"Our only hope is that the region begins to police itself. But, in the interim, we either sit idly by and wait for the next attack or we finish what we started in Iraq and demonstrate our resolve, the one thing that they do understand about us. There is no resolving of differences in this scenario. With Allah as their guide, they have vowed to destroy us...we can't talk ourselves out of that. "


Why is it that we have to attack them in order to keep ourselves safe? I don't want to sound like a peace loving hippie but can't we at least think about peaceful solutions?

I am glad that you also recognize we must fully figure out what the problem is, and neither your nor I have any significant relevations about what they are. But since we both know these problems are compex and we agree the solution will be equally complicated, I must reiterate that we can not simply solve our problem by kiling those who oppose us. I must reiterate that killing those who are willing to die does not eliminate the problem. It only temporary removes, and then inflames the problem.


Also, I would like to point out that this is not the cold war again. It is not our resolve vs. their resolve and our economy vs their economy. We can not fight this war like any normal war. Our methods must change. And not our tactical methods. We must change our ideas on war in order to win this war.

If you kill 1 terrorist, their neighbor, their brother, and their brothers neighbor will take their place. We can not and should not expect to win the war by killing radical islamist. We can expect to win the war by focusing on prevention and religous and cultural diplomacy.



Also, what does this statement mean. "But, in the end, the biggest problem is that we represent the antithesis of the fundamentalist culture that they are trying to sustain."

I am not just trying to be cute with this question. I don't believe we are the exact opposite of radical Islam and that our differences can not be resolved. Its true our values our different at times, but that statement sounds too much like a soundbite from a politician. Please elaborate.

"The only thing turning Iraq into a "junk-hole" is the unending flow of terrrorists from surrounding countries fighting tooth and nails to stop the establishment of a free Iraq."
The first part of the statement is simply not true.
The latest official report out of Iraq has stated that of the 5000 prisoners in custody under a 100 are foreign. The exact figure eludes me but it was less then 2% of them are foreign.
Fox news(which is where I believe this statement comes from) is not news. News is reporting the facts as they are, not as one wants them to be.

In any case, the situation in Iraq is debatable. One poll will say "Iraqis believe they are better off now then before Saddaam", but another poll will say "Iraqis are less happy without saddamm."

It is difficult to analyze a situation where the kurds are free, almost a thousand Americans are dead and many more thousands of Iraqis are dead.

Are you willing to put your life on the line to go to some country you will never visit otherwise so the Kurds can be free? It is a noble idea and a noble cause, but the repercussions can be enormous. To be honest, I care more about the tragedy in Sudan and the AID's crisis in Africa more then the Kurds in Iraq. THe Kurds were living their lives a in a functional, although slightly oppressive goverment for 10 years without incident.

Now if Saddam had WMD and he had started going at the Kurds again that would be a different story. But he didn't have WMD and he wasn't commiting genocide against the Kurds yet we still went in there. Lets concetrate on the terrorists and the threats that affect Americans and not some shitty country I will never visit and will never affect me.



Once You Pop You Can't Stop