Jump to content

George Will: "Kerry was right."


TexasTiger

Recommended Posts

The "new Middle East," the "birth pangs" of which we supposedly are witnessing, reflects the region's oldest tradition, the tribalism that preceded nations. The faux and disintegrating nation of Iraq, from which the middle class, the hope of stability, is fleeing, has experienced in these five weeks many more violent deaths than have occurred in Lebanon and Israel. U.S. Gen. George Casey says 60 percent of Iraqis recently killed are victims of Shiite death squads. Some are associated with the Shiite-controlled Interior Ministry, which resembles a terrorist organization.

The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaida and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented 9/11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the north tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by The New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the War on Terror." In a candidates debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the War on Terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, loveable,God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. (Democrats) do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

The official is correct that it is wrong "to think that somehow we are responsible — that the actions of the jihadists are justified by U.S.politics." But few outside the fog of paranoia that is the blogosphere think like that. It is more dismaying that someone at the center of government considers it clever to talk like that. It is the language of foreign policy — and domestic politics — unrealism.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?ar...%25%3c%3e%3a%24

Link to comment
Share on other sites





I love how you left the first part of the article out....

Will is correct. Kerry was correct. I am also correct in that Kerry would never have the courage or will to fight the terrorists militarily as in Lebanon today. He would stand there behind worthless UN sanction after worthless sanction and still delude himself into the idea that this will be negotiated away. It wont.

There will ultimately have to be a military solution to the the Islamo-Fascist problem. Take out Iran and we go back to just having a local terrorist problem. Let Iran exist with nuke weapons and no one in the world will be safe. No one.

The Islamo-Fascists want:

Sharia Law all over the Middle -East, then the world.

Israel, genocidally wiped out

They want all soil ever occupied by Islam back, this includes almost all of Spain and a chunk of France. Google Al-Andalus and see.

Age_of_Caliphs.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t..._of_Caliphs.gif

From there, they will turn Imperialistic as all fascist regimes do and then go onward. Sharia Law will come to more and more. Note that in the picture the Islamic lands will include Europe and India. This war could well be WWIII. Pakistan and India have nukes. Iran will soon have nukes. Spain and France will surrender before the afternoon is over. Spain and France aboth have nukes. Will they surrender their nukes too? Will they use them? Will the EU have to go get them?

War will be on two fronts with the EU and India. Israel will draw the US into it on Israeli soil. China will then see its economy collapse without Mid-East oil. They will eventually be drawn into it on one side or the other.

Bad things are happening folks, bad things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you left the first part of the article out....

Will is correct. Kerry was correct. I am alsomcorrect in that Kerry would never have the courage or will to fight the terrorists militarily as in Lebanon today. He would stand there behind worthless UN sanction after worthless sanction and still delude himself into the idea that this will be negotiated away. It wont.

There will ultimately have to be a military solution to the the Islamo-Fascist problem. Take out Iran and we gom back to just having a local terrorist problem. Let Iran exist with nuke weapons and no one in the world will be safe. No one.

The Islamo-Fascists want:

Sharia Law all over the Middle -East

Israel, genocidally wiped out

They want all soil ever occupied by Islam back, this includes almost all of Spain and a chunk of France. Google Al-Andalus and see.

Age_of_Caliphs.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t..._of_Caliphs.gif

So why the hell don't we do it and get it over with? Why didn't we do something in Iraq with more troops to begin with? Why is the system failing so miserably? Don't blame liberals, they are not in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you left the first part of the article out....

Will is correct. Kerry was correct. I am alsomcorrect in that Kerry would never have the courage or will to fight the terrorists militarily as in Lebanon today. He would stand there behind worthless UN sanction after worthless sanction and still delude himself into the idea that this will be negotiated away. It wont.

There will ultimately have to be a military solution to the the Islamo-Fascist problem. Take out Iran and we gom back to just having a local terrorist problem. Let Iran exist with nuke weapons and no one in the world will be safe. No one.

