Insurgents target Strykers in Iraq

[Battlefront.com]

civdiv,

Voting rights, rights to own and run a business, rights to political office are still not a western 'liberated women's' idea of equal rights for women.

Yeah, I think issues like female castration, "honor killings", forced mariages, dowries, generally being treated as property, female infanticide, etc. are probably a bit higher up on the priority list than the right to become Small Business Woman of the Year

And too true about the inherent conflict between any group advocating Sharia Law and any group not. There really is no way for each to meet the other half way. At least not while they are so busy fighting about it.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

All fair comments. I quit agree. The senior generals should be the first against the proverbial wall.

But...Is the top brass the only ones culpable in this mess? My question is, is the NCO or junior officer that can see the war isn't getting any results, doing the right thing by soldiering on?

Are there ticket punchers out there that have no more interest in the war, than getting "combat duty" on their records? How about the middle- and junior-level leaders who think all this civil affairs stuff is a bunch of crud, let's just lock and load, and shout hooah?

Certainly, there are plenty of people in the US military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan because they believe the world will be a better place because of their service. But how many believe that, not because of intelligent reflection, but because they slept through History class, or refuse to read books, or read books that tell them "Liberals are soft on war, and terrorists are best fought with armies", or just could care less about foreign cultures?

Further, when faced with strong evidence that policy is failing, or indeed has failed, is their response little more than denial:"Our unit is doing fine, we've turned the corner, another six months, it is still winnable, the media is selling us out, etc."?

All of which would be political hay, except for one thing: by their actions, these middle- and low-level leaders keep the war going longer, and thereby directly contribute to the maiming and death of the soldiers, whose lives they supposedly value so highly.

Sure, I know, mission first. But what if the mission does jack, but injure or even kill the soldiers the NCO or junior officer is to lead? Is that meritorious behavior?

Pretty harsh, I know. And not provable a bit of it, until the troops pull out and the war is generally seen as decisively lost.

The military makes a huge cult about unit integrity, and leader loyalty to one's men. It has become traditional for the professional NCO to describe the organization he serves in not as "The" Marine Corps or Army, but "MY" Marines Corps or Army.

Fair is fair. You support the policy, you take charge of your piece of the job - you share in the responsibility for the result.

[Moronic Max]

How do you reconcile Sharia law AND democracy? The latter is just a publicity ploy. Given, I agree with many of its complaints (The previously mentioned dictatorships), but they are just another collection of Islamic nutjobs.

Granted, it could just be a publicity ploy. But they talk about 'encouraging' stuff like veil wearing while simultaneously saying that no one should be 'forced' to wear it.

And then there's what the ISG advisor said (don't have the article handy, and it's not online; I'll post a name in a day or two); what they'd like to do and what they actually can do are two separate things. The Egyptian populace wouldn't stand for strict Sharia.

I'll grant upfront that your knowledge is likely more extensive than mine, so if one of us is wrong, well, it's probably me.

[Tarquelne]

Fair is fair. You support the policy, you take charge of your piece of the job - you share in the responsibility for the result.

I'd put things more in terms of "not letting down my men." Protesting in some form would be taking a principled stand, but I think "abandonment" is what they'd feel they were doing. And probably what a good portion - if not most - of their men would feel.

So I think it's too much to ask from them. It's not even close to their job. It'd likely do little to no good, vis a vis the "big picture", and it'd do them a huge amount of real personal harm. And I think most would feel like total ****s doing it.

I put The Blame squarely on the civvy leaders, the top brass, and the general public who first put the civvy leaders in place, and then failed their civic duty to monitor the leaders. As I understand it, "the deal" is that the public and/or people on top figure out what to do, and the lower-ranks do what they're told. Even if they don't like it. Ideally because they think what they're doing leads to a better world, but more often than not because not doing so would let the other guys in the unit down.

I think that's the reality. They don't want to let down the people they serve with. If they're told to go do something, they will try to do it. If we, as a nation, don't want them to do it, then we shouldn't send them in the first place. (!!)

