Bush's new war strategy

They need eliminate some of the militias that just do not want to get along...Send a nice strong message you act out of line you don't try and work things out then, well, there is no need for your existence....

Harsh words I know but it is the rule of the planet humans seem to be the only animals that don't quit grasp this concept....

But meh maybe I'm wrong I guess we need more rapists and murders in this world, hell we need people to just go around and kill innocent bystanders for no reason...It does good doesn't it??

Then for those of you who say it isn't our problem, well that is pretty high and mighty of you...So if you had the capability to help someone you wouldn't??? It is your duty to continue and that is the bottom line....
 
We (the civilized people of the World) can end the Middle East problem and stop a Global war in the making. War in the Middle East was inevitable and no one Country or leader thereof can be blamed for the nihilistic nature of radical Islam. Appeasement or isolationism won't work and never has, without a high cost. Unfortunately, some societies don't want a democracy and there is nothing any ambassador, politician, or armed force, can do to change that. When millions of people refuse to change or moderate a belief that total destruction of most of the World's population is a covenant with their god(s) and the only means of salvation is to obey their prophets, then war is inevitable forever.

A lot of people ask, who is right and who is wrong in such a war? Isn't this just a difference in civilizations? The answer is a resounding yes. There are natural taboos that have evolved as human beings came to recognize unacceptable and destructive practices. I don't mean cannibalism, headhunting, Human sacrifices, and many others that come to mind. I'm speaking of genocide, enslavement, mass murder, and denial of all freedoms except breathing.

Modern people never want to return to the fifth century and destroy everything that has been accomplished for the benefit of mankind. Men don't die at a ripe old age of 26 and girls 12 years old and younger are not forced to bear children for a tribal leader. I would rather fly in an airliner than ride a donkey. Difference in civilizations? Yep! And the operative word here is civilization.
 
Missileer said:
We (the civilized people of the World) can end the Middle East problem and stop a Global war in the making. War in the Middle East was inevitable and no one Country or leader thereof can be blamed for the nihilistic nature of radical Islam. Appeasement or isolationism won't work and never has, without a high cost. Unfortunately, some societies don't want a democracy and there is nothing any ambassador, politician, or armed force, can do to change that. When millions of people refuse to change or moderate a belief that total destruction of most of the World's population is a covenant with their god(s) and the only means of salvation is to obey their prophets, then war is inevitable forever.

A lot of people ask, who is right and who is wrong in such a war? Isn't this just a difference in civilizations? The answer is a resounding yes. There are natural taboos that have evolved as human beings came to recognize unacceptable and destructive practices. I don't mean cannibalism, headhunting, Human sacrifices, and many others that come to mind. I'm speaking of genocide, enslavement, mass murder, and denial of all freedoms except breathing.

Modern people never want to return to the fifth century and destroy everything that has been accomplished for the benefit of mankind. Men don't die at a ripe old age of 26 and girls 12 years old and younger are not forced to bear children for a tribal leader. I would rather fly in an airliner than ride a donkey. Difference in civilizations? Yep! And the operative word here is civilization.
Click to expand...


I really thought we had moved on from the 18th century colonial thinking but it would appear not, I do not believe you can impose one civilisation on another unless they want it and are prepared to fight for it themselves.

However this really isn't a battle of civilisations it is a battle of religions as it has always been, lets face it we don't care about people riding donkeys or living in shacks as long as they leave us alone we are simply trying to make people who have been force fed Islam for 1500 years suck on Christian values.

The fact is that for 1000 years the Christian world has done all it could to impose itself on the middle east and there have been times when the Islamic world has been strong enough and tried to impose itself on Europe they have failed dismally because the people there obviously don't want it.

So after all this I believe the answer is to take the fanatics out of the equation on both sides preferably with lead poisoning, reduce the religious influence's that keep this thing fueled and it will settle down but if you try and impose your views when they clearly do not want it you will lose.