The Islamo-Fascists want:

Sharia Law all over the Middle -East

Israel, genocidally wiped out

They want all soil ever occupied by Islam back, this includes almost all of Spain and a chunk of France. Google Al-Andalus and see.

Age_of_Caliphs.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t..._of_Caliphs.gif

So why the hell don't we do it and get it over with? Why didn't we do something in Iraq with more troops to begin with? Why is the system failing so miserably? Don't blame liberals, they are not in power.

The American people are not ready to put more troops in Iraq. Also we may need to abandon Iraq and go into Iran. Committing more troops to Iraq could ultimately be the worst thing we can do, IMHO. The real war will be with Iran. Thanks Jimmuh Cartuh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you left the first part of the article out....

Will is correct. Kerry was correct. I am alsomcorrect in that Kerry would never have the courage or will to fight the terrorists militarily as in Lebanon today. He would stand there behind worthless UN sanction after worthless sanction and still delude himself into the idea that this will be negotiated away. It wont.

There will ultimately have to be a military solution to the the Islamo-Fascist problem. Take out Iran and we gom back to just having a local terrorist problem. Let Iran exist with nuke weapons and no one in the world will be safe. No one.

The Islamo-Fascists want:

Sharia Law all over the Middle -East

Israel, genocidally wiped out

They want all soil ever occupied by Islam back, this includes almost all of Spain and a chunk of France. Google Al-Andalus and see.

Age_of_Caliphs.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t..._of_Caliphs.gif

So why the hell don't we do it and get it over with? Why didn't we do something in Iraq with more troops to begin with? Why is the system failing so miserably? Don't blame liberals, they are not in power.

The American people are not ready to put more troops in Iraq. Also we may need to abandon Iraq and go into Iran. Committing more troops to Iraq could ultimately be the worst thing we can do, IMHO. The real war will be with Iran. Thanks Jimmuh Cartuh...

Bush invades the wrong country and David blames a Dem. Typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain and France aboth have nukes.
Just incidental to the whole debate, but...when did Spain get nukes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

I stand corrected on Spain.

No biggie...as I said, incidental to the overall debate.

Can we all agree that Iran does not need nukes? Tex?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain and France aboth have nukes.
Just incidental to the whole debate, but...when did Spain get nukes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

I stand corrected on Spain.

No biggie...as I said, incidental to the overall debate.

Can we all agree that Iran does not need nukes? Tex?????

Well, duh! I think we can also agree that Pakistan, India, and North Korea don't NEED nukes, either. Does anyone, really? Admittedly though, the original five nuclear powers, US, USSR, China, Britain, and France can make an argument that they're essential to deter other members of that nuclear club, while Israel might say being outnumbered with their backs against the wall (sea) gives them critical self-defense needs as well.

The question isn't whether Iran needs nukes, but what can we do about it? What actions, diplomatic or military, would be most effective? And even if we have the resources and national resolve to attempt to do something by force, would the "solution" help or hurt the long-term chances for peace in the Middle East?

Can any nation-state really openly use nukes these days anyway, or would it immediately become a global pariah and perhaps even the target of nuclear retaliation by the rest of the nuclear "club"? Even rogue nations like Iran and North Korea have to know that resorting to nuclear weapons means they would be instantly turned to glass themselves. Generally speaking, the first priority of any dictator is to survive with his power intact. [Although Saddam Hussein badly misjudged his opponent's cards and willpower when playing his hand.]

Obviously that wouldn't deter extremist groups willing to die a "martyr's death", so the biggest threat would be from small terrorist organizations like Al Quada getting a nuke or two from a rogue nation. But that leads us back to the original question of the thread: What's the best way to combat small groups of that ilk? Are large scale invasions as in Iraq, or perhaps in Iran, the most effective ways to utilize resources in the war on terror groups? To date, it doesn't seem that the invasion of Iraq has done as much to impede Al Quada as has good police work and good intelligence such as that which caught the London plotters last week. Now if Al Quada had large home bases in Iran, as in Afghanistan, a convention war might reap benefits.