I'm sure there are some who are just thinking about their careers - especially as you go up the ladder. But I very much doubt they're in the majority.

I'd _like_ to see the officer corps as a whole stand up and say "Enough." But I'm not going to ding them for not doing so. Because there's always the question about "What about next time?" (Though, yes, traditionally the problem with militaries isn't them saying "Enough.", it's saying "Lets shoot these guys, too.") But mostly because it wouldn't be the sort of heroism they signed up for, are trained for, or would even be appreciated by a lot of the people closest to them.

I guess I'd agree that they bear a share of the responsibility. Like all citizens, like it or not. But I don't think the sort of protest you describe, BD, is part of their responsibilities. Or, at least, it's very much outweighed by other responsibilities.

BTW, I'm not saying there aren't illegal orders or missions, or even egregiously inhumane ones that are still technically legal (somehow) and should be refused.

[ March 27, 2007, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Tarquelne]

The Egyptian populace wouldn't stand for strict Sharia.

I think what we need to accept is that "anti-Western" is good enough as long as "violently" isn't attached to it. (Either directly or via a bank.) Reform via backing the lesser of several evils may take a long time but as long as no one is throwing bombs and trade is regularized our national interest are intact.

The people living under harsh regimes - both secular and religious - would indeed be better served if the regimes could be displaced more quickly. But that hypothetical has a lot of strings attached to it.

[Splinty]

First off, most of us here beleive in what we're doing. Second, we are SWORN to obey the orders of the President of the United States. Third, publicly making what is essentially a political statement is a very big no no for anyone in the military. Therefore juniors officers and NCOs of any grade are not going to make any kind of public statement against the war or criticize the way it's been run.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Splinty:

First off, most of us here beleive in what we're doing. Second, we are SWORN to obey the orders of the President of the United States. Third, publicly making what is essentially a political statement is a very big no no for anyone in the military. Therefore juniors officers and NCOs of any grade are not going to make any kind of public statement against the war or criticize the way it's been run.

Yeah, exactly what he said. I am an NCO, and anti-war. The only thing Ive done was to play some anti-war industrial music in the vehicle, and one soldier later told me I was playing terrorist propaganda

[Battlefront.com]

Splinty and M1A1TankCommander are absolutely correct, of course. Soldiers are supposed to soldier. Without that the entire military system collapses. This is not true for the civilian leadership and the top brass. Why the top brass? Because it is their JOB to interface with the civilian leadership, not random Joe NCO.

If it is part of the top brass' job to interface with the civilians, it is also a part of their job to make sure the civilian leadership is propperly informed about the options and consequences. It is also part of their job to make sure that the civilian leadership understand and give them the tools and control they need to acheive the end results desired by the civlians.

Lastly, they need to make sure that what they are being asked to do is legal. Legal under the laws of Congress specifically, the Constitution generally, and even International law. They MUST do this because their oath requires them to only cary out lawful orders. It doesn't matter if the President himself issues the order, if it is not lawful they are obligated to not cary it out. This is black and white, absolutely unquestionable. And for good reason, because when it is questioned we get idiots in uniform running drugs to fund death squads and exchanging high tech weapons for hostages. All of which run contrary to national interests and are even harmful to national security in the long term (like Iran Revolutionary Guard having TOWs instead of crappy Soviet ATGMs in the event of war with them).

That is a huge responsibility and it is laughable to suggest that some 18 old raw recruit down at Ft. Benning should have some role to play in this sort of stuff. It isn't supposed to work that way nor should it ever try to work that way.

Splinty, M1A1TankCommander, and the rest of you there, going over there, and coming back... you're doing the right thing and no matter what happens with this war, as long as you performed your duty with honor... you don't have anything to be ashamed about and shouldn't have to apologize to anybody for your service to your country. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Americans consistently agree with this even though the majority also think this war is a mistake.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6

I'd put things more in terms of "not letting down my men." Protesting in some form would be taking a principled stand, but I think "abandonment" is what they'd feel they were doing. And probably what a good portion - if not most - of their men would feel.

