Muslims and thermonuclear fire *fap fap fap*

[frigidmagi]

Saddam didn't try to screw with Islamic code. Oppressing the people is one thing, screwing with their regilion another. Fucking with Islamic law or how it's taught is the surest way to get a Jiahd declare on you other than being a Jewish solder in the Holy Land.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Fine, then get the Chineese to do it. They're athiests, they need oil, Ttey've got loads of men to spare, and they don't give a dick about human rights.

[Spice Runner]

It would be kinda hard to get the Chinese to leave any newly conquered territories.

[Xon]

It would be kinda hard to get the Chinese to leave any newly conquered territories.

At this point it wouldnt be so much of an issue.

(Reasonably) Sane management can be reasoned with. And no one is calling the current middle east sane by any strech of the imagination.

[AniThyng]

as a non-muslim living in a muslim city (Kuala Lumpur) you westerners with your talk of nuking the entire muslim world to eliminate radical islam are beginning to terrify me more then the terrorists.

[Patrick Degan]

We can’t leave well enough alone. Period. The Second World War definitively proved that the United States cannot successfully effect “Splendid Isolation” any longer. Any attempt to withdraw from the world stage and “regress” to a strictly domestic focus would be absolutely disingenuous. Put simply, this country’s “internal” affairs are so vastly important to the outside world economically, politically, and socially that no matter to what extent any politician here promise to “put our house in order” and nothing more, they’d be lying through their teeth. In a very real sense, we don’t really have “internal” affairs at all anymore. After all, what does it say that a huge part of John Kerry’s platform for election in November is a promise to “set things right” with our traditional European allies, or that the European Union awaits election day in this country with nearly the same eagerness as voters on this side of the Atlantic?

A withdrawal from the Middle East is impossible. “Blowback” is going to continue whether or not we pull out of Saudi Arabia, and whether or not we pull out of Iraq. Insurgents there have already pledged to bring the fight to the United States even if we were to leave tomorrow. We would still have reason to intervene frequently – be it diplomatically or militarily – even if oil, God forbid, suddenly disappeared. And we will have to continue doing so despite the onset of alternative fuels. The Middle East won’t stop being a powder keg once overt exploitation of its resources ends. Bitterness and anger doesn’t subside because one particular match is over, or because one team graciously leaves the field after a given bout.

Bush may have oversimplified when he condemned men like Osama bin Laden as one-dimensionally evil, but he wasn’t far off the mark, either. Even under a logical magnifying glass, none of bin Laden’s rhetoric is particularly helpful in determining the source of his anger. His blaming the United States for “occupying” Saudi Arabia after 1991 doesn’t make any sense at all when one considers the alternative: another invasion by Iraq. Rather, Osama bin Laden is a product of a failed series of societies whose corrupt leadership and lengthy history of exploitation by all sides have generated legions of young men (and women) who feel that their only means of impact is violence – and who are currently channeling their anger at the most obvious target. That won’t end until the societies themselves change. And thus we have the option of invasion.

Hmm... the usual bullshit.

[CelesKnight]

as a non-muslim living in a muslim city (Kuala Lumpur) you westerners with your talk of nuking the entire muslim world to eliminate radical islam are beginning to terrify me more then the terrorists.

I'm sorry to hear that. No one wishes the innocent harm, even though we know that it would happen in the event of a nuclear war.

However, I wish that UBLs supporters would read threads like this one and get a little terrorised by thought about what could happen. If the businessmen who finance Al Quada, the rouge scientists who might help develop WMDs, the government officials who tolerate Al Quade, the young men who would deliver an attack, and the orginary people who treat UBL like a hero all knew that they and their families might die in response to an attack, perhaps they'll reconsider their actions.

[Loner]

That's just disgusting.

But a very efficient way of solving our problems. The Pentagon
Estimates that this war on Radical Islamofascistm may well last 35
years; Do you want an endless line of Tom Ridges and John
Aschcrofts runing your freedoms over those 35 years?