As for "World War III": Is it really accurate or realistic to picture Islamic Fascism as some monolithic force that can act in unison against the rest of the world? Shiite and Sunni extremists can't even cooperate in Iraq in direct contact with a common enemy. If Hezbollah (Shiite) and Hamas (Sunni) shared a common border (particularly if a disputed border), would they be at each other's throats along with fighting Israel? What reason is there to assume that militant Muslims can somehow unite on a global scale to assault the West in a single monolithic drive for empire?

And let's not forget that Russia, China, and India all have nuclear weapons, massive armies, and large Muslim minorities to worry about. Would they stand idly by while a "united Islam" launches its "war of conquest" on the West? Would even Indonesia (the most populated Islamic nation) or Turkey (an Islamic member of NATO) tolerate the rise of a Iranian dominated "Islamo-fascist superpower" seeking hegemony over them?

Could DKW's new Islamic Empire happen? Well, nothing is impossible. Is it likely? And is it worth diverting resources from more important issues like tracking down individual terror cells, finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq, securing energy independence, and promoting peaceful democratic evolution in our current Islamic "friends" like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, etc.? I don't happen to believe so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be more beneficial, unlike Iraq, to cut-off the head of the beast in this case. With no financial support, due to a dead pygmy (North Korea right, LOL), the terrorist will wither. As before, the nukular threat is being used as the reason for war. Nothing scares people more than a nukular weapon actually being used on us. Like many have said, Iraq just set the stage for inevitable. The Neocon conquest will only lead to more death and distruction, theirs and ours. This will promptly be added to the credit card. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain and France aboth have nukes.
Just incidental to the whole debate, but...when did Spain get nukes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

I stand corrected on Spain.

No biggie...as I said, incidental to the overall debate.

Can we all agree that Iran does not need nukes? Tex?????

Nobody needs nukes...unless their enemy has them. But I think most reasonable people would agree that Iran with nuclear weapons is a bad thing. Which is just one more reason why us being tied up in conflict that actually strengthens Iran's hand was a huge strategic blunder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain and France aboth have nukes.
Just incidental to the whole debate, but...when did Spain get nukes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

I stand corrected on Spain.

No biggie...as I said, incidental to the overall debate.

Can we all agree that Iran does not need nukes? Tex?????

Well, duh! I think we can also agree that Pakistan, India, and North Korea don't NEED nukes, either. Does anyone, really? Admittedly though, the original five nuclear powers, US, USSR, China, Britain, and France can make an argument that they're essential to deter other members of that nuclear club, while Israel might say being outnumbered with their backs against the wall (sea) gives them critical self-defense needs as well.

The question isn't whether Iran needs nukes, but what can we do about it? What actions, diplomatic or military, would be most effective? And even if we have the resources and national resolve to attempt to do something by force, would the "solution" help or hurt the long-term chances for peace in the Middle East?

Can any nation-state really openly use nukes these days anyway, or would it immediately become a global pariah and perhaps even the target of nuclear retaliation by the rest of the nuclear "club"? Even rogue nations like Iran and North Korea have to know that resorting to nuclear weapons means they would be instantly turned to glass themselves. Generally speaking, the first priority of any dictator is to survive with his power intact. [Although Saddam Hussein badly misjudged his opponent's cards and willpower when playing his hand.]

Obviously that wouldn't deter extremist groups willing to die a "martyr's death", so the biggest threat would be from small terrorist organizations like Al Quada getting a nuke or two from a rogue nation. But that leads us back to the original question of the thread: What's the best way to combat small groups of that ilk? Are large scale invasions as in Iraq, or perhaps in Iran, the most effective ways to utilize resources in the war on terror groups? To date, it doesn't seem that the invasion of Iraq has done as much to impede Al Quada as has good police work and good intelligence such as that which caught the London plotters last week. Now if Al Quada had large home bases in Iran, as in Afghanistan, a convention war might reap benefits.