Oh, I am sure that is how they justify it to themselves. Just like Keitel and Jodel did in Nazi Germany. "Vell, it voot be a lot vorz if I vern't in charge" sort of thing. Sometimes that is true, but the less influence one has over events, the less ability one has to mitigate the harm, and therefore the less reason there is to stick around. In some circumstances the best good can be done by simply refusing to take part. And this only works to the degree one's position has influence on the whole.

PFC Jones saying "HELL NO, I WON'T GO!" has no effect, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying to Rumsfeld "if you want to wreck this military and weaken this nation... you go right ahead and do that since it is your decision to make. However, we can retire with dignity. That is our decision to make. And if the media spins this in way that isn't flattering to you or your policy... well, we have no more control over their decisions any more than we have control over yours".

It's really rather simple and I don't see what wiggle room there is for those at the top. This war was unnecessary, poorly planned, poorly executed, and a huge setback to the US in pretty much every sense of the word. And they were the ones that made it possible. Not Splinty, not M1A1TankCommander. Those are just two of the poor saps that have to try to pull our bacon out of the fire that it's in. That's a tough job and I'm glad we have tough people willing to do it.

Steve

[ March 27, 2007, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[M1A1TC]

Thank you Battlefield for kind words. I been in the Army for almost 8 years now, seen the military change a lot. But when it comes down to it, you are just fighting for your own life, and life of your buddy. When bullets start flying, politics dont matter. I have another month of this ****, and I am back home.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TankCommander... stay safe.

AdamL,

You're not getting the main point here. I'm not saying that they should have retired because they disagreed with the Admin's foreign policy. What I am saying they should have disagreed to cary out a highly flawed, niave, and harmful plan that is on extremely questionable leagal grounds (some don't question it at all, like Germany's High Courts). If they could not reshape the civilian's messed up concepts then they should have asked to be relieved of command so the Admin could have found someone that could.

Of course this assumes that the top brass saw the flaws, fully understood how poorly things were likely to go, and knew how poorly prepared the US was to fight such a long and protracted war without much direct help. It is entirely possible that they did not. But if the did not, then they would be incompetent and not worthy of holding their positions in the first place.

Again, no matter how you cut it... this war was completely unnecessary to fight in 2002/2003, it was clearly not well planned for, the military did NOT have enough control over the occupation policies, and there was an almost total disregard for the local factors that people like Zinni were strongly warning about. So either they didn't do their job because they gave into political pressures or they didn't do their job because they weren't worthy of holding those positions in the first place. The record of how poorly managed this war has been since the get go is so strong that I do not see there being a third possibility.

In the private sector when top management f's up and ruins an otherwise good company through stupid and/or criminal decision making, the Board of Directors quite rightly asks for their heads on a platter. And in some cases the Shareholders have to get involved and as for that AND the Board of Director's heads on a platter. I haven't seen any heads on any platters so far.

Steve

[ March 27, 2007, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Abou Nayeek]

If we had not gone into Iraq the confrontation with militant Islam would simply happened in some other guise in some other time in the very near future.

Firstly, kudos to Peter Cairns, it’s good to question the king.

One should really pay attention to this implied existential threat to the US and the west by this so-called “militant Islam”. Especially when the world’s masses were recently polled and concluded that the real threat to Earth is the white house’s militant Christendom.

Realy? American militant Christendom! Yes, really. You’ve a president elected twice and who claims he has constant colloquies with “god”. Not only that, he’s on record saying he answers to higher callings and it was god who beckoned him to invade Iraq as a grand opening to his crusade.

You’ve a president whose pride and joy is an unwavering Pentagon and an apocalyptic evangelical base who will gladly follow him into the pits of eternal shame come hell or high water.

You’ve American generals on record saying “I’ve proven my god is stronger and more righteous than their god [the so-called militant Islamist’s that is].” In reality, the latter generals’ spurious conviction can be attributed to their possession of A10s, Abrams, Strykers and satellite guided weaponry vs. “militant Islam’s” mere IEDs. But of course these generals see it as the triumph of Christianity over Islam because, like their president, they’ve been talking to god too.

The fervor, hubris, blatant lies, preposterous embellishments and massive disinformation are always there too when describing the monumental threat of this mysterious “militant Islam”. In so far as to compare it to that of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. And where are these “militant Islam” massive armies? Point out their vast industrial base, their strategic depth, their air power, their naval long arm; their technological wherewithal, point them out. Yes, yes you’re right, their box cutters manufacturing base is formidable.

It’s OK too to have militant Judaism in a state founded upon occupation, expansionism, apartheid, illegal settlements, armed, murderous settlers, nuclear superiority and disdain for international laws, but Iran must go because of, oh wait, there it is again, “militant Islam”.

It’s really sad that an intellectual midget, a crappy orator and a diseased prevaricator was able to put the great American people in a trance for 6 long years.

These wars launched under the pretext and guise of an Islamic grave threat are really wars launched on ordinary Americans, on their civil liberties, on their privacy, on their freedom to organize and protest, on their freedom to fly, on their due process, on the separation of their state from their church, on the freedom from a monolithic press, on the separation of American powers, on the freedom from being adjudicated and tortured by a Fascist wetback.

Bush is on record saying and I paraphrase “our enemies will not forego any opportunity to harm our country, neither will I.” What’s really silly is to claim his was a gaffe.

There isn’t a day that goes by where Bush doesn’t pray to his suddenly non responsive god that another 9/11 take place and very soon. He’s on a timetable and his chances of pulling a war time FDR 3-termer are fading.

The fact of the matter is America’s arms industry, and by extension the Pentagon, abhor the evitable, especially evitable confrontations with mediocre, disjointed and inferior foes. The evitable is the enemy of the American arms industry and its hubristic presidents, evitablility means the death of profits and procurement of vital resources, it means one-term electability and the erosion of executive powers.

If it’s evitable, by golly the white house-Pentagon combo will make sure it’s inevitable, that combo will seek inevitability and confrontation as if its survival depended upon it. And if a foe isn’t manifesting itself, the latter combo will manufacture it _ today it’s “Militant Islam”, tomorrow it’ll be the war on Serbo-Cambodian Cuisine.

[Tarquelne]

Abandonment:

Oh, I am sure that is how they justify it to themselves. Just like Keitel and Jodel did in Nazi Germany. "Vell, it voot be a lot vorz if I vern't in charge" sort of thing. Sometimes that is true, but the less influence one has over events, the less ability one has to mitigate the harm, and therefore the less reason there is to stick around. In some circumstances the best good can be done by simply refusing to take part. And this only works to the degree one's position has influence on the whole.

I'm sure I could have been more clear (and that's Tarq, not BigDuke6, note), but I meant the "lower-rank" officers would have felt like they were abandoning their men. Not the 3+ stars. (And by "taking a principled stand" I don't mean it'd be the right thing to do. For one thing, the there are multiple principles to consider...)

I'm never been acquainted with any Generals, but here's the way I understand it: To a commander (Col. or lower) his men are like his children. But when you're promoted to General your kids have all grown up and now you run a day-care center. You may care about the kids a great deal... but they aren't _your_ kids. If you quit running the day-care center... fine. Someone else can. It's not like you're abandoning your family... which is what it's like if you're a Captain and walk away.

(This is part of the the "Motherhood" theory of military leadership, and it's the Next Bing Thing and Westpoint from what I hear.)

That's a tough job and I'm glad we have tough people willing to do it.

I feel it's a bit of a frivolous comparison, but I do think it's true: Being a soldier is a lot like being like a cop, but more so.

You often don't see people at their best.

People tend not to want you around, but when they do want you they DEMAND it.

It's dangerous, it doesn't pay much, and most people think it's more glamorous than the reality, while at the same time thinking it's easier than it really is.

[ March 27, 2007, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[aunt slapper]

I’ve been both excited and concerned about CM moving to a contemporary setting. Specifically, I was afraid that a preponderance of reactionary and jingoistic postings would turn me off of the game itself, as happened in the group discussion of another modern game. So, it is big relief to see mostly comments like those of Abou Nayeek and Steve.

Thank goodness.

[Tarquelne]

And where are these “militant Islam” massive armies? Point out their vast industrial base, their strategic depth, their air power, their naval long arm; their technological wherewithal, point them out.

I think you're right - there is no "existential" threat. Well, not in the way most people think.

Unless there's some breakthrough with detection technologies, it'll just keep getting easier for terrorists to hurt people. Terrorism alone won't bring down the US, or "the West", but enough of it might make us make permanent and often distasteful or harmful changes in the name of security.

Yeah... kind of like the ones the Bush Admin. keeps wanting to make now...

And I _do_ think there's a chance "militant radical Islam" ("Islomofascism"?) might get armies and an industrial base. But I think the best chance for that happening is the West pissing off too many people. Any short-of-completely-successful invasion could put off, for awhile, the rise of Communislam (I made that one up, just now), but in the end it'll just make it more likely.

The root problem is not Islam, it's people being angry at the US. (Well, people knowing how to make bombs AND being deadly-angry.) Killing everyone who's angry _is_ a solution, but I don't see it as being practical. (And I'd say "not practical" is the best thing you can say about that option.)

I haven't put any thought into the "killing everyone who knows how to make bombs." solution. Maybe there's a RAND paper...

It’s OK too to have militant Judaism in a state founded upon occupation,

Oooo, now you're asking Americans to give up the double standard? We really do need to keep what's _practical_ in mind.

It’s really sad that an intellectual midget, a crappy orator and a diseased prevaricator was able to put the great American people in a trance for 6 long years.

A quibble, but I'd say for no more than 2 years was it enough people to say "The American people." I would say "Way too many", though, for any given time.

The rest of the time I think the great American people were mostly apathetic. To say they were in a trance is to give them too much credit.

If it’s evitable, by golly the white house-Pentagon combo will make sure it’s inevitable, that combo will seek inevitability and confrontation as if its survival depended upon it.

Oh yeah... what I really wanted to say is that I think Steve's right - a confrontation was inevitable. But not necessarily an armed confrontation, and certainly not a war.

One of the basic problems in the Iraq war debate, I think, was that not enough people believe that something short of war was "on the menu." That something short of war could be of any signficant benefit.

For them it's not that Islam (or S.H., or whatever) presented an existential threat, but that they really believed war was the only response.

Even if you convince someone that Mohamobarbarism isn't a mortal danger, you may still have to convince them that there are states between "appeasement" and "war."

[civdiv]

Bigduke6,

I thought from your name you had served, but your comments lead me to believe that you haven't. Not trying to flame you or anything, but your expectations of the rank and file military boils down to derelection of duty. Lets take Clinton's impeachment. What if the majority of the military thought Clinton had to go (And believe me, the majority despised Clinton.)? So they decide to overthrow the government? Hey, they are doing just what you said they should, right?

We have a civilian run military for a reason. The military carries out it orders, period. It has no stake in politics. Refusing to carry out a lawful order (and they are lawful) is sedition and derelection of duty, you simply can't have it. Once the rule of law disappears from the military you have a disorganized bunch of well trained individuals armed to the hilt. That isn't a pretty picture.

In the military we have a saying; 'We don't make foreign policy, we just carry it out.' It's up to the voters to guide foreign policy, and then the troops to carry it out.

And in return the military expects respect from the population, but they do not demand it. And they expect solid backing for their mission from the government. Don't give the military an order and then be horrified when they carry it out. Militaries don't start wars (at least in a democracy), governments do that. Who is responsible for the government? The voters, of course. Wars are ugly and dirty and horrifying and the military breaks things and kills people.

