I tried to avoid commenting today. I really really did. Because as sad as this day was 5 years ago those feelings do not exceed how angry I am now. I am not normally prone to anger. Most people would describe me as a mellow, happy go lucky, funny, thou…

Pope Warns Against Secularization in Germany

MUNICH, Sept. 10 ­ Pope Benedict XVI attracted some 250,000 people to an outdoor Mass on Sunday, urging his largely secular home country not to let science and reason make it “deaf� to God.

“Put simply, we are no longer able to hear God ­ there are too many frequencies filling our ears,� he told the crowd, at a former airport on the outskirts of this city where he once served as archbishop. “What is said about God strikes us as pre-scientific, no longer suited for our age.�

What’s with all the personal attacks?

I can speak (and think) for myself, thank you very much!

I’m guessing if I hadn’t mentioned the word, “democrats” in a negative manner, I might’ve escaped your “neo-con-alert” radar! :)

1.) The reason Iraq was chosen was because it was the most promising for regime change. Our chances of regime change would’ve been far worse with Saddam in power, that’s a fact. If we could establish a democracy in the middle east, this would be a huge thorn in the side of islamo-fascism.

2.) Iraq breaking out into civil war is not a good enough reason to coward and accept defeat. The consequences would become twofold for America. Iraq would become a terrorist state and we would appear weak in the mind of our enemies (including Iran).

3.) Our enemy deliberately choses to fight and hide amongst innocent civillians. This idea that we should’ve fought them in the mountains of Afghanistan is silly, because they’d never let that happen to a level that would become effective. Instead the terrorists would disperse and cause havoc amongst civillian life to force us into civillian occupied battlefields. While Iran would most certainly be a gamble for on our intelligence and most likely a death trap for our troops. Bottom line is we are not fighting a conventional enemy and never in our history have we fought our dreamed of fighting an enemy like this.

@JFTDMaster

Excellent points about the crisis in the middle east.

“That being the case, shouldn’t we ask ourselves a question: what is it these people want from us?”
- To create a jihadi caliphate, with Taliban-controlled afghanistan as the model. To persecute all who disagree. To use the caliphate to fight us. To kill and to defeat us. To kill and to defeat everybody who disagrees with their version of islam. To spread Islam by the sword.

“With a fair deal for the Palestinians and the US out of Iraq, I’d predict that terrorism would be reduced drastically.”
- Your prediction would in my opinion be wrong, because it would be seen as a weakness. And your weakness is an invitation to your enemies to attack you. As for the US being out of Iraq, the US also wants to be out of Iraq, but only after the Iraqi people can govern themselves in a demcoracy, and defend themselves from Baathists and their neighbours. What they want is not just the US out of Iraq, but what they want is a terrorist-sponsoring or terrorist-controlled government in Iraq, while the US does not want that.

And what exactly would constitute a “fair deal” for the palestinians, Israel’s destruction? The difference between pragmatists like Abbas and the ‘radicals’ was mainly that Abbas, while wanting Israel destroyed, did not believe it was practical. If Israel acts with sufficient weakness, he would believe it would be practical to destroy it, and will be in complete agreement with Hamas on that issue.

Reality is that every time Israel offered more to the palestinians, the result was more violence, not less. To end the violence, Israel must defeat its enemies decisively enough to have a few more decades of peace.

“6 million Israelis will not prevail against 250M Muslims.”
- They have prevailed in the past, and since the early 60’s they have also had nukes, and now they have enough to destroy every city in the arab world. They have not used them, however, even when they weren’t doing so well in the Yom Kippur war.

The reality is that “we” (i.e. “civilized” countries), are much stronger than our enemies, but sometimes lack the will to use our weapons to keep destroying our enemies until they surrender. If we “withdraw” for a while, the result will be that our enemies will grow bolder, and there would be more violence, not less. If we do not decide to defeat them now, we will be forced to defeat them in the future in a much more bloody conflict. If it becomes a nuclear conflict, we might in the end up killing everybody in any area that oppose us. If we act with more determination and with a clearer purpose now, we would not let it get that far.

As others have pointed out, much more eloquently than me, there will never be a military solution to the War on Terra. It will not happen. That being the case, shouldn’t we ask ourselves a question: what is it these people want from us? OBL’s grievances were fairly simple: a square deal for the Palestinians, the US off of holy ground in Saudi, and an end to the murderous Iraq sanctions. With a fair deal for the Palestinians and the US out of Iraq, I’d predict that terrorism would be reduced drastically.

That leaves one problem, of course: our oil is still under their sand.

In years past, we talked to Stalin, to Chiang Kai Shek, et al. We had diplomats who sat at a table with bad people and tried to sort things out. But now, all who oppose us are “terrorists”, and Jeebus knows we don’t talk to terrorists.

Here’s the deal: Iran will get nukes. The Palestinians will eventually get a deal. 6 million Israelis will not prevail against 250M Muslims. the US will be booted out of the Middle East. The only real question is how much blood and treasure we will leave behind before we face these inevitabilties.

Did Pakistan ever actually “control” those territories i.e. Waziristan? The short answer is no.

Has there been the “threat” of jihadists being in charge of the nukes for as long as Pakistan had them? Yep.
Was the ISI the most likely power behind Taliban’s rise to power, with all of the support? Yep.
Do we know to what extent they still may or may not support them? Nope.
Do many analysts have doubts about the degree of Pakistan’s support for the “war on terror” i.e. is it possible that there are forces in Pakistan that are only allowing the arrest of the competitor non-pakistani terrorists? Yep.
Wasn’t it the Pakistani scientists’ “nuclear underground” that gave Iran nuclear technology, after which Khan was forgiven and called a national hero by Musharraf? Yep.
I have nothing against Musharraf, he seems like a courageous man in a difficult situation. This recent “change”, however, only exposes the reality on the ground, I am not sure if it creates any new danger.

This reminds me of Hizbollah being basically a separate state of a ~ 3 million people, but the rest of the world pretending otherwise. It also reminds me of the situation in Africa, where we pretend that cental governments do in fact control “their” territory more than other forces. However, in Pakistan the additional complications are the nukes, general support for jihadism, and the fact that we do not understand the Pakistani government factions very well. That is reality, as well as I see it.

I think it’s time to take your meds now.