As for "World War III": Is it really accurate or realistic to picture Islamic Fascism as some monolithic force that can act in unison against the rest of the world? Shiite and Sunni extremists can't even cooperate in Iraq in direct contact with a common enemy. If Hezbollah (Shiite) and Hamas (Sunni) shared a common border (particularly if a disputed border), would they be at each other's throats along with fighting Israel? What reason is there to assume that militant Muslims can somehow unite on a global scale to assault the West in a single monolithic drive for empire?

And let's not forget that Russia, China, and India all have nuclear weapons, massive armies, and large Muslim minorities to worry about. Would they stand idly by while a "united Islam" launches its "war of conquest" on the West? Would even Indonesia (the most populated Islamic nation) or Turkey (an Islamic member of NATO) tolerate the rise of a Iranian dominated "Islamo-fascist superpower" seeking hegemony over them?

Could DKW's new Islamic Empire happen? Well, nothing is impossible. Is it likely? And is it worth diverting resources from more important issues like tracking down individual terror cells, finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq, securing energy independence, and promoting peaceful democratic evolution in our current Islamic "friends" like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, etc.? I don't happen to believe so.

The great war for Islam will be internal and is playing out in Iraq now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain and France aboth have nukes.
Just incidental to the whole debate, but...when did Spain get nukes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

I stand corrected on Spain.

No biggie...as I said, incidental to the overall debate.

Can we all agree that Iran does not need nukes? Tex?????

Well, duh! I think we can also agree that Pakistan, India, and North Korea don't NEED nukes, either. Does anyone, really? Admittedly though, the original five nuclear powers, US, USSR, China, Britain, and France can make an argument that they're essential to deter other members of that nuclear club, while Israel might say being outnumbered with their backs against the wall (sea) gives them critical self-defense needs as well.

The question isn't whether Iran needs nukes, but what can we do about it? What actions, diplomatic or military, would be most effective? And even if we have the resources and national resolve to attempt to do something by force, would the "solution" help or hurt the long-term chances for peace in the Middle East?

Can any nation-state really openly use nukes these days anyway, or would it immediately become a global pariah and perhaps even the target of nuclear retaliation by the rest of the nuclear "club"? Even rogue nations like Iran and North Korea have to know that resorting to nuclear weapons means they would be instantly turned to glass themselves. Generally speaking, the first priority of any dictator is to survive with his power intact. [Although Saddam Hussein badly misjudged his opponent's cards and willpower when playing his hand.]

Obviously that wouldn't deter extremist groups willing to die a "martyr's death", so the biggest threat would be from small terrorist organizations like Al Quada getting a nuke or two from a rogue nation. But that leads us back to the original question of the thread: What's the best way to combat small groups of that ilk? Are large scale invasions as in Iraq, or perhaps in Iran, the most effective ways to utilize resources in the war on terror groups? To date, it doesn't seem that the invasion of Iraq has done as much to impede Al Quada as has good police work and good intelligence such as that which caught the London plotters last week. Now if Al Quada had large home bases in Iran, as in Afghanistan, a convention war might reap benefits.

As for "World War III": Is it really accurate or realistic to picture Islamic Fascism as some monolithic force that can act in unison against the rest of the world? Shiite and Sunni extremists can't even cooperate in Iraq in direct contact with a common enemy. If Hezbollah (Shiite) and Hamas (Sunni) shared a common border (particularly if a disputed border), would they be at each other's throats along with fighting Israel? What reason is there to assume that militant Muslims can somehow unite on a global scale to assault the West in a single monolithic drive for empire?

And let's not forget that Russia, China, and India all have nuclear weapons, massive armies, and large Muslim minorities to worry about. Would they stand idly by while a "united Islam" launches its "war of conquest" on the West? Would even Indonesia (the most populated Islamic nation) or Turkey (an Islamic member of NATO) tolerate the rise of a Iranian dominated "Islamo-fascist superpower" seeking hegemony over them?

Could DKW's new Islamic Empire happen? Well, nothing is impossible. Is it likely? And is it worth diverting resources from more important issues like tracking down individual terror cells, finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq, securing energy independence, and promoting peaceful democratic evolution in our current Islamic "friends" like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, etc.? I don't happen to believe so.