So the knucklehead neocons got us into this war, and now the dems are playing games with the funding. Hmmm, resolution to be out by September 2008? Hmmm, the election will be in full swing by then, cooincidence? I think not. Hmmm, shut off funding for the troops or give spinach growers $25 million in funding to make up for losses when spinach growers poisoned people? The dems admit they are bribing senators to vote for the war resolution by piling all sorts of dumb earmarks on the MILITARY supplemental funding bill.

I say vote against all incumbants for the next series of elections; lets get rid of them all.

civdiv

[ March 27, 2007, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[Abou Nayeek]

Originally posted by civdiv:

I say vote against all incumbants for the next series of elections; lets get rid of them all.

civdiv

Given such sweeping, near dictatorial proposals, two thirds of the country will prefer to **** the troops, piss on your incumbents and resuscitate theirs.

[civdiv]

Given such sweeping, near dictatorial proposals,

I only made one proposal so your plural 'proposals' is off mark. And voting out all the incumbants is hardly dictatorial. In fact it was about as far from being dicatorial, unless you are saying I 'dictated' something.

two thirds of the country will prefer to **** the troops,

Actually an overwhelming percentage support the troops.

piss on your incumbents

Who are my incumbants, you don't know, do you? Unless you are talking about American incumbants in general, but that begs the question of who is pissing on them?

and resuscitate theirs.

Two thirds of the country is resuscitating their incumbants? I would think 100% of the country would attempt to resuscitate their incumbants.

Besides those points I agree 100% with you.

civdiv

[Moronic Max]

Splinty, M1A1, civdiv, Sixxxkiller, everyone I'm missing:

Thank you.

[civdiv]

Tarquelne,

Gotta disagree with you on some of your points. Agreed, the US has made things worse. Agreed, US has made a lot of people hate us. But Islam was a problem before we started pissing people off. And I will take off the gloves and dispense with the PC BS, Islam is the problem. We don't like to say that in our outside voice, do we? Islam is a compeletely backward religion that has failed to adapt to the modern world. Islam stopped growing and mutating over 300 years ago when they got thrown back from Vienna. They went back and hid in their holes and ignored what the rest of the world was doing. And now they are stuck with the culture and mores of 300 years ago.

In the Middle Ages Islam was the bright shining light in the world. Rich in art, science, literature, everything. While the average European noblemen was an illiterate pig rolling around in the mud somewhere in Western Europe, Islam was advancing on all creative fronts by leaps and bounds. And what happened? They decided they had nothing to learn from the west. They became an inclusive civilization. And while the west was constantly adopting the advances of Islam, Islam turned inward upon itself and simple stopped developing.

Now Islam is still cut off from the west as they refuse to adapt to the changes in the modern world. If it weren't for oil the entire culture would still be Bedouins or live in mud huts. Every year the number of books translated from other languages into Arabic numbers in the thousands. The number of books written in Arabic translated into western languages is similarly small. While, say, the number of books translated into or out of French, Spanish, Italian, German, Japanese, Chinese, English number in the hundreds of thousands if not millions for each language. Islam refuses to participate in the modern world and that is the nexus of their problem. Yes, they are cursed by dictators everywhere. A product of colonialism? Sure, and a product of their tribal culture. You need a dictator when you have no nationalism. The last progressive leader in the Middle East was probably Mosadegh, and yes, our CIA took care of him. But before him who do you have? Maybe Cyrus, but that was pre-Islam.

Your average Muslim is desperately poor, uneducated, and very, very angry. He is angry that his rich culture and history has left him unable to even provide for his family. He is angry at the west because we are rich, and powerful, and routinely smack his brethren around. And what does he do? He retreats into his culture because it is the only thing he has. He can't compete in the modern world so what else is left? And his angry kids go get educated by half literate, self-proclaimed mullahs because they have no other option and then are brainwashed into going off to earn 72 virgins. Thier best and brightest feel restrained in critical thinking and flee for the west in droves. When they arrive in the west, especially in America, they are amazed at the freedoms and the huge amount of progressive thought, and they associate their Muslim culture with a lack of education, discrimination, and a lack of freedom and they quickly embrace western culture. Iran is a good example. Their best and brightest emmigrate to the US or France, their semi-bright emmigrate to other areas in the Gulf, and whomever is left stays in the country to work, usually for the government.

