Follow us home.

[Winstonm]

Anyway back to the post of will they follow us home if we leave, lose or do not fight "them", whoever they are? Glad to see Biden put it out there.

 

Mike, I believe you are right in that this is the core question to be answered. And I believe I can place a name on the "whoever they are" - the fear is a fear of Islam.

 

The true, underlying question is whether or not there is a "war of ideologies", as Bush claims, and whether greater Islam has intents on world Islamic conversion via warfare. If the U.S. completely abandonded the middle east and Africa, would the Islamic Jihad still exist?

 

Is the hate of the U.S. based upon the fact that it is non-Islamic?

 

A religion Ph.D. told me that Islamics describe Islam not as a religion but as a way of life based on the Law of God; anyone who does not follow this way of life/Law is an infidel; and thus, there is no provision for detente.

 

Now for a gross onversimplification:

As for me, I think this is an example of Marx's "opium of the people", that religions depend on the lack of quality of life of the masses in order to sedate and control beliefs with promises of eventual blessings and victories, that if these masses had decent jobs, 3-bedroom houses, drove a relatively new car, and after work could drive home and watch Iranian Idol on their color T.V.s they would be much less predisposed to blow themselves up in the name of Allah.

 

Of course I know that there are educated Islamics, but these types tend to be the leaders who direct the masses to sacrifice themselves, when their own goal is really only power.

 

Although I have no proof of this, it seems reasonable to me to guess that the more moderate of Islamics are those who have the higher standards of living, and thus the best way in the long run to diffuse the anger is to decrease the gap between rich and poor, the exact opposite of what has been happening globally for the past 40 years or so.

[mike777]

It does seem to be to be the ultimate question. If they, whoever they are, are not going to follow us home, I do not think we should send our young boys and girls to fight oversees. If we pulled out of Iraq and they would not follow us home, why bother fighting there, today in 2007. I do not know. If Mrs. Clinton, Murtha and Obama believe this I hope that they say it and the media reports on it.

 

OTOH, if THEY do follow us home, what if any our response should be will be interesting. Winston seems to argue for sending only the FBI after them.

 

If we really are in a 40 year battle with radical Islam, I repeat, I expect the fight to be messy, inefficient, and mistake prone. We will fight the war as we start all wars with out of date tactics and equipment and infrastructure. The enemy will adapt and we will be slow and ponderous to change.

 

On your issue Winston, at the very least it seems simply through population growth and free elections in the West, radical Islam can more easily assert their political agenda.

 

About 2% of the USA population is Jewish and yet 12% of the Senators are. I see no reason why Islamic voters cannot do the same here or in France, Holland, Spain, Germany, Belgium or the UK.

[hrothgar]

On your issue Winston, at the very least it seems simply through population growth and free elections in the West,  radical Islam can more easily assert their political agenda.

 

About 2% of the USA population is Jewish and yet 12% of the Senators are. I see no reason why Islamic voters cannot do the same here or in France, Holland, Spain, Germany, Belgium or the UK.

There have actually been some interesting statistical studies published on this subject.

 

"Islam" is not a statistically significant predictor of the number of children that will be born to a family. However, Islam often serves as a placeholder for religious fervour. More simply put, it doesn't matter if you're a muslim, a catholic, a jew, or a mormon; People who self identify as strongly religious tend to have a large families. For example, in Israel, the ultra orthodox tend to have larger families than similarly observant muslims.

 

If we look at Western Europe and all the crap about demographic time bombs... I just don't buy into it. Behaviour changes over time and money and secular humanism are very corresive forces. If I didn't believe so, I'd be out shooting Southern Baptists as we speak....

[Winstonm]

OTOH, if THEY do follow us home, what if any our response should be will be interesting. Winston seems to argue for sending only the FBI after them.

 

I think it is even more difficult to answer than will they/won't they follow us home. The real question in my mind is whether these groups are a small minority of Islam or whether they represent the views of the majority of Islam - the responses would differ depending on the size of the enemey.

 

The reasons I believe the problem more of police/intelligence matter than a broad-based military matter are based upon views that we are dealing with minority groups and not the entirety of Islam, the prevailing hate is anti-Zion and not simply anti-non-Islamic, there is infighting among Islamics themselves, and more moderate Islamics are either allies or at least non-enemies of the U.S.

