Wow! It's only 50 guys! It looks so different on T.V. Somehow I think the numbers of terrorist is slightly larger than 50 and the numbers of their supporters in a Muslim world of over one billion is larger still.
So when,or if,the Islamic fundementalist who overthrough Pakistan's regime or Egypt's take over...we shouldn't worry? It won't be a threat to our security? Why does almost every expert and everyone living in those regions have such a different opinion than you?
I'm talking about the people who actually attacked us not any who might mouth support for them. For over 25 yrs Iran and been shouting 'death to america' but so far its been all talk. The reason Al qeada became a problem is because they went beyond talk. Do you get the distinction?
And when we're talking about the war on terror I think we should confine it to those we're actually at war with not some others who you wish or think we should be at war with. Should the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt that will indeed be a problem but I think we have enough to discuss here without needing to expand the subject to what might happen or who our future enemies could be.
seapuppy said:
The Muslim world from Morocco to Indonisia. They claim it openly. Al qeada, as well as their ideological allies, base as their PRIME goal the creation and rebirth of the Caliphate, that will extend throughout the muslim world. They are at war with us as the biggest impediment to that goal. They wish to "reclaim" traditional conquered lands such as Spain/Portugal and south-east Europe as well, as according to their assorted spokesman, once they "became" Muslim, Christian re-taking of them was unjustified. They assert openly that none of this will be possible without, either the forced conversion of the West or it's utter destruction. Oh...of course the Jews will have to go as well.
If their attack on us was intended to help them conquer the entire middle east then so far it has not been a screaming success. Although as I said before this is the reason Afghanistan and Somalia are a concern. When such forces start to take over other countries that will be a problem, but lets not make it sound like we're doing much about it.
Its always been my own opinion that the purpose of 9-11 from the terrorist point of view was to use the success of that attack to recruit more followers and judging from all those attacks since 9-11 that didn't happen either. (and please don't throw London at me, that was a home grown plot without any outside help.) We were told after 9-11 that Al qeada has cells all over just waiting for the word to attack and that we would be attacked again. Well 5 yrs later nothing has happened and you might consider that fact is because they are a small group of loons who talk trash far more often then they actually act.
We were suckerpunched on 9-11 and that doesn't make us weak or them strong.
seapuppy said:
I wouldn't call Musharraf...or even Saddam's rule of the Baath as a "movement", would you? Burma, on the other hand, is governed by an ideological movment.
I said ideology not connected to land always fails. You claim without ideology a movement can't succeed. To me the goal is always to control land so I gave you examples of those who came to control land without benefit of any overiding ideology.
seapuppy said:
1. Turkey's current ruling party IS the Muslim AKP. Turkey is very much in the middle of it's own identity crisis and conflict with muslim fundementalism. It, as in every other muslim country, is THE political issue. Turkey's secular constitution curbs fundemtalist power and Turkey's armed forces watches to insure that. Turkish instability and the threat of muslim fundementalism is the main issue to the reluctance of Europe to let Turkey become part of the EU. Turkish prosperity and high quality security forces have given it a slightly better position than say Egypt, but they are in the same boat.
2. India is a predominately Hindu country, not Muslim. It has many Muslims in it, but of course, India WAS partitioned. It's muslim conflict is very much alive. Three major conventional wars and the current terrorist crisis. Forget about all those train bombings there this year?
I'll concede the point on Turkey as it is a concern for them. I think the european problem with turkey is strictly religious. As long as they are a muslim country, fundementalist or otherwise, they will not be welcome in the EU. (and don't think they don't know it)
I'll disagree with India. First off I believe they are the second largest Muslim country in the world and there is no indigenous fundementalist Muslim movement there. What terror problems they do have originate accross the border in Pakistan and its not over religion but over a piece of land cause thats what people fight over.
seapuppy said:
Dispose of them? They will be the ALLIES of the government that takes power once Iraqi democracy is extinguished. If a "deal" is struck between the Sunni's and Shia's...it will be the first time in history. I doubt it. It's the heart of our problems there now.
Whatever forces Al qeada has in Iraq they are killing Iraqi's. Its hard for me to see how the foreigners who kill will be welcomed in a post-war Iraq. Your observation on the likelyhood of a Sunni-Shia deal is probably correct but lets not presume that is because of the religious divide. Those who are accustomed to ruling don't usually take too well to becoming the ruled. I once saw on these boards CenTexfarmer compare the Sunni position to the position of the whites in the south after the civil war. Come what may they would never allow themselves to be ruled over by inferior blacks and I think the Sunnis don't want to be ruled over by inferior Shia.
seapuppy said:
That sounds nice...but what does it mean? They are "doing" plenty there. Most of their resources ARE concentrated there and ARE fighting us and the Iraqi government. They DO claim Iraq is THEIR central front. We ARE being defeated there. What more do you need to be convinced?
