Rousing, emotional start for war protest

[Guest yod]

We've already "won" the war in Iraq.

really? when did the enemies of the Iraqi people (and other terrorists) stop attacking/bombing the duly elected government?

I think that your definition of terrorist/murderer is a bit off, because that would mean that The Nazi party was terrorist, when it wasn't. Terrorists are essentially non-state governed organizations that use guerilla tactics and civilian targets to inspire fear in a populace. Aka "terror"ists.

And Iraq was a secularly governed country, aka by your definition it wasn't islamo-fascist. So what the heck were we doing in there in the first place!

I didn't say that anyone who hates jews is a terrorist. I said that anyone who hates the jews and wants to wipe out Israel is a terrorist. All terrorists have this same murderous spirit against Israel & the jews in common.

There certainly are bigots who are not terrorists, per se, but since they would support terrorists and the satanic agenda, I have no problem lumping them together.

The Nazis and Sadaam were fascists. Sadaam tried to play the Islamo-fascist card when he sent scuds into Israel during the Gulf War.

[The Lorax]

There are more than just 2 factions warring there, as I'm sure you would agree.

There is a religious war between the two main factions, Shia Arabs (~60% total pop) and Sunni Arabs and Kurds (~37%). 3% don't fall into either category.

But you at least admit that they aren't going to stop fighting if we surrender Iraq to them and leave them alone...you just are under the impression that they would leave us alone?

I am under the impression--and so is the CIA--that pulling out of Iraq will reduce the terror threat to the United States.

911 didn't happen in a void. There are islamo-fascist organizations who wake up every day with nothing on their minds except killing jews and christians. They plot the overthrow of all nations who don't subscribe to their Wahhabist beliefs.

Shall we let them take Iraq? What next? Saudi Arabia? How many nations are enough? They've almost got complete control of Africa and the Middle East and all of the southern parts of the former Soviet Union. They aren't satisfied yet though...

We are in a war of containment. Yes, of course there is more "terrorist activity" because we've given them a closer target where they can come out to play. Do you think they weren't there all along?

Are you really so naive that you think they will leave us alone if we give them EVERYTHING they want? Why hasn't that appeasement worked in Israel....or in all of world history?

wake up, man...

You have some good points, but we have to make priorities here. It is true many if not most Muslims want to see a 100% Muslim planet. But this does not mean they will all get into planes and fly into our skyscrapers tomorrow. Those few that plan to--the terrorists--they consitute an immanent threat. The immanent threat is much more limited than the Muslim worldview, and it is what we must be concerned about, first and foremost.

Like you said 9/11 did not occur in a vacuum, nor does any act of terrorism. Terrorists are not born; they are made. The actions of the U.S. can take relatively benign Muslims and turn them into immanent threats. When we stir up a hornet's nest like we are doing in Iraq--we are doing just that. I am skeptical of your "containment" policy because there is reason to believe that such a policy would actually awaken more immanent threats to the US than it would quell.

EDIT: Not to mention we are already spread thin. Our operations abroad have left the homeland itself more vulnerable than ever. Homeland security comes first, and instituting a radical containment policies overseas puts us all in jeopardy.

[Guest yod]

There is a religious war between the two main factions, Shia Arabs (~60% total pop) and Sunni Arabs and Kurds (~37%). 3% don't fall into either category.

It's so much more complicated than "just" a religious war (although it is that also).

Iran is funding Shiites, Al Quida is funding Sunnis, Syria is funding Baathists, Kurds are trying to stay out of the fight while Jordan is trying to gain territory in the background (with a legitimate claim, btw)

The EU, USA, Russia, and China want open shipping lanes for oil, etc...

This is very, very complicated...

If we leave before Iraq is completely stable there will be a vacuum that is filled by someone other than Iraqis. Are any of those options good? Methinks not

You have some good points, but we have to make priorities here. It is true many if not most Muslims want to see a 100% Muslim planet. But this does not mean they will all get into planes and fly into our skyscrapers tomorrow. Those few that plan to--the terrorists--they consitute an immanent threat. The immanent threat is much more limited than the Muslim worldview, and it is what we must be concerned about, first and foremost.