 

I do not believe that 9-11 was an act of war by the Islamic majority; I believe it was an act of terrorism, propagated by minority interests in the Islamic world.

 

Warfare has never been an effective means of fighting these types enemies, proven by the U.S. in Vietnam and the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan. Therefore, these types enemies should be fought in more of a police/intelligence/covert action than warfare until such a time that economic justice removes the will and need to of the enemy to fight.

 

Warfare must be 100% win or lose - to believe that there is a war of ideologies that must be won in order for civilization to continue means that you believe Islam as a whole is the enemy and therefore Islam as a whole has to be targeted and destroyed.

 

To me, that sounds a whole lot like the Crusades, and the exact same thinking of the purported enemy. It makes Islam out to be the Great Satan. To try to subcategorize into "radical Islam" verses "moderate Islam" is to refuse to answer the real question - do terrorists speak for the majority of Islam or are they the minority? If the terrorist views are the views of the majority of Islam, then Islam is the enemy, and moderates who don't get out of the way would be collateral damage. But if the terrorist views are only a fanatical minority, then Islam is not the enemy and there is no worldwide battle of ideologies - there is only terrorism.

 

I happen to take a rosier view of man's nature - the preponderance are logical and fairminded - and it is the sociological and economic imbalances that cause minority radical groups to flourish. If you can long term change those aspects, then you allow the logic and fairmindedness to overcome the hatred of despair.

[mike777]

"...propagated by minority interests in the Islamic world...".

 

I believe all war is propaged by minority interests. In the American Revolution about 1/3 were Pro Rebels, 1/3 Pro British and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone in peace to make money.

 

 

If radical Islam is just a few hundred or less our response has been insane. :lol:

[Winstonm]

"...propagated by minority interests in the Islamic world...".

 

I believe all war is propaged by minority interests.  In the American Revolution about 1/3 were Pro Rebels, 1/3 Pro British and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone in peace to make money.

 

 

If radical Islam is just a few hundred or less our response has been insane. :P

The world population of Muslims is estimated at over 1.75 billion, so you could have hundreds of thousands of hard-liners and still have an extreme minority.

[mike777]

Winston are you saying we or someone is at war with hundreds of thousands of people?

 

Are you suggesting they are following us home?

[Winstonm]

Winston are you saying we or someone is at war with hundreds of thousands of people?

 

Are you suggesting they are following us home?

Let me state it clearly. When you cannot identify the enemy within the greater group of the ordinary, everyday, then it is insane to go to war unless you are willing to wipe out everyone, good and bad alike, in order to insure the enemy is destroyed.

 

If you try to pick and chose targets, battling the minority interest within a larger group, you are engaged in guerilla tactics, whch is more in the province of police/intelligence actions.

 

I have no idea how many there are. I have no idea whether or not they would follow us home. No one else does, either.

 

Ask me what I believe, and that is different - I believe the enemy is a tiny minority of Islam. I believe that if they struck once here, they may well attempt to do so again. I believe the threat at home is overexaggerated due to the inordinant complexity of creating a terrorist strike on U.S. soil using foreigners who must first get into the country, get their supplies, and carry out the mission all the while not being located and stopped by intelligence/cia/fbi/local police. So to say if we leave Iraq terrorist will follow us home is a simplistic viewpoint attempting to create favor by re-instigating fear. IMHO.

[Winstonm]

New data on the "follow us home" fears:

 

Polling Data

 

Do you think America’s safety from terrorism depends upon our success in Iraq, or does it not depend on our success in Iraq?

 

Does not depend upon our success in Iraq

61%

 

Depends upon our success in Iraq

34%

 

Don’t know

5%

 

 

 

In your opinion, should the United States...?

 

Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately

19%

 

Gradually withdraw all troops over the next 12 months

51%

 

Have troops stay in Iraq for as long as

it takes to stabilize the country

27%

 

Don’t know

3%

 

 

 

Source: Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index / Foreign Affairs

Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,013 American adults, conducted from Feb. 21 to Mar. 4, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

 

 

Isn't it a strange coincidence that the percentages living in fear and supporting the war as long as it takes closely approximates the sentiment polls of Bush?