Most of the resources of Al qeada in Iraq have not come from the Al qeada that attacked us. They have voiced their support because talking is their speciality but if you can provide me with a link which says they have done more than talk......like give them men or money then I'd be happy to look at it. My understanding is that they have given them neither and as a matter of fact have asked those in Iraq to send them money.
seapuppy said:
Yes, it would, because it isn't true. The people of South Vietnam bore a far greater burden and paid a far greater price than we ever did in that war. ARVIN fought for decades attempting to keep Vietnam free. It took decades to defeat them. Even after we left it STILL took the North another 2 1/2 years to achieve their goal. The South DID run out of the most basic supplies. ARVIN made many mistakes, but to accuse the victim of the crime is poor form. You really cheapen the sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands of ARVIN soldiers who died for their country. I wouldn't think of doing that in regards to the brave soldiers of the North.
Patton's line about how no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country comes to mind. For most of the 2 1/2 yrs you refer to no fighting was going on. Once it started it lasted all of 44 days as the south just fell apart. When we left South Vietnam we left them with the 4th largest air force in the world, the 5th largest army and the 4th largest navy. (yet their loss is still the fault of a democratic congress in the republican telling of the story) That they still lost must not reflect well on the men doing the fighting. And if the south did run out of the most basic supplies it wasn't because we stopped giving them aid because we didn't. True it was reduced but they still received some.
seapuppy said:
Nixon "caved" on it, because it was a "cease fire", not the final peace settlment. The bulk of the Paris Accords was primarily to arrange for the peacfull withdrawl of American forces and the return of our POW's. ALL forces were to remain in place., (South Vietnam had forces in Laos along the Ho Chi Minh trail.) No one on our side liked it, but given the purpose of the treaty, that was as good as could be got.
I say Nixon caved because he struck the initial agreement in Oct of 72. That dates proximity to the election is more than coincidence methinks but if you need more when told that allowing the north's troops to remain in the south would doom the south Kissinger said "I want to end this war before the election." and it was described by the south's President Thieu as "tantamount to surrender" and to illustrate that those were not empty words by Thieu when he was threatened by a total cut-off of U.S. aid if he didn't agree he still refused to agree.
seapuppy said:
The Accords were not signed until AFTER the Presidential elections. Your history is wrong. The negotiations had little effect on the outcome of the election anyhow, and the timimg was set by North Vietnam, not us. McGovern and the Dems determined the outcome of that election all on their own.
As I say above the announcement came in Oct of 72 although you're right the deal was not signed until after the election and after renewed fighting. I also think your right about its effect on the outcome of the election but as Watergate illustrates Nixon wasn't taking any chances. His goal, after all, wasn't just to win but to win by the largest margin in history.
seapuppy said:
That ARVIN, you so dispise, had just finished soundly kicking the butt of the communist in the defeat of their "war winning" offensive of March to October of 72'. The defeat of the North was so humiliating that their "hero" Gen. Giap of Diem Bien Phu fame, was sacked immidiately and they came back, hat in hand, to the peace table. Nixon and Thieu had won that round. THAT was the timing, not the election.
I don't dispise anyone although its true I don't particularily admire their ability to fight. And in that March-Oct battle of 72 that you refer to the south would not have won it without the help of the U.S. Air Force and Navy to the tune of over 40,000 sorties flown and more than 125,000 tons of bombs dropped. Once congress cut off that military help the south's days were numbered. But they never cut off aid just our military involvement.
seapuppy said:
I don't "underplay" anything. I just remember the history the way it happened. The way the Vietnamese who fought and were the victims of the communist do. Our defeat in Vietnam had nothing to do with the Republican Party. They neither started that war, nor had much of a choice in how it finished. It was lost, precisely how the communist planned it, in the college classrooms, the televisions, the hippie, Leftist, freak shows, and finally, and most critically, in the power centers of the Democrat Party, who brought our efforts there to an end. The Democrat Party made a conscious effort, very public, to openly side with far Left who, in the end, hate America far worse than her enemies. They have been identified with that element ever since. If they can move away form it, they will win elections, just like this past one. If they can't, the American people will support others.
You speak as if Nixon was not the commander in chief but just followed congress's direction. That democratic congress actions were consistent with the will of the people so I guess we're all to blame. You're about to see a repeat of that. For all his talk about 'cut and run' the Bush administration will cut and run before the next election. And thats not the dems fault alone, the republicans in congress do not want to run again with this mess hanging over their head.
The lesson of both wars is whatever you decide to do don't take too long in doing it.
Sometimes I think the main tenent of conservative republicans is that the left hates america. However much you enjoy saying it again and again I think its complete rubbish. I think the left is more aware that powerful countries can do harm as well as good but that is a far cry from hating. The rights belief that we always wear the white hat don't make it so.
