The War on Terror

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I've been thinking lately that perhaps the Bush Administration is being too overt in it's action towards terrorist threats. Granted in the first two major actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan and again against Saddam Hussein's regime there was little we could do but go to war. However, perhaps the next time we mass against a enemy nation we should be a little more covert about it? In the Cold War, a conflict compareable to this for it too was fought against an ideology, very little of the overall conflict took place in the brush wars against Communism, there was much more underhanded conflicts. Are we doing that sort of thing here? If not, why?

[EricMM 0]

Just what -ism would we be fighting ideologically against then?

 

And how?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Just what -ism would we be fighting ideologically against then?

 

And how?

Islamic Fundamentalism

[Cartman 0]

I've been thinking lately that perhaps the Bush Administration is being too overt in it's action towards terrorist threats. Granted in the first two major actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan and again against Saddam Hussein's regime there was little we could do but go to war. However, perhaps the next time we mass against a enemy nation we should be a little more covert about it? In the Cold War, a conflict compareable to this for it too was fought against an ideology, very little of the overall conflict took place in the brush wars against Communism, there was much more underhanded conflicts. Are we doing that sort of thing here? If not, why?

Because the Administration is using this for their own personal gain, duh!

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I've been thinking lately that perhaps the Bush Administration is being too overt in it's action towards terrorist threats. Granted in the first two major actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan and again against Saddam Hussein's regime there was little we could do but go to war. However, perhaps the next time we mass against a enemy nation we should be a little more covert about it? In the Cold War, a conflict compareable to this for it too was fought against an ideology, very little of the overall conflict took place in the brush wars against Communism, there  was much more underhanded conflicts. Are we doing that sort of thing here? If not, why?

Because the Administration is using this for their own personal gain, duh!

Prove it.

 

Excuse me for having a little faith in my country, ok? But I don't buy this "bombs for oil" bullshit. The administration of this nation firmly believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat or they wouldn't have sent American boys to die over there. Whether Iraq was a threat or not is debateable, but I believe that Bush is believed they were.

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, stuff it.

[Guest deadbeater]

Ahem *Haliburton getting the contracts* Ahem

[Justice 0]

Ahem *Haliburton getting the contracts* Ahem

*CoughHaliburtonwasgiventhecontractbythemilitarynottheadministrationCough*

 

*CoughHaliburtonputoutoilwellfiresinthefirstPersianGulfWarsotheywerenaturallythe

firstchoiceCough*

 

*CoughDickCheneyhasnothingtogainintryingtosomehowusehisVicePresidentialpowerstog

etHaliburtonthecontractsCough*

 

*CoughHaliburtondidn'tactuallypricegougeandinfactitwastheKuwaitisuppliersoHaliburtonwillhavetolik

elypaythatoutofpocketforsomethingtheycouldn'tcontrolCough*

 

*CoughYouareanimrodfornotknowinghalfofthisstuffCough*

 

I'll respond to the original question when I've formulated a good enough response to it.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Actually, Zascz, you have the right idea, this should be about combating fundamentalism, but it hasn't been since we ousted the Taliban, and well, first off, you can't kill an idea, you can only kill people, and dead extremists make for good martyrs, and second, we have fundamentalism in our own country, it's why the US is so backward about freakin' gay marriage. We can't stop it here, why can we stop men you believe so deply in their cause that they would kill themselves for it?

[Guest MikeSC]

Ahem *Haliburton getting the contracts* Ahem

*CoughHaliburtonwasgiventhecontractbythemilitarynottheadministrationCough*

 

*CoughHaliburtonputoutoilwellfiresinthefirstPersianGulfWarsotheywerenaturallythe

firstchoiceCough*

 

*CoughDickCheneyhasnothingtogainintryingtosomehowusehisVicePresidentialpowerstog

etHaliburtonthecontractsCough*

 

*CoughHaliburtondidn'tactuallypricegougeandinfactitwastheKuwaitisuppliersoHaliburtonwillhavetolik

elypaythatoutofpocketforsomethingtheycouldn'tcontrolCough*

 

*CoughYouareanimrodfornotknowinghalfofthisstuffCough*

 

I'll respond to the original question when I've formulated a good enough response to it.

Don't even respond to these idiots, PPlay. They really are too dense to try and enlighten.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

There should be a war on ALL religious fundamentalism. It leads to nothing but trouble.

[Vyce 0]

you can't kill an idea,

 

You can make it no longer desirable by offering attractive alternatives.

 

Establishing democracy in the Gulf will work towards doing exactly that.

 

we have fundamentalism in our own country, it's why the US is so backward about freakin' gay marriage. We can't stop it here, why can we stop men you believe so deply in their cause that they would kill themselves for it?

 

Comparing American fundamentalism to Islamic fundamentalism is a poor analogy indeed.

 

The fundamentalism here is very minor in relation to the amount of Islamic fundamentalism prevalent in the world, and in general is far less violent. It's largely kept in check, as well, which can't be said for the Islamic world in general.

[Guest JMA]

Comparing American fundamentalism to Islamic fundamentalism is a poor analogy indeed.

Don't you mean Christian fundamentalism?

