Posted on 03/12/2013 5:45:40 AM PDT by lbryce
On Feb. 26, 2003, President George W. Bush gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, spelling out what he saw as the link between freedom and security in the Middle East. “A liberated Iraq,” he said, “can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region” by serving “as a dramatic and inspiring example … for other nations in the region.”
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I’m not a fan of Ann Coulter, but she had it right way back when she said we should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
That is exactly how Reagan defeated the Soviet empire; he cut off the cash flow.
Your summation of "the way things are" in the mideast is spot-on, IMO. It was foolish of Bush to think that the mideast Muslims would welcome "freedom". To them, "freedom" means the right to Talibanism, Wahabbi-ism and 9-year old brides.
IMO, the Irag war was supposed to be about deposing Saddam because a loose cannon with WMD was not allowable in a post 9/11 world. After the statue of Saddam was pulled down, Bush should have had his "mission: accomplished" moment. The only nation-building we should have done would have been to install a kinder and gentler Shah of Iran type of government.
It was worse than foolish.
It was an insult to our culture and the ancestors who built it.
It was an affront to history.
Makes me madder every time I think about it.
That was my hope as well.
I don't like feeling like a fool.
It was oil which allowed a dysfunctional Islam to continue. Oil and foreign aid. It allows despots to be wealthy, and subsidize radical mosques and madrasahs to propagate radical Islam.
When Muslim clans depend upon the support of their Westernized educated members, then the ones earning the incomes will dominate clan discussions, and they will tell the young people of the clan "put away those Qurans and study engineering, finance, and medicine, or your allowances get cut off".
How to win a religious war in one step:
Destroy the other side’s most venerated religious symbol utterly.
In the case of Islam, allah is the supreme god, is all powerful, and has predetermined everything - down to the subatomic scale.
Allah is embodied in the stone at Mecca. Destroy that - allah is instantly discredited as the supreme god and shown not to be able to control anything.
When asked - shortly after 9/11 - what would they do if Mecca was destroyed, jihadis replied that allah would be discredited, and they would variously become Christian, Jews, or atheists. They added that there was no way they would humiliate themselves by praying to a discredited god. Asked if that action would make them mad and want vengeance, they said, no. For what? Allah was a false god and not to be respected or revenged for allah’s deceit. (This interview was posted somewhere on the web at the time.)
The best way, as the jihadis would see it, would be to make a huge statement without warning, like 9/11. The best way to accomplish this, from the Western point of view, would be without warning to take out Mecca during the ‘haj’ with a modestly small thermonuclear weapon.
The radioactive spot would continue to remind former jihadis of their humiliation and of the false god, allah.
The near total loss of Saudi oil would be made up, in time, by other nations, principally Russia and the US.
While many here and elsewhere would decry this as bloodthirsty and vile, the upshot would be to end over 20 wars the jihadis are currently engaged in fighting against their neighbors merely because they are not muslims.
There is no way, as others here have noted, to talk them out of continuing to wage war until everyone on Earth is muslim (Sunni), or conversely until everyone on Earth is brought to Paradise (Radical Shiia).
The choice for the Western world is to continue in a hodgepodge fashion, fighting one group here and another group there for generations, or take the bull by the horns and end it quickly as cleanly as possible.
I spent a short time in Iraq a couple years ago, working with Arabs from Baghdad and Mosul and Kurds from Southeastern Kurdistan. We had a discussion on the war, and they all pretty much said, “We really appreciate everything America did for us— getting rid of Saddam. But why didn’t you finish the job? Saddam was just one trouble-maker. Iran is an even bigger trouble-maker, sending terrorists and bombs over here.” That is nearly a direct quote.
I was in favor of the war in Iraq, and met and worked with good people who have a much better life and future because of it. But I just don’t think I can support another war like Afghanistan anywhere. We, as a country, have forgotten how to fight to win and go home. Afghanistan has been a waste of blood, treasure, and time. And I really hate saying that, but it’s the truth.