Just for shits and giggles take a look at nations where religion (doesn't matter which one) plays a major role in the day to day running of a country especially when you have more than one type and I suspect you will find the countries with the highest rates of poverty, backwardness, corruption and where you have more than one sect civil war. The strength of the west is that it has reduced religion to a personal thing and because of that we have flourished.
 
Last edited:
May they all stay safe.

I am certainly very proud of our military. They give me the freedom that others who do not know what its like to be free will only covet or despise.
 
Its not religious influence. Its humanitarian. Id like to see you in a time machine back to pre-US invasion Baghdad and see how you liked it.
 
Yup torture is ok for them but bad for us....

Some people make no logical or rational sense what so ever.....
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Its not religious influence. Its humanitarian. Id like to see you in a time machine back to pre-US invasion Baghdad and see how you liked it.
Click to expand...

By pre-invasion do you mean the 13 years when the UN starved its population into submission or the period before that when it was a reasonable example of stable, prosperous sectarian state in the middle east albeit run by a nut job who was being backed by the west?

The fact is that you have the Sunni shooting at Shia and Islamic fundamentalists jumping the borders to take pot shots everyone in the hopes that they will win and impose their brand of religion over top mean while the country is invaded by a bunch who are determined to bring their version of democracy based on Judeo-Christian principles to a country that is predominantly Muslim.

I am sorry but you would have to have been living in a bubble for the last 20 years not to see this was always going to be a mess.
 
MontyB said:
I am sorry but you would have to have been living in a bubble for the last 20 years not to see this was always going to be a mess.
Click to expand...

Being alive for the last 20 years would also be a good thing, in my own opinion.
 
MontyB said:
By pre-invasion do you mean the 13 years when the UN starved its population into submission or the period before that when it was a reasonable example of stable, prosperous sectarian state in the middle east albeit run by a nut job who was being backed by the west?
Click to expand...

As I recall, it wasn't the UN starving the population, it was the government, the money was there but certain ones choose to horde it. I know casting blame on everything but the responsible party is the "in" thing now, but come on, this is really stretching it.

Did the UN cut all of those infants fingers, toes and ears off too? Bad UN, bad bad bad!


The fact is that you have the Sunni shooting at Shia and Islamic fundamentalists jumping the borders to take pot shots everyone in the hopes that they will win and impose their brand of religion over top mean while the country is invaded by a bunch who are determined to bring their version of democracy based on Judeo-Christian principles to a country that is predominantly Muslim.
Click to expand...

Just as a note (and you do make a good point), republicanism (note the little 'r') was not born of Judeo-Christian principles, those actually didn't come about until a few reformations later.

Muslims can have a republic if they want without any hindrance or Christian influence to their religion, but the key word is "if they want." The majority has to want it badly enough to stand up to the militant factions vying for control and take over. This hasn't happened yet and I don't see it happening in the near future

.
 
PJ24 said:
Just as a note (and you do make a good point), republicanism (note the little 'r') was not born of Judeo-Christian principles, those actually didn't come about until a few reformations later.
Click to expand...


True however we are not trying to retro-fit republicanism we (the west) are giving them todays brand of republic and the parties giving it to them is very much founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Muslims can have a republic if they want without any hindrance or Christian influence to their religion, but the key word is "if they want." The majority has to want it badly enough to stand up to the militant factions vying for control and take over. This hasn't happened yet and I don't see it happening in the near future
Click to expand...

This is pretty much one of my points, they can have what ever government they want but first they have to want it enough to defend it we can not force our ideals and values onto people that simply don't want them enough to stand up and fight for them.
 
I don't think the problem with the Middle East is all theocratic, but it is a heavy contributor. Most religions rely on the morality of their disciples as a starting point and build onto that with their interpretation of some set of religious principles or articles of faith. People with high moral standards don't need a religion to fit into a modern societal culture. The concept of distinguishing right from wrong has taken thousands of years to evolve into a set of acceptable principles. A person who knows right from wrong and chooses to do wrong is immoral. A person who is unable, for whatever reason, sees no difference is amoral. That is a problem when there is no moral base to start from and build a society that abhors the type of behavior that is not acceptable by the rest of a planet that grows smaller every day.

