to understand the reasons for the attacks is equivalent to "justifying" them.

Is that what the post above is attempting to do?

[Bacchus39]

74. and I say they are not "reasons" at all

and I certainly don't buy into that reasoning. would they have preferred that Saddam overrun their borders in 1990 rather than have coalition forces beat him back to Iraq??

[VegasWolf]

75. Huh?? In all seriousness. what the hell does that have to do with 9/11? nt

[Bacchus39]

77. infidels in Saudi Arabia. 1st Gulf War remember??

that is why they were there. that is what others are telling me is a "reason" for 9/11. do you follow??

[VegasWolf]

81. I seriously do not know what the "others" are telling you. Really.

So I can't really "follow". We are in a quagmire and the only hope is to get the fuck out.

[Bacchus39]

86. yes, peace I agree,

we just disagree on how.

there was some 9/11 type posts that got integrated in the thread. the posts are mostly at the bottom I think. I was responding to some of those as well if you didn't see them all.

[VegasWolf]

89. Yes, but make no mistake, we disagree vehemently, absolutely, completely,

to the depths of hell. Young Americans are being murdered, maimed, psychologically destroyed and street bound, mental institution bound, every fucking single day this war continues. For NOTHING!

[Bacchus39]

99. so I see that

you feel that the USA has no responsibility anymore to the people of Iraq.

yes, then we absolutely definitively undisputably disagree.

[VegasWolf]

107. Exactly! Just like Vietnam. Things only got better AFTER we left. Our

"help" is killing Iraqis! Yes, we disagree!

[The Stranger]

82. That sounds like a "yes" answer to my question.

[VegasWolf]

72. Well, it appears as if you think 1-2 MORE years of American lives

is acceptable. That SOMEHOW there is a silver lining to this Iraqi Oil War. Well, good for you. Some of us don't

[Bacchus39]

76. and what is your plan?? is a civil war in Iraq preferable?

are Iraqis to be thrown to the lions? Bush's screw up has in fact obligated the US to do what it can to attempt to restore order. Sorry but that is the reality. The US owes the people of Iraq nothing less.

[VegasWolf]

80. My plan. Pull out NOW! We CANNOT win in Iraq anymore than we

could win Vietnam. The futile HOPE that if we kept going in Vietnam we would eventually win was a lie, a falsehood. a travesty of truth.

We lost more Americans, my friends included. We cannot win a war of illegal colonization of foreign lands. History has proved that.

At least we have a bigger embassy this time in Iraq, we can land many more helicopters simultaneously to evacuate ANY survivors.

[Bacchus39]

83. premature evacuation

OK, I really do agree with you. We REALLY REALLY need to get the hell out of Iraq. but evacuations from the embassy is no consolation for the catostraphe that will follow. and it doesn't matter if Dick Cheney or Dickhead Bush resign tomorrow, whoever is president will have to deal with Iraq. I am a patriot and do not wish to see US soldiers be killed, however, I am in no hurry to witness the loss of humanity in Iraq if the US evacuate prematurely.

no premature evacuation!!!!!

[VegasWolf]

85. I heard that same statement what 30 years ago. Guess what? It was wrong! n

[ElectroPrincess]

78. No, I want to get our troops out as soon as possible ...

But the withdrawal waltz to be less than chaos will require at least ONE year. If something clicks, like enlightened policies and more humble invites to our allies, then we can try, at least try to leave giving the Iraqi people some sense of control and dignity.

I'd personally have our military out tomorrow. And no, I don't think that even "genuine efforts" will work. But IF we systematically pull back forces in a SANE manner, a complete withdrawal could take up to two years IF we can ENCOURAGE basic and competent turn-overs.

Don't get me wrong, I want our troops home NOW but then there's reality - a controled exit strategy.

[Bacchus39]

79. agreed, they can't be pulled out in time for happy hour tomorrow

n/t

[VegasWolf]

84. I know your feelings Princess! But I respectfully disagree. With Bush at

the helm, one more year year is too much. Didn't work in Nam and won't work here. Just my thoughts!

[ElectroPrincess]

93. Understood. No offense taken, I wish we would not have gone in at all :(

[Solon]

87. Don't put words into my mouth...

I didn't say it was justified, I was trying to explain THEIR thoughts on the matter, and how we made the situation worse through our foriegn policy actions. Jesus Christ, its difficult to talk to the irrational.

[Bacchus39]

88. yet you attempt to explain it

n/t

[Solon]

90. Because you were ignorant of it...

Is it really that hard to try to reach any type of understanding with the opposing side in any conflict? If not, why would wars end at all, except for total destruction of one side or another, and to be honest, there are more of them than us.

[Bacchus39]

97. of course its difficult

thats why war happens in the first place.

[Aimah]

95. Why do people use that excuse?

I am Muslim ( not Arab) and I often got the question: "Why did 9-11 happen?". I soon learned that my response had to come with a disclaimer. I don't know Usama or any terrorists. I don't wish "death on america" or "death to infidels". That being said I would go through the usual reasonings. Western tinkering in Arab affairs. American double standards when dealing with Israel. Using the threat of forced Democracy to get what you want but rewarding dictators that do what we say. I could go on and on but I'm sure you've heard all of them. After going through this I would get. "How can you make excuses for 9-11". "It seems like you support terrorists." It got to the point where I just stopped answering for some time after 9-11 until people calmed down. I would just say something to the effect of "Why do you expect me to know?"

This is kind of the way I see it. A man is sitting in his home watching TV and someone walks in and slaps him. He gets a knife and follows the man home and stabs him. He went to extremes he could have done nothing or he could have just slapped the guy back. But you can't ignore the reason it happened.

[Bacchus39]

98. and the reason is??

perhaps you can enlighten me. that 19 fanatics with fantasies of paradise promised to them by those who were apparently not willing to make the same "contribution" told them paradise would be obtained?

[Aimah]

108. Going to Paradise for What?

Why are they fighting? They want to die to get to paradise because they want Jello? They don't like Madonna?

[IA_Seth]

103. Thank you.

I am so sick of trying to answer questions that people don't want answers to.

NO, I don't "support terror". I don't agree with the methods of Al-Qaeda's attack. But you are right, you CAN'T ignore the reasoning of those involved.

I certainly can understand the frustration that western powers have caused the Middle East through our foreign policy over the past 20-30 years. I can see why they would feel helpless and powerless against a foreign power and may react in desperate ways.

I am NOT excusing 9/11. I am NOT agreeing with 9/11. But if we can't begin to understand the root causes and origins of terror, than we will never win.

Blaming it on religious fanaticism is the easy way out. Fanatacism may have made it easier to determine the methods of attack, but it certainly wasn't the reason they felt they needed to.

[BoogDoc7]

105. Of course...

France and Germany also had specific national interests in Saddam staying in power as well, but I doubt you factor THAT in to this thought...

[Tom Bombadil]

91. What happened in France was not

Muslim Extremism. It was disaffected, young men from shitty suburbs who just happen to be predominantly Muslim. The riots had nothing to do with whether France supported the Iraq War or not. The problems in the suburbs are a unique problem to France which goes back years.

France has a very large Muslim population compared to the rest of Europe. I wouldn't pay too much attention to CNN. I know a lot more about France than they do.

[emad]

106. Maybe this will sink home in the White House..

?