Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bahbah

But he brought up a very interesting point. The idea that in a civil war, there are two parties who are able to negotiate, shake hands, and end the hostilities.

Which muzzies hands can we shake? Who do we negotiate with? What concessions and favors are expected of us that will end the violence?

We need to face it. There are none. This is why this war is different from any other war that ever happened. Yes, we left Viet Nam, where there was alot of what some might call guerilla warfare, or Oriental Jihad.

But when we left, the war was over.

This IS a war against a religion. But is is unlike any true religion that ever existed. It is an army disguised as a religion.

OK, just for the hell of it, let me start a religion. Anybody who joins my religion has one obligation. If they see somebody who is not in my religion, their obligation is to kill the nonbelievers.

So how is society at large supposed to deal with it? How is government, which represents the collective right of self defense and protects the rights of people to be peaceful and creative gonna handle it?

If they have any sanity, they should squash me like a bug.
Period.

And all my followers as well.


119 posted on 11/26/2006 7:02:32 AM PST by djf (Only immigration question needed: You coming here to JOIN US or to CONQUER US?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: djf
But when we left, the war was over.

Not quite. The last US combat troops left Vietnam in Jan 2003. The South Vietnmaese fought on for almost another 18 months until Congress cut off funds to the South and the North Vietnamese violated the Paris Peace Treaty agreement and invaded in huge numbers.

The war was not over for the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who were murdered when the North took over, nor for the millions more who were sent into reeducation camps, or the millions who became boat people and refugees. It is still not over for those in the South who have lived under a repressive Communist government for over 30 years. It was not over for the millions more murdered in Cambodia and Laos after the South fell. This is not the kind of legacy we want to leave in Iraq and the region.

159 posted on 11/26/2006 7:51:03 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: djf; All
I see Iraq currently as more of a giant power struggle. The question then becomes do we have an interest in who or whom is in power, I think we do.
To gage progress in terms of days or months is futile. We need to rely on the emerging Iraqi army and our own. And as theirs comes on line and is able to do the job,as it slowly is, we can move aside.
There is no timetable for an asymmetrical war that I know of.
165 posted on 11/26/2006 7:58:01 AM PST by rodguy911 (Support The New media, Ticket the Drive-bys, --America-The land of the Free because of the Brave-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: djf; Bahbah
Which muzzies hands can we shake? Who do we negotiate with?

This sums up the matter nicely. We have seen for decades, and will continue to see, the terrorist effort ramp up until control is taken from them in their Middle Eastern strongholds. The Islamo-facisti are now in control of the situation, and only war, hyper-war, will solve the problem. It will be awhile until the terrorists finally convince us, speaking of the free world as a whole, that the societal underpinning of their madness must be shaken to its roots or possibly eliminated.

Yes, Bahbah, it is a case of the same old things being said; but only the terrorists are capable of changing this- and they will. I was impressed with Gen. Downing's comments on MTP.
186 posted on 11/26/2006 8:21:05 AM PST by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: djf
OK, just for the hell of it, let me start a religion.

It worked out for L. Ron Hubbard, though his followers don't kill their opponents (usually), just destroy their lives.

Read Robert Heinlein's description of the Fosterites in Stranger in a Strange Land for his take on his friend's so-called religion.

Now, to the substance of your post 

But when we left, the war (in Vietnam) was over. 

I have to agree with those that questioned you on this, and actually go beyond the time line specifics they raised.  There were at least a couple more years of war in Vietnam after the last American left.  On the broader scale I don't consider the conflict in Vietnam to be a war, in and of itself.  Instead it was a battle in a much larger war, the war between free people in democracies and communist dictatorships intent on taking over the world.  Jerry Pournelle called it the "70 years war."  We lost the battle of Vietnam but, by and large, we won the war against Communism, or at least beat them back to where they aren't quite the threat they were.  An evil idea never seems to die, after all.  The portion of that war in southeast Asia, of which the fighting in Vietnam was our biggest part, kept going and resulted in the deaths of millions and the dislocation of a like number of refugees, as well as the enslavement of many more.  We lost the battle of the Philippines in World War 2, but eventually defeated the Imperial Japanese in that broader war and, in the process, liberated the Philippines again.  We may yet liberate Vietnam as well, this time by undermining their Communist government through trade.  It's worked elsewhere.

This IS a war against a religion. But is is unlike any true religion that ever existed. It is an army disguised as a religion.

Yes and no. 

The same logic that applied to the "battle of Vietnam" versus the war with Communism applies to the current conflict against the Jihadis. It is, as you say, a war with a religion.  The Bush / Powell / Rice strategy started out with the specific intent of avoiding engaging in an all out war with Islam.  I think that policy has failed, not only because of flaws in their tactics but because they were thinking that they could avoid letting a war start.  This war started in the year 610. This is, if you will, the "1397 years war" (so far).  The first major battles started when Mohamed first pulled out his sword and started slaughtering unbelievers in the name of Allah around 622 and it has been their primary tactic ever since.

But far from being unique, his approach is far more in keeping with the way religions operated historically than the Christian evangelistic approach.  Even the Jews operated this way, carrying the Arc of the Covenant into battle before them as they marched forth to fight the Philistines or other non-believers.  Xerxes, the Babylonians, the Egyptians and most other great civilizations spread their religion through the use of the sword.  The Romans broke with that model by allowing their conquered states to generally maintain their own religious practices, so long as the Roman gods were also allowed a place.

We have fought these same barbarians, Mohamed' hordes, many times since they started out, and it has often taken centuries to drive them back.  We did lose all of the Christian kingdoms from Bulgaria to Morocco and up into Spain.  We almost lost all of Europe and it took Charles Martel (The Hammer) to turn things around in France and the brutality of Vlad Dracul and his kind to halt their advance in the Balkans.  We have not liberated most of the conquered lands yet.

The fighting in Iraq is analogous to that in Vietnam in that if we do pull a John Kerry and run away we will lose that country, in fact that entire region, to the Jihadis, just as the dominoes did fall, at least partially in southeast Asia.  This time the consequences will be far more likely to be catastrophic and it could lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions.  God help us if it comes to that.

Where are the Mongol hordes when you need them to distract the Jihadi hordes like they did in the past?  Ah well, warm up the Tridents, fellas.  We're gonna have some business for you in awhile.

As an aside to my friends who might be concerned about the length of this post... I started it around 10:15 and have been only doing it in tiny parts with the font set real large.  I promise, I'm not pushing it.... but I am addicted... <g>

 

235 posted on 11/26/2006 9:26:18 AM PST by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson