GENIUS FORUMS

The last two paragraphs of this article are key to understanding what happened in Vietnam and what is happenning now in Iraq. Do we have the strength to look past our pride? I would have to actually see it from the American people for once to believe it. Otherwise, we deserve Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the consequences that entails from the rest of the world.

------------------------------------------------------

JAMES CARROLL
What it will take to end war
By James Carroll | November 6, 2006

"THE WAR in Iraq has emerged as a key issue in tomorrow's election, but in what way can its course be influenced by voting results?

On the one hand, President Bush has just renewed allegiance to Donald Rumsfeld, the contractor of disaster, and to Dick Cheney, the architect. This suggests that, even after abandoning the rhetoric of "stay the course," Bush remains committed to the present folly. Two more years of Rumsfeld and Cheney in charge mean two more years of needless American casualties, jihadist recruitment, Middle East turmoil, and vast additions to the toll of Iraqi dead. If the elections maintain Republican majorities in Congress, the administration will feel no external pressure to change its Iraq policy. Absent that, Rumsfeld-Cheney will simply carry on.

On the other hand, Democrats could take the House, and perhaps even the Senate. What difference would that make to the war? Obviously, in one or both houses, the opposition could then convene hearings in which both the present conduct of the war and past failures and deceptions could be investigated. Congressional hearings can be a powerful forum. Until now, it has not served the Bush administration's purposes to have the American public well instructed on the complexities of Iraq, but intensive media focus on testimony by the war's witnesses, critics, and victims would change that.

We have been here before. Of all the acts of opposition to the war in Vietnam, none was more consequential than the hearings presided over by Senator William Fulbright -- a Democrat challenging a Democratic administration. The Fulbright hearings served as the nation's classroom, with a visceral uneasiness about the war evolving into informed opposition. The decisive election year was 1968, and, sure enough, voters cast their ballots for peace.

But if the past has ever offered instruction to the present, here is one lesson that must not be missed: The Vietnam War dragged on for nearly seven more years after that critical election. Why? Because public uneasiness with the course of the war was not enough. The only way out of the disaster was to accept defeat, and that America was loath to do. President Nixon came into office on the promise that he had a "secret plan" to end the war, but no sooner had he moved into the White House than he swore he would not be the first US president to lose a war. "Peace with honor" became the shibboleth. The killing continued, the air war came into its own, and more people died in Vietnam after 1968 than had died before. The American public's retreat from concern about the war was epitomized by Nixon's overwhelming reelection in 1972. How did that happen?

It is one thing to feel uneasy about your nation's war, or even to move to a position of outright opposition. It is another to face the harsh fact that the only way out of the war is to accept defeat. The goal of "peace with honor" assumes that the nation's honor has not already been squandered. During Vietnam, for all the widespread opposition to the war, the American public was never ready to face the full truth of what had been done in its name, and so the martial band played on. And on. The war ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, with the United States whining that somehow it had been the victim. Not incidental to the present disaster is the fact that the men dragging out that shameful last moment of Vietnam, when our nation's abject defeat was made plain for all the world to see, were Ford administration honchos Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are prepared to do it to their nation again. The question now is whether America will let them? The general uneasiness with the war in Iraq is mostly tied to how badly it has gone. Tactical and strategic planning have been bungled at every level, and the elusive enemy is yet to be understood in Washington. If the Democrats take power with the elections tomorrow, congressional hearings will have a lot of such questions to consider. But what about the moral question? For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?"

article Tharan pasted:

Not incidental to the present disaster is the fact that the men dragging out that shameful last moment of Vietnam, when our nation's abject defeat was made plain for all the world to see, were Ford administration honchos Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Wikipedia gives me the impression Cheney was not a Ford administration honcho, but a 22 year old who got 5 draft deferrments wikipedia Cheney

Rumsfeld was Sec. of Defense under Ford, though starting in 1975 wikipedia Rumsfeld

The Vietnam War was from 1959 - 1975, so it looks like Rumsfeld became Sec. of Defense right about the time the Vietnam War ended. Kind of looks like a good thing, rather than blame-worthy as the article makes it sound.

If a Democratic president is elected, which will most likely happen, I'm moving out of the country. Regardless of if I have more time in the military or not. I will retreat. There is a reason why American soldiers are dying in the Middle East. That reason is mujahideen. I truly believe the only thing that's stopping them from launching more attacks on American soil is the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Mark my words - there will be more attacks like September 11th if we pull out.

What's the easy solution? There isn't one. We're stuck in that fucking area of the world forever now. They won't get their shit together...most of the Iraqi military is corrupt. The citizens don't know what they want. They cheer at Saddam's death sentence, yet plant IEDs for us soldiers...and if they're not planting, they're watching them get planted and then not speaking to anyone about it.

All Muslims hate non-Muslims. They are bound by their religion to kill us or convert us. There truly isn't an easy solution...and the tone of everyone these days is so stupid. It's as if people think we can go back in time and change the fact that we got into this mess. That's impossible! The tone of this article that Tharan posted is very irrational. Instead of cursing the administration, we should be brainstorming potential ways out of this.

I'll say one thing that I'm certain about: electing more Democrats isn't going to solve a damn thing. People make the mistake of thinking this is all about politics. It's not...this is about America versus Islam. If not now, at least it will be within the next 100 years.

sschaula wrote: All Muslims hate non-Muslims. They are bound by their religion to kill us or convert us.

This is simply not true. Despite being at different times over the last 7 years Wiccan and Atheist, I have multiple friends in Saudi Arabia who I consider very dear friends. There have been no attempts at conversion.

Nearly all schools of law now demand that Muslims commit Jihad only when Islamic ways of life are directly threatened. If they personally are being prevented from practicing their religion.

Frankly, it terrifies me more that people like you serve in our military than the continued existance of Osama bin Ladin.

If America pulls out of Iraq, immediate problems such as money spent and soldiers lost will be solved, but long term problems such as Islamic Extremism will persist and continue to spread like the cancer it is. This being said, the western countries will continue to meddle in the affairs of other countries as a means to increase their own security at home.

So their behavior will continue, but America should learn from its mistakes. The only way to fight an enemy like extremists is beat them at their own game.

One strategy the west has resorted to is they have begun to hire middle-east undercover agents to infiltrate extremist organizations as a means to provide the US with their coordinates so they can be bombed.

This is much more realistic approach than occupying a country and trying to force democracy on a region that evidently is not ready for that sort of moral sophistication.

Changing the political framework is only a superficial change; it does not address the fundamental problem of extreme ideological fragmentation.

Rory,

This is simply not true. Despite being at different times over the last 7 years Wiccan and Atheist, I have multiple friends in Saudi Arabia who I consider very dear friends. There have been no attempts at conversion.

They aren't too enthusiastic about their religion are they? What does it say in the Koran?

Nearly all schools of law now demand that Muslims commit Jihad only when Islamic ways of life are directly threatened. If they personally are being prevented from practicing their religion.

Nearly is the key word there.

Frankly, it terrifies me more that people like you serve in our military than the continued existance of Osama bin Ladin.

That's not much of an insult coming from someone diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Besides, you don't even know me. What's your point?

sschaula wrote:Besides, you don't even know me. What's your point?

Butting in, pardon me. But you're in the army. You are sheep by definition. Speaking from experience. Anything missing, sir?

edited out ad hominem

Blowjob,

If we're going to discuss ME and not THE TOPIC...that's fine with me. I will gladly discuss myself.

Butting in, pardon me. But you're in the army. You are sheep by definition.

Kind of. It's more like I have to listen to what they tell me to do otherwise I will go to jail and ruin my employment records. My mind is free...making me by a similar definition, not a sheep.

Speaking from experience.

So does a sheep stop being a sheep once out of the pasture?

Saying that anyone who is in the military is a sheep is somewhat like saying all Buddhists are enlightened. Or that everyone who posts here is a Genius.

You also seem like a pompous ass.

I can tend to be a pompous ass...does that have any effect on what I wrote originally in this topic?

And does my tendency to be a pompous ass mean that I AM a pompous ass? I don't think so. You may say otherwise, but you don't actually know who I am.

Anything missing, sir?

Yes...when judging someone's character over the internet it's useful to not do it from such a one sided position. If anyone truly would want to know who I am, they'd need to talk to me quite often about tons of topics for a long period of time. And not just on one forum. Then they'd probably say "he's a pompous ass who occasionally has streaks of genuine kindness."

I guess I don't really care if you think I suck or not...but I just want you to know that there's more to me than what you see here.

If you want to talk about me more, PM me. That's better than bickering about such a thing in a thread.

Back to the discussion...

Anything missing, sir?

...and as "easily led by the nose, as asses are."

Othello

Yes...when judging someone's character over the internet...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

What a surprize! You're a hypocrite, too!

Like I said...PM me before bringing it into discussions, you piece of shit.

You and the other members of your cretin gang (that you are in the army, explains your hostility to a certain degree), really have a hard time swallowing your own medicine.

I would like it if we didn't annoy everyone here by bickering in the midst of decent discussions. I'll take any medicine you want to give through private messages. Bring it on.

You're an absolute fucking hypocrite. Send out a general order to your cretin gang, to cease hostilities on ALL fronts.

sschaula wrote: They aren't too enthusiastic about their religion are they? What does it say in the Koran?

They are quite enthusiastic about their religion. What it says in the Qur'an includes many different things including the fact that the greater, or more important, jihad is within yourself to be a better person. It also commands that muslims not kill noncombatants, women or children. It says not to kill Christians or Jews, but allow them to pay a tax (in exchange, they don't have to join the military - fair, I think).

Nearly is the key word there.

Yes, but your stated position earlier was the are all bad.

That's not much of an insult coming from someone diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Oh, my, we can throw someone's clinical diagnosis at them.
To quote a friend, "Rory, you're pretty rational when you're not batshit nuts." And I'm not batshit nuts right now which I know because certain people always tell me when I am. :)

Besides, you don't even know me. What's your point?

I don't know you, but I read your statement.
That single statement says quite a bit.

Rory

And I'm not batshit nuts right now which I know because certain people always tell me when I am. :)

Thank you for that information. :)

Rory,

What it says in the Qur'an includes many different things including the fact that the greater, or more important, jihad is within yourself to be a better person.

That doesn't take away from the fact that it says you must kill all infidels. Not in the least.

It also commands that muslims not kill noncombatants, women or children.

I'm not sure if it says the noncombatants part.

It says not to kill Christians or Jews, but allow them to pay a tax (in exchange, they don't have to join the military - fair, I think).

Actually, from what I read, Christians and Jews ARE the infidels which the Koran is telling Muslims to kill.

Yes, but your stated position earlier was the are all bad.

Yes, I do tend to think they're all bad. I don't think it's a good excuse to say about the terrorists "they aren't following the Koran correctly". I don't trust any Muslim.

Does that make ME bad? I don't think so. What do Muslims believe in exactly? After you answer that, answer why a rational person would ever trust someone with such beliefs.

Oh, my, we can throw someone's clinical diagnosis at them.
To quote a friend, "Rory, you're pretty rational when you're not batshit nuts." And I'm not batshit nuts right now which I know because certain people always tell me when I am. :)

I haven't seen what your friend has seen.

I don't know you, but I read your statement.
That single statement says quite a bit.

What single statement exactly?

A single statement can certainly mean a lot to someone diagnosed with schizophrenia. No joke.

sschaula wrote: Actually, from what I read, Christians and Jews ARE the infidels which the Koran is telling Muslims to kill.

Then you simply read wrong. Christians and Jews are people of the book - people who worship the same God, but got things 'messed up'

What do Muslims believe in exactly? After you answer that, answer why a rational person would ever trust someone with such beliefs.

I believe that there is one God and Muhammad is His Prophet the simple essence of Islamic faith.

I don't chose whether to trust someone based on their religious faith, but rather on them as individuals, anyway.

I don't know you, but I read your statement.
That single statement says quite a bit.

[quoteWhat single statement exactly?[/quote]
I'm not sure exactly the wording, but since you repeated the essence of it here, here it is:

Yes, I do tend to think they're all bad. I don't think it's a good excuse to say about the terrorists "they aren't following the Koran correctly". I don't trust any Muslim.

A single statement can certainly mean a lot to someone diagnosed with schizophrenia. No joke.

Indeed, and that I won't deny. However, the prejudice in that statement is there, regardless of whether it is me interpreting it, or someone else. [/quote]

Then you simply read wrong. Christians and Jews are people of the book - people who worship the same God, but got things 'messed up'

I guess I did read wrong!

I believe that there is one God and Muhammad is His Prophet the simple essence of Islamic faith.

I don't think that's it.

I don't chose whether to trust someone based on their religious faith, but rather on them as individuals, anyway.

A person's faith has nothing to do with who they are?

I'm not sure exactly the wording, but since you repeated the essence of it here, here it is:
Quote:
Yes, I do tend to think they're all bad. I don't think it's a good excuse to say about the terrorists "they aren't following the Koran correctly". I don't trust any Muslim.

Okay.

Indeed, and that I won't deny. However, the prejudice in that statement is there, regardless of whether it is me interpreting it, or someone else.

Sure, there's a prejudice there. I'm not trying to win an election or anything. I will speak the truth: Muslims believe in killing those who don't share the same faith. Certain groups may be likely to kill more women and children, Christians and Jews (regardless of if they've paid their taxes or not)....but I think on the whole, they should all be lumped into the same category, since they all do believe that Muhammad is the true prophet of the one God, and he wrote to kill all infidels.

I watched the TV show 30 Days a couple of months ago, where a Christian man was forced to live with Muslims for 30 days. It changed his outlook. He came back saying "oh they are not so bad. They're a lot like us." The show didn't change my mind. I do think that anyone who believes in the Koran is a fool and shouldn't be trusted. Does that make me prejudice? Yes, of course...but does it make me wrong?

sschaula wrote: I don't think that's it.

OK, what would you argue is the heart of their faith?

A person's faith has nothing to do with who they are?

It has something to do with who they are. However, I would not like to be lumped in the same category as all atheists. Actually, another board I post at recently had a thread on the topic where someone asserted that because Pol Pot and Mao were atheists showed that atheists are all immoral.

I think it is important to realize that there are many differences between people and that looking at nothing besides a large group affilliation can only deprive us of experiences and knowledge we could have had.

but does it make me wrong?

Lumping people together without knowledge of them as individuals always makes us wrong at least some of the time.

Rory,

OK, what would you argue is the heart of their faith?

Well when I was saying that wasn't it, I was referring to all of their virgins they recieve when they get to heaven and the fact that women won't go there.

But now you ask what I argue the heart of their faith is...I think it's simply a delusional grasping at the unknown. That's all it's founded on, and all that sustains it, in my opinion.

It has something to do with who they are. However, I would not like to be lumped in the same category as all atheists. Actually, another board I post at recently had a thread on the topic where someone asserted that because Pol Pot and Mao were atheists showed that atheists are all immoral.

Atheists don't have a book of guidelines on how to live their lives. This makes it a LOT different, and pretty much incomparable to Islam. I see your point though.

I think it is important to realize that there are many differences between people and that looking at nothing besides a large group affilliation can only deprive us of experiences and knowledge we could have had.

I would never be cruel to a Muslim. I love meeting new people. I love learning new things.

If someone were to introduce me to a Muslim today, the way that I function is: I would greet them as a human being and give them the benefit of the doubt first. I would never be like "I am NOT meeting that person because they are a Muslim." I realize you don't know me in real life, but that's just not the type of person I am.

You know your arguments could actually be flipped around on you? You have lumped me into the category of "prejudice jerk", which has possibly prevented you from having experiences and knowledge which you could have had otherwise.

Lumping people together without knowledge of them as individuals always makes us wrong at least some of the time.

I agree with that.

sschaula wrote: Well when I was saying that wasn't it, I was referring to all of their virgins they recieve when they get to heaven and the fact that women won't go there.

While I acknowledge that is common knowledge and thought, it is not in the Qur'an.

But now you ask what I argue the heart of their faith is...I think it's simply a delusional grasping at the unknown. That's all it's founded on, and all that sustains it, in my opinion.

Well, that is the definition of religion. I suppose you could lump them all together with that though. :)

I would never be cruel to a Muslim. I love meeting new people. I love learning new things.

If someone were to introduce me to a Muslim today, the way that I function is: I would greet them as a human being and give them the benefit of the doubt first. I would never be like "I am NOT meeting that person because they are a Muslim." I realize you don't know me in real life, but that's just not the type of person I am.

You know your arguments could actually be flipped around on you? You have lumped me into the category of "prejudice jerk", which has possibly prevented you from having experiences and knowledge which you could have had otherwise.

Well, I had some evidence of that, by your words. Putting people who say similar things in groups together is not like putting people you've never interacted with in groups together.

But, indeed, I hope that I will get to know you better than someone who hates Muslims and "picks on me" for a disability. :)

-Rory

Rory,

While I acknowledge that is common knowledge and thought, it is not in the Qur'an.

Strange...I've always heard it's in the Koran (I spell it this way because I'm lazy). Strange that people would just come up with it when it's not in the text.

Well, that is the definition of religion. I suppose you could lump them all together with that though. :)

I tend to. :)

Well, I had some evidence of that, by your words. Putting people who say similar things in groups together is not like putting people you've never interacted with in groups together.

True.