[mike777]

Well I still think this is the key question for many/most of us. Is it real practical question or just a PR fear mongering slogan for the Reps. to hang on to power....

[helene_t]

Isn't it a strange coincidence that the percentages living in fear and supporting the war as long as it takes closely approximates the sentiment polls of Bush?

What has fear to do with this? The question was whether U.S. security depends on success in Iraq. That's a rather vague question.

 

First, it's not the same as asking whether one is concerned with the U.S. security. It's perfectly logical to be concerned about U.S. security and at the same time think that it has nothing to do with Iraq.

 

Second, "success" could be defined in many ways. My personal association with the concept "U.S. success in Iraq" could be something like withdrawing as soon as possible, leaving the country in a reasonably stable state. Even restoring the Baa't rule (somewhat hypothetical) or turning it into an Iranian satellite, would be huge improvement relative to the current situation, as long as it would stop the civil war. I'm sure "success" could be defined in many other ways.

 

I suppose your point is that Bush's 2004 reelection campaign was based on people's fear. That's probably correct, you U.S. people know more about that than I do. But I don't think it's rational to stay in Iraq out of concern for the U.S. security. One might argue that withdrawing from Iraq immediately would be bad for Iraqi security, though, or maybe for the long-term interests of U.S. oil companies.

 

With the U.S. gone, Iran will not take over Iraq but Iraq would become in essence a satellite of Iran, giving Iran control over the oil in both countries. Iran cannot be allowed to possess this much money and influence in the middle east.

I think we should stop demonizing Iran. Unlike the rest of the Middle East (Israel and to some extent Lebanon notwithstanding), it's a quasi-democratic country, and it has a large Western-oriented middle class. The present government is problematic but it will probably loose the next elections, and even in the present state of affairs, Iran is more sensitive to reason than so-called U.S. allies in Middle East like Saudi Arabia. Farsi is even an Indo-European language B)

 

I think Iran is a natural ally for the Western World. Just like I consider the U.S. a natural ally for Europe. You happen to have a diabolic government for the time being, but most of us have friends, family and and professional connections in the U.S. and that's more important.

[pbleighton]

"I think we should stop demonizing Iran. Unlike the rest of the Middle East (Israel and to some extent Lebanon notwithstanding), it's a quasi-democratic country, and it has a large Western-oriented middle class. The present government is problematic but it will probably loose the next elections, and even in the present state of affairs, Iran is more sensitive to reason than so-called U.S. allies in Middle East like Saudi Arabia. Farsi is even an Indo-European language

 

I think Iran is a natural ally for the Western World. Just like I consider the U.S. a natural ally for Europe. You happen to have a diabolic government for the time being, but most of us have friends, family and and professional connections in the U.S. and that's more important."

 

I agree, though "problematic" is a mild word for their present govenment.

 

As to their acquiring nukes, I don't like it, but a lot of countries will be acquiring them over the next 50-100 years. We're going to have to live with it.

 

We're going to have to grow up as a species.

 

Peter

[cherdano]

Sorry, this is off-topic: Peter, your posts would be a LOT easier to read if you wouldn't resist so strongly to using the "QUOTE" button. It is more readable and not more work for you.

(Just my opinion of course.)

[Al_U_Card]

They don't need to follow us home, we took our homebodies and moved them there so they could send them back to us in bags........just so Cheney and his band of megalos could ride the bomb on the way down. (Dr. Strangelove where r u?)

[pbleighton]

"Sorry, this is off-topic: Peter, your posts would be a LOT easier to read if you wouldn't resist so strongly to using the "QUOTE" button. It is more readable and not more work for you.

(Just my opinion of course.) "

 

I've always wondered how to do this. Would you explain please?

 

I can't figure it out for myself, I'm a software consultant :)

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

That explains so much!..rofl

[Winstonm]

QUOTE (Winston on behalf of his brother who's a major in the U.S. army)

With the U.S. gone, Iran will not take over Iraq but Iraq would become in essence a satellite of Iran, giving Iran control over the oil in both countries. Iran cannot be allowed to possess this much money and influence in the middle east.

 

 

I think we should stop demonizing Iran.