The great war for Islam will be internal and is playing out in Iraq now.

I agree with what you both said and hope you two are right. Some military buddies i recently talked with completely disagree. To stop the terror cells FROM getting nukes and FROM getting financing, what are you guys willing to do then?

Police men cannot stop Iran from sending cash all over the planet. Libs get all squeamish on us even trying to agressively follow the terrorists. By the way, if we can agree on that the terrorists are independent cells, someone please tell me how you "negotiate" diplomatically with an organization free of any state control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain and France aboth have nukes.
Just incidental to the whole debate, but...when did Spain get nukes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

I stand corrected on Spain.

No biggie...as I said, incidental to the overall debate.

Can we all agree that Iran does not need nukes? Tex?????

Well, duh! I think we can also agree that Pakistan, India, and North Korea don't NEED nukes, either. Does anyone, really? Admittedly though, the original five nuclear powers, US, USSR, China, Britain, and France can make an argument that they're essential to deter other members of that nuclear club, while Israel might say being outnumbered with their backs against the wall (sea) gives them critical self-defense needs as well.

The question isn't whether Iran needs nukes, but what can we do about it? What actions, diplomatic or military, would be most effective? And even if we have the resources and national resolve to attempt to do something by force, would the "solution" help or hurt the long-term chances for peace in the Middle East?

Can any nation-state really openly use nukes these days anyway, or would it immediately become a global pariah and perhaps even the target of nuclear retaliation by the rest of the nuclear "club"? Even rogue nations like Iran and North Korea have to know that resorting to nuclear weapons means they would be instantly turned to glass themselves. Generally speaking, the first priority of any dictator is to survive with his power intact. [Although Saddam Hussein badly misjudged his opponent's cards and willpower when playing his hand.]

Obviously that wouldn't deter extremist groups willing to die a "martyr's death", so the biggest threat would be from small terrorist organizations like Al Quada getting a nuke or two from a rogue nation. But that leads us back to the original question of the thread: What's the best way to combat small groups of that ilk? Are large scale invasions as in Iraq, or perhaps in Iran, the most effective ways to utilize resources in the war on terror groups? To date, it doesn't seem that the invasion of Iraq has done as much to impede Al Quada as has good police work and good intelligence such as that which caught the London plotters last week. Now if Al Quada had large home bases in Iran, as in Afghanistan, a convention war might reap benefits.

As for "World War III": Is it really accurate or realistic to picture Islamic Fascism as some monolithic force that can act in unison against the rest of the world? Shiite and Sunni extremists can't even cooperate in Iraq in direct contact with a common enemy. If Hezbollah (Shiite) and Hamas (Sunni) shared a common border (particularly if a disputed border), would they be at each other's throats along with fighting Israel? What reason is there to assume that militant Muslims can somehow unite on a global scale to assault the West in a single monolithic drive for empire?

And let's not forget that Russia, China, and India all have nuclear weapons, massive armies, and large Muslim minorities to worry about. Would they stand idly by while a "united Islam" launches its "war of conquest" on the West? Would even Indonesia (the most populated Islamic nation) or Turkey (an Islamic member of NATO) tolerate the rise of a Iranian dominated "Islamo-fascist superpower" seeking hegemony over them?

Could DKW's new Islamic Empire happen? Well, nothing is impossible. Is it likely? And is it worth diverting resources from more important issues like tracking down individual terror cells, finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq, securing energy independence, and promoting peaceful democratic evolution in our current Islamic "friends" like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, etc.? I don't happen to believe so.

The great war for Islam will be internal and is playing out in Iraq now.

I agree with what you both said and hope you two are right. Some military buddies i recently talked with completely disagree. To stop the terror cells FROM getting nukes and FROM getting financing, what are you guys willing to do then?

Police men cannot stop Iran from sending cash all over the planet. Libs get all squeamish on us even trying to agressively follow the terrorists. By the way, if we can agree on that the terrorists are independent cells, someone please tell me how you "negotiate" diplomatically with an organization free of any state control?