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Well, other than the occasional John Walker Lindt(or however his name's spelled), the majority of America's fundamentalists are Christian evangelicals. And they are waging a culture war just as hard as the Muslim fundamentalists are. They just aren't straping bombs to themselves. Instead, they get on Tv and scam people into sending them money. If they could pull that off, I very much doubt they;d be as nasty, or if we did the right thing andf got the Israelis out of the occupied territories instead of giving them F-16s

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, other than the occasional John Walker Lindt(or however his name's spelled), the majority of America's fundamentalists are Christian evangelicals. And they are waging a culture war just as hard as the Muslim fundamentalists are. They just aren't straping bombs to themselves. Instead, they get on Tv and scam people into sending them money. If they could pull that off, I very much doubt they;d be as nasty, or if we did the right thing andf got the Israelis out of the occupied territories instead of giving them F-16s

Ah, somebody new to ignore.

 

Groovy.

 

WORLD of difference in "scamming people out of money" (which, BTW, the Muslim fundies don't need to do since they own a few countries) and blowing up innocents. I know you buy into the whole moral equivalence argument --- but even YOU can't seriously be making this comparison.

 

And "get Israel out of the occupied territories". You know what I find funny --- Jews tend to vote Democratic --- yet CONSERVATIVES are their best friends internationally. The LEFT wants them to give up land and give in to terrorism.

 

I say we let Israel do WHATEVER they want in the Middle East.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

The LEFT wants them to give up land and give in to terrorism.

Bullshit. Not all leftists are multi-culturalists. I know I'm not.

[Guest SP-1]

JMA, you should be picking a fight with idealogical extremists. There are extremists in pretty much any way of thinking. Trying to make war with religion itself is the height of arrogance and shows a complete lack of education on the core beliefs of not only Christianity, but Islam and the other religions you would seek to eradicate as well.

 

And that's the difference. A bible-believing Christian isn't out to kill an Islamic or someone that disagrees with them. There are alot of Islam followers who aren't out to kill others.

 

But no, let's make war on people who have beliefs and stick by them. Because wiping out conviction will make the world a better place!

[Guest JMA]

JMA, you should be picking a fight with idealogical extremists. There are extremists in pretty much any way of thinking. Trying to make war with religion itself is the height of arrogance and shows a complete lack of education on the core beliefs of not only Christianity, but Islam and the other religions you would seek to eradicate as well.

I declared we should be at war with religious fundamentalism. Not religion in general.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Have you ever thought that maybe there might be just a SMIDGEN less terrorism if there weren't people occupying land they have no right to have and attacking civillians in retaliation for terrorist attacks. I have no problem eith Israel defending ITS land. The occupied territories are not their land. They also have WMDS, but I see no one giving them any flack. I see no one giving the US flack for having WMDs when we say othewr countires must give them up to join the civilised world. We're only encouraging people to attack us by doing what we're doing. North Korea's the threat, and by and large we've been ighnoring them until now. Let's face it, sometimes you have to deal with the devil. THERE'S a country that needs to lose the WMDs, because the fellow running that country( forgot how to spell his name, so sue me) IS crazy enough to use 'em. If you wish to ignore, by all means. I don't intend to be a huge presence in this folder, I'd rather be the Ultimo Dragon mark that hopes and prays he gets onto Smackdown in some capacity. Please, go on ahead with giving the world the finger, and when no one helps us out, we can all go back and remember times like these. By the way, I do not give a darn what religon you are. If Jewish people vote Democrat, fine, if they vote Republican, well, by all means. All I know is that I'm a Roman Catholic who disagrees with a lot of my churches policies, and I know all about how religons shouldn't mean a thing when it comes to politics, at least not politics like this

[Guest SP-1]

JMA, you should be picking a fight with idealogical extremists.  There are extremists in pretty much any way of thinking.  Trying to make war with religion itself is the height of arrogance and shows a complete lack of education on the core beliefs of not only Christianity, but Islam and the other religions you would seek to eradicate as well. 

I declared we should be at war with religious fundamentalism. Not religion in general.

What's your definition of Religious Fundamentalism? It'd be foolish to formulate a response without that clarification.

[Guest JMA]

What's your definition of Religious Fundamentalism?  It'd be foolish to formulate a response without that clarification.

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

 

Note the bolded text.

[Guest MikeSC]

Have you ever thought that maybe there might be just a SMIDGEN less terrorism if there weren't people occupying land they have no right to have and attacking civillians in retaliation for terrorist attacks.

Nope. They'd STILL be living in an unmitigated dump and they'd have to blame SOMEBODY for their misery.

I have no problem eith Israel defending ITS land. The occupied territories are not their land.

Yes, it is. Next time a bunch of Arab countries wish to attack Israel, they had best not lose.

They also have WMDS, but I see no one giving them any flack.

Because they're not run by psychotic extremists and, when left alone, don't tend to bother much of anybody.

I see no one giving the US flack for having WMDs when we say othewr countires must give them up to join the civilised world.

Well, unlike the dumps in the Middle East, we actually do some good for the world at large.

We're only encouraging people to attack us by doing what we're doing.