 

Let's just suffice it to say my brother and I have a disagreement on this point. :P

I agree that Iran has to prove itself to be evil before being labeled a devil.

 

What has fear to do with this?

 

Most likely nothing - it was late and I was tired when I posted this and that's the first word that come to mind. I do think that claims that the terrorists will "follow us home" is fearmongering, though. But the poll is not fear based, as you point out.

[Winstonm]

A new little tidbit on the Iraq war came out yesterday:

 

By Sean Lengell

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

April 27, 2007

 

 

The Senate's No. 2 Democrat says he knew that the American public was being misled into the Iraq war but remained silent because he was sworn to secrecy as a member of the intelligence committee.

    "The information we had in the intelligence committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said Wednesday when talking on the Senate floor about the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002.

    "I was angry about it. [but] frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the intelligence committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress."

 

They wouldn't have the chance to "follow us home" if we hadn't left home in the first place. Does this add more ammo to the Kucinich resolution to impeach Dick Cheney I wonder?

[pbleighton]

Impeachment won't and shouldn't happen until a large majority of voters want it to happen, including a lot of Republicans. It should never be a partisan action.

 

That doesn't mean he doesn't *deserve* it, though :P

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Impeachment won't and shouldn't happen until a large majority of voters want it to happen, including a lot of Republicans. It should never be a partisan action.

 

Agreed. Where, then, is the Republican, indeed national outrage over these misreprsentations? Seems to me in retrospect that Nixon and Clinton did little in comparison to instigating a foreign war of aggression. But then, in Nixon and Clinton times you couldn't help but being inundated by Nixon's and Clinton's wrongdoings when you turned on the six-o'clock news.

 

Where is the MSM in this controversy or is their silince due to the fact that there is no real "smoking gun" as were the Nixon tapes or the Monica dress stain?

[pbleighton]

Clinton should never have been impeached. He had a high approval rating, which was driven to near 70% by the impeachment process. His impeachment is a great example of what to avoid. The Republican party suffered in the 1998 elections because of this.

 

Nixon, OTOH, was forced to resign by congressional Republicans, who saw increasing numbers of Republican voters turn against him. This took quite a while.

 

I don't think this will happen to Cheney or Bush.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

This is unverified and may or may not be true. But if it is true, then maybe we don't have to worry about them following us home - perhaps in a sense they are here already....there are many forms of terrorism.....

 

(underlined italics outline the unverified source.)

 

Last week, news broke that Provo School District had blacklisted students searching for a venue to hold their alternative commencement ceremony (in case you haven't been following this story, Dick Cheney was invited by BYU to speak at the official commencement).

 

Now BYU Alternative Commencement has received an email from a local businesswoman named Denise Harman, who claims that all BYU students participating in activities against Dick Cheney are being tracked by local businesses. "Many businesses are noting the names involved," she says.

 

Why are business tracking the names of soon to be graduating students? "You are being tagged as trouble makers and added to massive 'Do Not Hire' lists," says Denise Harman, who hires hundreds of graduates every year.

 

She adds curtly, "Just thought you should know that activities have consequences."

[mike777]

One bad action does not justify another but I do think we forgot our history, even the history of our grandparents rather quickly.

 

See Wilson's savaging of civil rights of all kinds in 1919 with the full support of:

1) The People

2) Congress

3) Supreme Court

 

Just a few samples:

Lynching ok

Wartime restrictions on free speach

Eugene Debs going to jail for years for simply criticizing the draft

[pbleighton]

One bad action does not justify another but I do think we forgot our history, even the history of our grandparents rather quickly.

 

What makes you think we forget, Mike?

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Mike, I don't know if you looked at the other thread about Understanding Fundamental Islam but in it I concur that some undeterminable number of fundamental Islam has indeed declared a "jihad" against the U.S. and are and will continue to use terrorists tactics to carry out this threat. So I am not that much in disagreement with you that there is a real and verifiable threat.

 

I believe the parallels you have drawn between the "cold war" and the present situation are more valid than classifying this as a "global war on terror."

 

Thus, any comparisons between events that occured during a conventional war such as wars I and II are not appropriate. The more apt comparisons would be those that occured during the cold war.

 

But that is only my opinion.