Like you said 9/11 did not occur in a vacuum, nor does any act of terrorism. Terrorists are not born; they are made. The actions of the U.S. can take relatively benign Muslims and turn them into immanent threats. When we stir up a hornet's nest like we are doing in Iraq--we are doing just that. I am skeptical of your "containment" policy because there is reason to believe that such a policy would actually awaken more immanent threats to the US than it would quell.

EDIT: Not to mention we are already spread thin. Our operations abroad have left the homeland itself more vulnerable than ever.

Thanks for your graceful nod towards the points I'm making. You have valid points also, I realize, but the solutions of these protestors are not going to work.

How far back do you want to go in history? Ever heard of the Barbary Coast wars?

Even the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression. Though I certainly don't agree with the way the Crusades were administered (because the European armies lumped jews in with muslims), it wouldn't have happened without Islamic aggression in the first place. The islamists have been fighting this war since Mohammed.

Again....do you know the meaning of the word "hudna"? It is the only word for peace in the Islamic world but it doesn't mean a cessation of violence. It only means a time of re-arming in preparation for the endless war against those who don't submit to allah.

The point of this war is to bring the Middle East into the 21st Century. It's going to take a little while and a few eggs will be broken but it could stop tomorrow if Islamo-fascists relented on their desire to subjugate all peoples to sharia law.

Until then, we have to oppose them somewhere in a language they understand.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

really? when did the enemies of the Iraqi people (and other terrorists) stop attacking/bombing the duly elected government?

That is part of the peacekeeping. We won the war "for" Iraq already, we are now in a position of maintaining the peace. We are fighting a guerilla war and civil resistance right now, but we already "have" Iraq. My arguement is we need to set the Iraqi people up so they can defend themselves from this violence, and then we need to leave. We can't stay in Iraq forever.

I didn't say that anyone who hates jews is a terrorist. I said that anyone who hates the jews and wants to wipe out Israel is a terrorist. All terrorists have this same murderous spirit against Israel & the jews in common.

I disagree. You don't need to have a radical islamic agenda to be a terrorist. While it is true that many terrorists have this agenda for Israel, not all terrorists have the same goals. ANY organizaton that intentionally inspires fear in a populace through guerilla fighting and targeting of civilians can be labeled as terrorist, not just those who have an anti-semetic agenda. This is what I disagree with, but I do agree that many who hate Jews and Israel are terrorists, just that those aren't the necessary requirements to be terrorist.

The Nazis and Sadaam were fascists. Sadaam tried to play the Islamo-fascist card when he sent scuds into Israel during the Gulf War.

This war isn't about that though, the Gulf War was about that. The Gulf War was much more justified in my mind than this war. We had UN go ahead and an aggressive attack by Iraq as an excuse to invade. We have neither in the case of Iraq today. And again, I think you may be confusing your terms. Why would Saddam sending scuds into Israel clasify his regieme as Islamo-fascist? You said before that your definition of Islamo-fascist is someone who wants to impose Sharia law, but Saddam wasn't doing that. Your definition would more accuratly define Saddam's regieme as terrorist (because of the hating Israel part), but as I have shown I don't think your definition of terrorist is really the best one to use.

[Guest yod]

That is part of the peacekeeping. We won the war "for" Iraq already, we are now in a position of maintaining the peace. We are fighting a guerilla war and civil resistance right now, but we already "have" Iraq. My arguement is we need to set the Iraqi people up so they can defend themselves from this violence, and then we need to leave. We can't stay in Iraq forever.

and I think that is exactly what we're trying to do.

Do you really think Bush is enjoying the hit to his political popularity this is causing? I don't.

But he is correct in saying we can not set a hard timetable because it only tells Iraq's enemies when they've won the war.

I disagree. You don't need to have a radical islamic agenda to be a terrorist.

Point conceded.

Why would Saddam sending scuds into Israel clasify his regieme as Islamo-fascist? You said before that your definition of Islamo-fascist is someone who wants to impose Sharia law, but Saddam wasn't doing that. Your definition would more accuratly define Saddam's regieme as terrorist (because of the hating Israel part), but as I have shown I don't think your definition of terrorist is really the best one to use.

I didn't say he was....I said he was trying to play that card so islamo-fascists would come to his aid.

It didn't work because they hated his secular regime