I believe in agressive intelligence gathering and collaboration with other countries in the effort to root out the cells. In countries that don't collaborate, surgical strikes may be appropriate. You don't negotiate with these cells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain and France aboth have nukes.
Just incidental to the whole debate, but...when did Spain get nukes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...nuclear_weapons

I stand corrected on Spain.

No biggie...as I said, incidental to the overall debate.

Can we all agree that Iran does not need nukes? Tex?????

Well, duh! I think we can also agree that Pakistan, India, and North Korea don't NEED nukes, either. Does anyone, really? Admittedly though, the original five nuclear powers, US, USSR, China, Britain, and France can make an argument that they're essential to deter other members of that nuclear club, while Israel might say being outnumbered with their backs against the wall (sea) gives them critical self-defense needs as well.

The question isn't whether Iran needs nukes, but what can we do about it? What actions, diplomatic or military, would be most effective? And even if we have the resources and national resolve to attempt to do something by force, would the "solution" help or hurt the long-term chances for peace in the Middle East?

Can any nation-state really openly use nukes these days anyway, or would it immediately become a global pariah and perhaps even the target of nuclear retaliation by the rest of the nuclear "club"? Even rogue nations like Iran and North Korea have to know that resorting to nuclear weapons means they would be instantly turned to glass themselves. Generally speaking, the first priority of any dictator is to survive with his power intact. [Although Saddam Hussein badly misjudged his opponent's cards and willpower when playing his hand.]

Obviously that wouldn't deter extremist groups willing to die a "martyr's death", so the biggest threat would be from small terrorist organizations like Al Quada getting a nuke or two from a rogue nation. But that leads us back to the original question of the thread: What's the best way to combat small groups of that ilk? Are large scale invasions as in Iraq, or perhaps in Iran, the most effective ways to utilize resources in the war on terror groups? To date, it doesn't seem that the invasion of Iraq has done as much to impede Al Quada as has good police work and good intelligence such as that which caught the London plotters last week. Now if Al Quada had large home bases in Iran, as in Afghanistan, a convention war might reap benefits.

As for "World War III": Is it really accurate or realistic to picture Islamic Fascism as some monolithic force that can act in unison against the rest of the world? Shiite and Sunni extremists can't even cooperate in Iraq in direct contact with a common enemy. If Hezbollah (Shiite) and Hamas (Sunni) shared a common border (particularly if a disputed border), would they be at each other's throats along with fighting Israel? What reason is there to assume that militant Muslims can somehow unite on a global scale to assault the West in a single monolithic drive for empire?

And let's not forget that Russia, China, and India all have nuclear weapons, massive armies, and large Muslim minorities to worry about. Would they stand idly by while a "united Islam" launches its "war of conquest" on the West? Would even Indonesia (the most populated Islamic nation) or Turkey (an Islamic member of NATO) tolerate the rise of a Iranian dominated "Islamo-fascist superpower" seeking hegemony over them?

Could DKW's new Islamic Empire happen? Well, nothing is impossible. Is it likely? And is it worth diverting resources from more important issues like tracking down individual terror cells, finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq, securing energy independence, and promoting peaceful democratic evolution in our current Islamic "friends" like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, etc.? I don't happen to believe so.

The great war for Islam will be internal and is playing out in Iraq now.

I agree with what you both said and hope you two are right. Some military buddies i recently talked with completely disagree. To stop the terror cells FROM getting nukes and FROM getting financing, what are you guys willing to do then?

Police men cannot stop Iran from sending cash all over the planet. Libs get all squeamish on us even trying to agressively follow the terrorists. By the way, if we can agree on that the terrorists are independent cells, someone please tell me how you "negotiate" diplomatically with an organization free of any state control?

I believe in agressive intelligence gathering and collaboration with other countries in the effort to root out the cells. In countries that don't collaborate, surgical strikes may be appropriate. You don't negotiate with these cells.

You and I are close to agreeing on something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...