Or do you want everyone your age to be drafted so we can place
every Islamist country under our Imperial rule and begin reforming
their systems from the bottum up to eliminate fanatical islamofascism's
breeding grounds?

To get rid of Mosquitos, you've got to drain the pools of stagnant
water first.....

.....................

Do you get a boner everytime you see Slim Pickens riding an atom bomb to it's detonation from "Dr. Strangelove"?

[Howedar]

Those dictatiors would be overthrown in 5 years top and they would hate us even more.

Not a good plan.

Just need find "bloodthirsty" enough dictators who are willing to rule with iron fists. Ones willing to crush dissent with cruel executions - or put down uprisings with nerve gas. For every soldier/policemen (or any other government offical) that is killed or "disappears", they'll kill 50 random people in the city/town in happens in. Its evil almost on the level of the Nazis, but it beats turning dozens of nations into glass.

And precisely which Arab soldiers will support these dictators?

[Sarevok]

And please, Durandal, if you have any idea about how to fucking reform
a religion that will have it's believers call you an apostate and call for
your bloody death if you dare suggest moving away from the one perfect
sheriat law put forth in the Q'uran, I'd like to hear it.

Put dictators in power in every major Islamic nation. Have them pass laws making it a crime, punishible by death, to teach that the Q'uran as the literal and only truth of God.

A bloodbath would ensue. Most muslims are willing to lay down their lives for the sake of the Quran. Whoever did this would be declared the dazzal and hunted down.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Those dictatiors would be overthrown in 5 years top and they would hate us even more.

Not a good plan.

Just need find "bloodthirsty" enough dictators who are willing to rule with iron fists. Ones willing to crush dissent with cruel executions - or put down uprisings with nerve gas. For every soldier/policemen (or any other government offical) that is killed or "disappears", they'll kill 50 random people in the city/town in happens in. Its evil almost on the level of the Nazis, but it beats turning dozens of nations into glass.

And precisely which Arab soldiers will support these dictators?

There are sadists and people who will "just follow orders" in any soceity. Just look at WWII.

[PainRack]

Painrack's comment was remarkably stupid though; The Muslims have
pissed off three of the world's nuclear powers, not a very smart thing
to do; The US, the Russians, and the Chinese.

Oh? And pray tell, how might the US win the war on terror?

Funny game isn't it? The only way to win, is not to play.

We can’t leave well enough alone. Period. The Second World War definitively proved that the United States cannot successfully effect “Splendid Isolation” any longer. Any attempt to withdraw from the world stage and “regress” to a strictly domestic focus would be absolutely disingenuous. Put simply, this country’s “internal” affairs are so vastly important to the outside world economically, politically, and socially that no matter to what extent any politician here promise to “put our house in order” and nothing more, they’d be lying through their teeth. In a very real sense, we don’t really have “internal” affairs at all anymore. After all, what does it say that a huge part of John Kerry’s platform for election in November is a promise to “set things right” with our traditional European allies, or that the European Union awaits election day in this country with nearly the same eagerness as voters on this side of the Atlantic?

A withdrawal from the Middle East is impossible. “Blowback” is going to continue whether or not we pull out of Saudi Arabia, and whether or not we pull out of Iraq. Insurgents there have already pledged to bring the fight to the United States even if we were to leave tomorrow. We would still have reason to intervene frequently – be it diplomatically or militarily – even if oil, God forbid, suddenly disappeared. And we will have to continue doing so despite the onset of alternative fuels. The Middle East won’t stop being a powder keg once overt exploitation of its resources ends. Bitterness and anger doesn’t subside because one particular match is over, or because one team graciously leaves the field after a given bout.