Ah, so GIVE the terrorists WMD'S for peace? Wow, radical theory. Idiotic, but radical.

North Korea's the threat, and by and large we've been ighnoring them until now. Let's face it, sometimes you have to deal with the devil. THERE'S a country that needs to lose the WMDs, because the fellow running that country( forgot how to spell his name, so sue me) IS crazy enough to use 'em.

It is INFINITELY more difficult to PREVENT people from getting WMD (as we are doing with the Middle East) and dealing with them AFTER they have them (N. Korea).

If you wish to ignore, by all means. I don't intend to be a huge presence in this folder, I'd rather be the Ultimo Dragon mark that hopes and prays he gets onto Smackdown in some capacity.

Wrestling analogies REALLY don't work in this folder, hate to tell you.

Please, go on ahead with giving the world the finger, and when no one helps us out, we can all go back and remember times like these.

Outside of Britain and Israel --- who do we honestly need?

 

And what is the world going to do to us? Anything they do to us will hurt them FAR WORSE in the long run.

By the way, I do not give a darn what religon you are.

Groovy.

If Jewish people vote Democrat, fine, if they vote Republican, well, by all means. All I know is that I'm a Roman Catholic who disagrees with a lot of my churches policies, and I know all about how religons shouldn't mean a thing when it comes to politics, at least not politics like this

Didn't say they should. I just find it ironic that, by and large, the American Jewish population tends to vote Democratic when the Dems aren't exactly the closest friends of Judaism internationally.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

What's your definition of Religious Fundamentalism?  It'd be foolish to formulate a response without that clarification.

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

 

Note the bolded text.

Would PETA qualify?

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

What's your definition of Religious Fundamentalism?  It'd be foolish to formulate a response without that clarification.

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

 

Note the bolded text.

Would PETA qualify?

Yes.

[Guest SP-1]

Here's the problem with that definition: it boils down to someone sticking to their guns for what they believe in, often on moral principles. Claiming that this action is wrong is basically saying that humanity should have free reign to do whatever it wants. And if you go that far, you're saying that, actually, there should be no war. We should be able to slay one another openly and willingly, to do whatever we please without any kind of guidance or thinking.

 

The definition you just gave encompasses even the most peace-loving Islam follower or Christian. Adhering to peace-promoting moral codes hurts absolutely no one. If an extremist takes something out of context in the name of their overall religion, it's still taken out of context. From the Christian viewpoint, what is often percieved as Christians acting on behalf of all Christians is actually someone taking soemthing out of context, discounting theology as a whole, and doing something stupid. The same happens in Islam and I'm sure in most other religions.

 

Declaring war on those who stick to their beliefs is arrogant and shows exactly how uninformed those who would call for it are. It always bugs me to see things like that because it shows how much pop culture and stupid "Christians" have distorted the true message and idealogy of Christianity.

[Guest JMA]

Here's the problem with that definition: it boils down to someone sticking to their guns for what they believe in, often on moral principles. Claiming that this action is wrong is basically saying that humanity should have free reign to do whatever it wants. And if you go that far, you're saying that, actually, there should be no war. We should be able to slay one another openly and willingly, to do whatever we please without any kind of guidance or thinking.

 

The definition you just gave encompasses even the most peace-loving Islam follower or Christian. Adhering to peace-promoting moral codes hurts absolutely no one. If an extremist takes something out of context in the name of their overall religion, it's still taken out of context. From the Christian viewpoint, what is often percieved as Christians acting on behalf of all Christians is actually someone taking soemthing out of context, discounting theology as a whole, and doing something stupid. The same happens in Islam and I'm sure in most other religions.

 

Declaring war on those who stick to their beliefs is arrogant and shows exactly how uninformed those who would call for it are. It always bugs me to see things like that because it shows how much pop culture and stupid "Christians" have distorted the true message and idealogy of Christianity.

The definition isn't encouraging nihilistic behavior. It's condemning intolerance. It has nothing to do with people "sticking to their guns" in regards to what they believe.

[Vyce 0]

But no, let's make war on people who have beliefs and stick by them. Because wiping out conviction will make the world a better place!

 

I'm with JMA in agreeing that theocratic governments have got to go.

 

But JMA, I see where SP has something of a point with your definition of fundamentalism. By the tenets of their faith alone, many religions - perhaps most - would be opposed to at least some parts of secularism, and thus, I think you'd be including in your definitions more religions than perhaps you really would intend to.

[Guest SP-1]

Vyce pretty much nailed it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Trying to make war with religion itself is the height of arrogance and shows a complete lack of education on the core beliefs of not only Christianity, but Islam and the other religions you would seek to eradicate as well.

All of these religions become a nuisance when they enter the public government.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Excuse me for having a little faith in my country, ok? But I don't buy this "bombs for oil" bullshit. The administration of this nation firmly believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat or they wouldn't have sent American boys to die over there. Whether Iraq was a threat or not is debateable, but I believe that Bush is believed they were.

 

Unless you can prove otherwise, stuff it.

Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the US. He had no weapons capable of reaching the US. He had no plans to attack the US or US interests. Still no WMD found either.

[MrRant 0]

Moron's become a nuisance as well. Let's eliminate them.