But, indeed, I hope that I will get to know you better than someone who hates Muslims and "picks on me" for a disability. :)

I apologize. I just don't like being told that people are scared that I'm in the military. To me, that's just as offensive as my retorts. I take them back, though. You seem like a great person, Rory. From the little I know of you now, it seems that your friend was right about what they said.

sschaula wrote:Strange...I've always heard it's in the Koran (I spell it this way because I'm lazy). Strange that people would just come up with it when it's not in the text.

iirc it was said by one of the Caliphs to support their wars. It's actually a fairly interesting history. Muhammad himself stated repeatedly that the internal peaceful jihad was most important and that violence was secondary.

However, when Muhammad died, they had all these soldiers and they were threatening to turn in and destroy his religion. The new caliph sent them out to conquor new places and convert them, much as the Catholic church did during the crusades. In order to convince people to do this, he emphasized the lesser jihad.

Of course, the Hadiths were not written down until some 70 years after Muhammad's death, and were very politically motivated, so that might be the origin.

I apologize. I just don't like being told that people are scared that I'm in the military. To me, that's just as offensive as my retorts. I take them back, though. You seem like a great person, Rory. From the little I know of you now, it seems that your friend was right about what they said.

I apologize for my comments as well.
And thanks. :)

sschaula wrote:If a Democratic president is elected, which will most likely happen, I'm moving out of the country. Regardless of if I have more time in the military or not. I will retreat. There is a reason why American soldiers are dying in the Middle East. That reason is mujahideen. I truly believe the only thing that's stopping them from launching more attacks on American soil is the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Mark my words - there will be more attacks like September 11th if we pull out.

You are being a little extreme here. Not all Democrats are John Kerry. A guy like Jim Webb is a decorated Vietnam vet and probably just as conservative as his opponent George Allen (who is a lying piece of shit and probably about as truly conservative as Foley and that preacher who recently got busted snorting speed and sucking dicks).

And so what if they bring it here? Bring it. It is our fight isn't it? Are you honestly saying you value American life more than Iraqi life, on a general philosophical level? Fuck the mujahadeen. But if they kill only our soldiers and Iraqi civilians, then the American public doesn't much care. Americans feel lied to. Why the fuck would they then become this administration's cheerleaders? And as long as it "over there," then it is not "here," both physically and mentally. (So many tactical fuckups by this adminstration.)

But if they kill some civilians at home, Americans will truly get up in arms and this war will be over VERY quickly (which would most likely save a large number of lives over time). So I say quit torturing the Iraqis and using them, and bring this fight to where it belongs; American soil. You cannot justify the feeling that you are somehow better than they are and they deserve the collateral damage. I'll fight that just as quick as I would behead a jihadi. Not all Democrats are doves.

What is interesting about this divide in America, is that both sides share the same strategy, generally speaking. It makes both equally patriotic, despite the accusations of the Republicans. Yet incompetence and corruption by those actually running the show tends to ruin their credibility.

And it looks like, as of this writing, the Republicans have lost the House, despite their extensive gerrymandering.

What's the easy solution? There isn't one. We're stuck in that fucking area of the world forever now. They won't get their shit together...most of the Iraqi military is corrupt. The citizens don't know what they want. They cheer at Saddam's death sentence, yet plant IEDs for us soldiers...and if they're not planting, they're watching them get planted and then not speaking to anyone about it.

We said this shit OVER and OVER and OVER again before the Commander in Chief took us into this hellhole. So don't say you weren't warned. But did anyone listen? Not anyone in power. The Republicans got us completely distracted; blinded by their sense of self importance. We could have done serious damage to the Islamist movement by now without this headache.

All Muslims hate non-Muslims. They are bound by their religion to kill us or convert us. There truly isn't an easy solution...and the tone of everyone these days is so stupid. It's as if people think we can go back in time and change the fact that we got into this mess. That's impossible! The tone of this article that Tharan posted is very irrational. Instead of cursing the administration, we should be brainstorming potential ways out of this.

Islam needs a reformation, in the same way Chrisitanity had its reformation. And if it must come by blood, then we need to make sure that it is their blood that brings it. But they will reform, one way or another.

I'll say one thing that I'm certain about: electing more Democrats isn't going to solve a damn thing. People make the mistake of thinking this is all about politics. It's not...this is about America versus Islam. If not now, at least it will be within the next 100 years.

It actually has nothing to do with American politics. It must come from the women and the moderate Muslims. No one else can change the jihadis. They all have mothers and sisters, and they need to step up and speak. Meanwhile, we will continue killing them.