Japan became a textbook example of changing from a country that was known for the horrible, inhuman treatment of people they perceived as weak to a Nation that embraces non-violence. They learned the consequences of aberrant behavior in a world that refused to accept their interpretation of what was moral and immoral. As far as I know, there was no religious reasons for their behavior before or after WWII, just an acceptance of the real world.
 
Missileer said:
I don't think the problem with the Middle East is all theocratic, but it is a heavy contributor. Most religions rely on the morality of their disciples as a starting point and build onto that with their interpretation of some set of religious principles or articles of faith. People with high moral standards don't need a religion to fit into a modern societal culture. The concept of distinguishing right from wrong has taken thousands of years to evolve into a set of acceptable principles. A person who knows right from wrong and chooses to do wrong is immoral. A person who is unable, for whatever reason, sees no difference is amoral. That is a problem when there is no moral base to start from and build a society that abhors the type of behavior that is not acceptable by the rest of a planet that grows smaller every day.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree we have historical examples of punishments for crimes that go back 4000+ years the knowledge of right from wrong has existed ever since people decided it might be fun and wise to live in groups.


Japan became a textbook example of changing from a country that was known for the horrible, inhuman treatment of people they perceived as weak to a Nation that embraces non-violence. They learned the consequences of aberrant behavior in a world that refused to accept their interpretation of what was moral and immoral. As far as I know, there was no religious reasons for their behavior before or after WWII, just an acceptance of the real world.
Click to expand...

It is also an example of what I am talking about behavior that over took Japan during that period can be attributed to the recreation of the Bushido code which then became a tool for militarists to twist and warp in order to achieve their goals and control a nation.
But anyway I will stand by the argument that it is the power that religion wields in the middle east that is the problem and not the religion itself much as it was with Europe in the medieval and dark ages, if you want to fix the problems there remove religion from power but allow it maintain its importance to the individual and you will see things change.
 
So then religion is to blame and since the followers of said religion are the ones who practice and preach intolerance they cannot co-exist with differing worldviews and value systems. And since the religion in question cannot function as a simple religion since it is in point of fact the only religion which has from the beginning incorporated statecraft into its tennets we have as a result a situation where it is kill or be killed. There can be no middle ground.
 
bulldogg said:
So then religion is to blame and since the followers of said religion are the ones who practice and preach intolerance they cannot co-exist with differing worldviews and value systems. And since the religion in question cannot function as a simple religion since it is in point of fact the only religion which has from the beginning incorporated statecraft into its tennets we have as a result a situation where it is kill or be killed. There can be no middle ground.
Click to expand...

I guess this is what could be described as a short step to an illogical conclusion.
You are dealing with a small group of extremists within a very large population your argument is about as irrational as saying the IRA were predominantly catholic, they espoused violence and killed indiscriminately therefore the answer is to wipe out catholicism.
 
Fair enough... except you forgot to figure in the silence of the majority which implies approval, if not outright support or sympathy. Have you watched the movie "Obsession" perchance? As for wiping out Catholicism... lay on MacDuff!
 
bulldogg said:
Fair enough... except you forgot to figure in the silence of the majority which implies approval, if not outright support or sympathy. Have you watched the movie "Obsession" perchance? As for wiping out Catholicism... lay on MacDuff!
Click to expand...

So you are seriously suggesting that the majority of the worlds 1.3 billion Muslims support or sympathise with the extremists, do you have anything to back that up or is it just opinion?

Obsession nope never seen it although I think the wife may have a bottle of it somewhere but seriously I rate movies like that up there with pretty all other propaganda and Micheal Moore films its there to sell its point of view, parts of it will be accurate but the rest will just be pushing an ideal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top