What's the answer? Probably some incredibly dynamic, charismatic, and popular Muslim figure who has the influence to drag the entire culture and religion into the 21st century. The problem is such a figure would immediately be a threat to Al Qaida, Hezballah, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Libya, Qatar, Syria, Palistine, every Islamic Terrorist Group, etc, etc, etc. Literally everyone in the Muslim world would regard him as a threat and they would line up to assassinate him.

I don't have an answer. A democratic Iraq with a democratic Afghanistan would be a good start but that is but a pipe dream at this point.

Yeah, we have made things quite a bit worse since March 2003. But we didn't start it, Islam did. And before I get flamed, I understand radical Islam is a small percentage of Islam. But Islam begat radical Islam, and it did it all on its own.

civdiv

[ March 27, 2007, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[civdiv]

Max, and everyone else serving, you are in our prayers. Drive on, draw fire, and DUCK!!

civdiv

[Battlefront.com]

Abou Nayeek,

I have to remind you about the Forum Rules you agreed to when you signed up. One of them is to keep the language polite. You've already violated that. Everybody is treated the same here, so you are being given a warning. Please remember to avoid certain bits of the English language

Steve

[Tarquelne]

But Islam was a problem before we started pissing people off.

I do agree it was a problem. Just not nearly as serious.

And I will take off the gloves and dispense with the PC BS, Islam is the problem. We don't like to say that in our outside voice, do we?

I don't like to say it because...

Islam is a compeletely backward religion that has failed to adapt to the modern world. Islam stopped growing and mutating over 300 years ago when they got thrown back from Vienna.

... I think the problem is backward people. People with a big inferiority complex. Looking at the history of various religions I think what's important is not so much what the holy books say, but what people want to get out of the holy books.

That being said, I do think the Koran is more inclined to violence than, say, the Torah. But I still think the most important thing is what people want to get out of the religion. Right now too many people want to get "Decapitation is OK."

So... I would say that Islam is currently a problem. But it doesn't have to be.

And, looking at your post, I think that's implied. You talk about a lot of things that aren't "Islam", per se, but are instead characteristic of the culture of that area of the world.

If we don't want to piss off people unnecessarily we should keep that in mind. "Islam" is a Big Deal, but all the culture doesn't flow from just Islam. The ME/SE Asia can be made more secular - or less rabid - just like the rest of the world.

[civdiv]

Someone posted something on one of my favorite blogs about the supplemental earmarks that is much more articulate than I could ever conjure up;

Comment below written by: Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF

No Mr. DeFazio, your vote was one of betrayal regardless of how you want to justify it. ONCE CONGRESS OVERWHELMING VOTED TO SEND OUR WARRIORS INTO HARMS WAY, THE DEBATE SHOULD HAVE ENDED. YOU WERE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO GIVE THEM YOUR FULL SUPPORT UNTIL VICTORY WAS ACHIEVED. Instead, as soon as your leadership saw the possible POLITICAL ramifications of a victory, they worked their collective asses off to ensure it didn’t happen. As you are a democrat and your party has a long history of betraying the military and putting politics ahead of national security, it comes as no surprise. If you feel so damn strongly about getting our troops out, make a damn stand and cut the funding today. As much as that would be beyond despicable, at least you would be making a definitive stand. This formal declaration of surrender loaded with perks for those who needed that extra incentive to screw our troops and the Iraqi people is nothing more than POLITICS. There is nothing honorable or admirable about anyone of you cowards who signed it. Your party and its leadership are craven self-serving pieces of garbage and your day of reckoning is coming. Unlike Vietnam, there will be consequences for your cowardice.

from:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/03/the_power_of_th.html#more