Posted on 03/28/2006 6:48:27 AM PST by Dark Skies
Oh and by the way "oh enlightened one"...our enemy isn't just a military force. It is also ideological and is in fact embedded in those traditions and tribal custom to which you refer.
Foolish or not, someone had better clearly identify the enemy and develop a strategy for victory.
The DoD has recently introduced a new strategy (which is the most comprehensive so far) called "countering ideological support for terrorism" (known as CIST).
Of course, they are probably confused.
And I don't think a cool acronym is going to make the difference, either.
I inserted the acronym in case you might want to Google it and learn something (maybe even follow it over time). How foolish of me.
I'm sure they are thanking heaven for your full-throated support. And I will certainly want to closely follow the progress of an attempt to do something that has never before been accomplished in history. I guess that, since we have a 'comprehensive strategy' to substitute an entirely new belief system for one that has been handed down from generation to generation, it is bound to work flawlessly and we should all just breathlessly wait for our cue to applaud.
It may come as a surprise to you, but the DoD does waste money from time to time.
Happens all the time. Slavery was ended in the U.S. along with institutional racial discrimination. Suttee (a practice several thousand year old) was ended in Indian by the English colonial rule. All happened by making certain objectionable things against the law and then enforcing that law.
The test for the administration in the matter of Abdul Rahman was whether or not REAL democracy would be exported or just this sharia-styled crap. The adminstration failed...but this is not over by a long shot.
If islam is to enter the modern world without destroying it, many of its rules will fall by the wayside. Honor killings, pederasty by imams, institutionalize misogyny, death sentences for the victims of rape, death for leaving the faith.
This is the nature of this war we are in. If you think we can just leave islam alone, you are in discord with islam. Islam plans to rule the world (despite the fact it hasn't been able to rule itself). Why do you think Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons? To defend himself from Israel.
The President and the DoD (and even Condi) all know full well that primitive islam cannot be allowed to have nukes. In case you haven't been following this matter, action is expected shortly.
BTW, I wouldn't have wasted time with you in this discussion except that I know you are from GA (as I am)...so don't send me a long comment as to how a war was fought to end slavery. I know the history of it.
What in the world do you mean, "the outcome was quite satisfactory"????? When he has to take asylum in another country! And, he can't even live in his own? THAT'S satisfactory??? What the HE$$ did we fight and die for? So he can "take asylum" in another country??? You out to be totally outraged! He/We won nothing! Afghanistan is NOT free! What a waste! What about anyone else that wants to convert to another religion - will they be "torn to pieces"? Some freedom. NO, we have not won yet in Afghanistan. And, I'm very afraid Iraq is headed the same way.
FREED??? To do what? To have to take aslyum in another country, because to stay in the one that WE "freed" (Ha!), he would be killed? What about anyone else that would wish to convert from Islam? What will happen to them?? I think you'd better re-think that "moron" remark. Also, some punctuation would be a good friend for you. Should have been:
He has been freed, you "Whine All The Time" morons.
Dream on - you haven't read anything about what the Afghanistan women themselves have said, have you?
That's because WE "helped" Afghan. set up a "democratic" government; those other governments are not free or democratic. That's the difference. That "one" Christian is supposed to be free to practice his religion, no matter what it is. That was one of the reasons we went into Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Your examples are of eradication of ills by the RULERS of those countries. We didn't go to Afghanistan to conquer, and we didn't stay to rule. Unless you are willing to be the conquerer - which means use of enough force that even those in far-flung places are subject to your will - you ain't gonna change the way they think or the way they live. And their tradition crosses national bounderies, and more of the problem is on the other side than ours. You wanna invade Pakistan, too? Primitive Islam already has nukes, and they are in Pakistan.
I am sure there is much I can learn from you and look forward to more discussion.
DS
The Taliban is NOT gone - just ask the Afghani women.
Actually, I think there are plans already in place as to how to deal with Paki nukes falling into the wrong hands. A.Q. Khan and Musharraf and many other Pakis are anything but primitive. Out in the hinterlands, it is another matter.
Or in the upper echelon of the ISI...
Are you just a self-impressed red-neck or are you someone who is learning and spreading the truth.
If you are just another narrow-mind...don't expect me to enter into any discussion with you.
What? I'm talking about the Taliban and bin Laden and you're throwing around Afghan women?
Are you claiming that the women in Afghanistan are actually working for the Taliban and bin Laden? Are you disputing that we removed the Taliban from power or that we broke al Qaeda's base of operations?
What is your point?
So am I. I'm talking about the Afghan women and what they can tell you about the Taliban. And, yes, I'm disputing that we removed the Taliban from "power". The Taliban is still "in power" - rather, they're still bullying their way around. The women are in fear of their lives if they don't wear the burka, they are still being attacked by the Taliban, still can't leave their home without the accompaniment of a male relative, etc, etc, etc! THAT'S my point. Just ask the Afghan women about life in the "new" Afghanistan.
You know, you really can't just jump into a conversation without reading the posts, as I already remarked on this in previous posts. It would probably be very helpful to you.
I posted to someone else at Post #12. You responded to me at Post #68 ... who's jumping into whose conversations?
Afghanistan may not be paradise for women, but for you to suggest that the present situation is no better than or different from the Taliban's rule is simply ridiculous. How many women were in the Taliban government as elected officials? How about now? There are women fighting for women's rights in Afghanistan ... how would that have gone with the Taliban still in charge?
Your comments may be accurate to a point but to overlook the successes for women and claim it has gotten no better for them is simply wrong-headed.
And, regardless of the condition for women, my initial point stands that we removed the Taliban from power and broke bin Laden's base of operations ... which is what we went there to do, not to secure equal rights for women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.