Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 21, 2006.
Umm, this is a really crappy thing to say but- when is the rest of the world gonna finally get fed up, nuke the entire Middle East and just be done with it?
Really I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it does get tiring. And trust me, I know we're at least 50% to blame for what's happened. The entire thing is just so disheartening. I guess I'm just frustrated. I mean, once the religious fanatics take over, what can you do? How do you stop these people?
My uncle has the same way of thinking as you lee .. my uncle thinks we need to nuke Iraq to rid of the fighting he was saying that 2 yrs ago ... Right now i'm leaning towards that idea too .. to try get our boys home ..
This Iraq war is Bush's 'nam and payback from GWB's father for trying kill him in early '90's after the desert storm war
I've got to scratch my head here. Nuke the Middle East? Are you under the impression that the Middle East is not a net benefit for the US? I hope you enjoy walking and sitting in the cold dark.
Umm, I was really only expressing frustration. I just can't seem to find an answer.
Help me out here.
Well, the good (and somewhat bad) news is that as troubling as radical Islams' (in this case, the Taliban) filling of the void of the anarchic frontier regions, it will likely never be as strong as tribal loyalties/identities.
It wasn't in Aghanistan, or in Yemen or Pakistan (esp. the frontier regions) - all countries which have a % of Al Qaeda or other miliant/fundamentalist Islamists residing within.
As the article states, Al Qaeda knows this, which is why they integrate themselves into the tribal system - but ultimately the tribal system will prove too fickle/hostile for any ideology that tries to supplant tribal authority, whether austere Islam, the Pakistani government or the US.
Interestingly enough, the US SF have had considerable success going native in Afghanistan - growing beards, riding horseback and lightly armored and mingling with the Natives - as they intuit that to succeed they must prove that they are just another tribe - a powerful one - that deserves to be recognized and dealt with in terms of local tribal self-interest. It is a pity that the Formal US Military command frowns upon these actions, as we pose a less threatening ally than the austere Islam to tribal society - which in turn, would give us a damn good chance of making headway in the WOT.
All we need is for military and civilian leadership to get their heads out of their asses, drop bureaucratic/institutional jockeying, and listen to their forces in the field. Because until we do, we lose tactically and strategically to organizations like Al qeada, that ideology aside - have flexible objectives based on realism, a command-structure and plan-of-action that is efficient and pragmatic to their goals.
Our boys? I've never understood why people use such a patronizing term.
Iraq isn't Vietnam and never will be. Vietnam was about politics, Iraq is about oil companies and gw's fealty to them.
Iraq will continue to feed fundamentalist terrorist groups throughout the ME as long as the US continues to interfere in local and regional politics. It's really not our problem, it's Musharraf's but he's so hamstrung by the religious extremists just like the leaders of Saudia Arabia that they are unable to do anything substantial in the way of reform. That's what happens when you cede your government to religious whackos. A lesson we should be learning.
Ultimately, they have the right to govern the way they want and anything we do will only make it worse. The best we can hope for is that it doesn't spill into India or the handful of minimally democratic countries in the region. Nuking them will obviously only make it worse but some Americans simply don't see it that way, they think the only way forward is continued confrontation, continued death and destruction. It seems fine to them as long as "our boys" are over there willingly and their boys aren't being drafted.
What i meant Our Boys is the military part and i from a military family so i guess i grew up on that term..
Well when i brought up 'nam was for the draft dodger that Bush is,and Iraq war is the only way that Bush would fight in a war since he's dodger
this war is illegal but I do support the troops .. it's not because i live in a military community .. it's because i live in fmr. military family (dad) and i kinda feel what the active duty families go thru ..
Glad to see nuking people (It's pronounced nu-cu-lar Marge) hasn't gone out of style. Good way to solve conflicts.
Musharref is in trouble because he's trying to let Bush claim some credit for Pakistan's cooperation in the GWOT, while at the same time trying to pretend that US Predators aren't operating over Pakistani airspace internally. And let's not forget, that whole intelligence apparatus was working with the Taliban only 5 years ago.
I think we all support the troops (well, most of us anyway), but some think that means you also have to support the war. Which is actually the opposite IMO. Sucks that we have to make that distinction. As if questioning the planning and reasons behind the war means you're against the troops or the US itself.
As for the topic at hand, I'm sticking with my other comments that we're just making things worse. Ignoring whether or not the administration's intentions were just, the implementation was certainly poor. Had we actually gone after the real terrorists in the first place, or if we had done a better job in Iraq, this would not be the problem it is today. I am disheartened, but I don't think blowing everybody up is going to fix anything. That was kinda our problem with the terrorists, they want to indiscriminately blow us all up.