There is also the problem of fighting people groups who inhabit multiple countries, and refusing to fight them in all of those countries. This gets very messy very quickly and is largely why we lost in Vietnam and Korea was a costly stalemate.
Take off the turbans and those guys would all look like employees at the Duck Dyansty warehouse.
Thank you for that. I completely agree.
I also think that calling for the death of all Muslims is a dangerous, evil oversimplification. The truth is that most are not suicide bombers. Most are just normal people who want to be left to live their lives in peace, but live in a constant state of fear from all sides. That is why dishonesty is so rampant in the Middle East. Nobody really trusts anyone else. They go along with the mob because the mob will kill them if they don't sound supportive enough. Get most of them alone, and they would just as soon have a pleasant discussion with you over some nice tea and Kebab.
bingo
we used to say you (the US) can’t buy (the loyalty of) an arab, you can only rent one
just look at what is is now costing us to rent just Egypt
we (the West) are going to have to come with terms that some of our species are brutes who will be ruled by despots and who will live under genocide and casual acceptance of killing and murder (”honor” and “Martyrdom”)
we basically have to let them
However, when they come over here and kill us we have to respond and kill them back
But we MUST draw the line at letting them emigrate here and colonize their social and religious insanity among us while we “tolerate” it
The problems in the middle east are going to wonders for my new line of bullet proof burkas, available in a wide variety of Arab Spring colors. Many women will enjoy the handy little pocket inside to hold personal items as well as a cell phone, also know as a detonating device.
the maps of numerous middle east ‘countries’ should
be re-drawn.
Bush-43 could have been
(for Iraq and A-stan)
the new Radcliffe of India,
but chose not to be.
opportunity lost.
It’s both. The politics are driven by the religion. You cannot separate the two. I have been over in the Mid East and I can see no sane way to get rid of Islam. We can’t just wipe out 2 billion people.
Liberty & Freedom are a direct threat to islam.
Medved pointed out some interesting perspectives several years ago pointing out why Islam is so dangerous. He described three religions within the coarse categories of “evangelism” and “politics” as follows:
Christianity: Evangelistic but not political. It wants everyone to be a member but it does not tell it’s members how to live. It is the poster child of the concept of “spirit of the law” leaving every member to choose how they respond to the world and events, looking to the example of Christ as the appropriate action - while acknowledging peoples propensity to not always do the right thing.
Judaism: Political but not evangelistic. Judaism has very strict rules to which its members are to adhere. It is a “letter of the law” type of religion. But it is not evangelistic. If you are not a part of it they really don’t care what you do. You are “outside” their rules.
Islam: Both VERY evangelical and VERY politicl. Islam wants ALL people on earth to be a member and people are to be punished or even killed if they refuse to be a member. Likewise, it is political to the point that it tells you which foot to use to enter a room. And you can be killed for not obeying the rules.
Above is why my tagline used to be “Islam is more dangerous to the world today than Nazism was in the mid-1930’s. I stand by that today.
The one saving grace we have is that Muslims are not like Nazis. If Nazi Germany had the religion of Islam as part of it’s charter, the whole world would be Nazi today. Actual muslims are, frankly, kinda dumb. Thank God.
Dissent and non-obedience to the tenets of Islam is dealt with harshly. Do not think for a moment that the desire of our current "leaders"(?) doesn't contain a lust for this type of domination.
Lastly, the demographics are not in favor of western culture.We in the west are literally half a decade away from being minorities in our own lands. If the western cultures continue to accept the belief that Islam will de-radicalize as it confronts our western culture, then prepare to take that belief to your grave.
Liberty & Freedom are a direct threat to islam.
Slate...... pure propaganda, no substance, presstitute refugee detritus
You cannot separate the two. I have been over in the Mid East and I can see no sane way to get rid of Islam. We can’t just wipe out 2 billion people.
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.