Bush may have oversimplified when he condemned men like Osama bin Laden as one-dimensionally evil, but he wasn’t far off the mark, either. Even under a logical magnifying glass, none of bin Laden’s rhetoric is particularly helpful in determining the source of his anger. His blaming the United States for “occupying” Saudi Arabia after 1991 doesn’t make any sense at all when one considers the alternative: another invasion by Iraq. Rather, Osama bin Laden is a product of a failed series of societies whose corrupt leadership and lengthy history of exploitation by all sides have generated legions of young men (and women) who feel that their only means of impact is violence – and who are currently channeling their anger at the most obvious target. That won’t end until the societies themselves change. And thus we have the option of invasion.

Very smart of you Axis. You made a rebuttal, to an non-existant point. I did not advocate isolation. I did not advocate withdrawal. I advocated not attempting to shortcut victory by enforcing the drastic kind of changes neccesary, through American power, and made the point that only an internal sea-change, through the Muslim community can it be done, and that America PR image means that actually aiding such moderates will tarnish and weaken such movements.

[Darth Wong]

We can't leave well enough alone. Period. The Second World War definitively proved that the United States cannot successfully effect "Splendid Isolation" any longer. Any attempt to withdraw from the world stage and "regress" to a strictly domestic focus would be absolutely disingenuous. Put simply, this country's "internal" affairs are so vastly important to the outside world economically, politically, and socially that no matter to what extent any politician here promise to "put our house in order" and nothing more, they'd be lying through their teeth. In a very real sense, we don't really have "internal" affairs at all anymore. After all, what does it say that a huge part of John Kerry's platform for election in November is a promise to "set things right" with our traditional European allies, or that the European Union awaits election day in this country with nearly the same eagerness as voters on this side of the Atlantic?

So you justify American interference in the affairs of other countries which ranges from propping up dictators to funding revolutions and even outright invasion by saying that the affairs of America affect the rest of the world already, so you might as well go all the way? Nice false dilemma between total isolationism and the bull in a china shop.

A withdrawal from the Middle East is impossible. "Blowback" is going to continue whether or not we pull out of Saudi Arabia, and whether or not we pull out of Iraq. Insurgents there have already pledged to bring the fight to the United States even if we were to leave tomorrow. We would still have reason to intervene frequently - be it diplomatically or militarily - even if oil, God forbid, suddenly disappeared. And we will have to continue doing so despite the onset of alternative fuels. The Middle East won't stop being a powder keg once overt exploitation of its resources ends. Bitterness and anger doesn't subside because one particular match is over, or because one team graciously leaves the field after a given bout.

In other words ... we must keep sending billions of dollars in aid to Israel. Gotcha.

Bush may have oversimplified when he condemned men like Osama bin Laden as one-dimensionally evil, but he wasn't far off the mark, either. Even under a logical magnifying glass, none of bin Laden's rhetoric is particularly helpful in determining the source of his anger. His blaming the United States for "occupying" Saudi Arabia after 1991 doesn't make any sense at all when one considers the alternative: another invasion by Iraq.

Oh for fuck's sake, Bin Laden is not that difficult to fathom. He fears that the US aims to eventually wipe out Islamic fundamentalism. In that, he is completely correct. His problem is that he thinks Islamic fundamentalism is something which must be protected at all costs, and is more important than human life. This is really no different from the Catholic martyrs. Once you elevate the sanctity of your belief system above the sanctity of human life, even if it is only your own life, you have already made the leap from believer to fanatic.

Rather, Osama bin Laden is a product of a failed series of societies whose corrupt leadership and lengthy history of exploitation by all sides have generated legions of young men (and women) who feel that their only means of impact is violence - and who are currently channeling their anger at the most obvious target. That won't end until the societies themselves change. And thus we have the option of invasion.

I suppose the irony of the bolded section is lost on you, despite the fact that your solutions to America's foreign-affairs problems always involve the use of force.

[Axis Kast]

Hmm... the usual bullshit.

An insult is not an argument. What’s the matter, Deegan? Know I’m right?

So you justify American interference in the affairs of other countries which ranges from propping up dictators to funding revolutions and even outright invasion by saying that the affairs of America affect the rest of the world already, so you might as well go all the way? Nice false dilemma between total isolationism and the bull in a china shop.

Who said anything about justification? I am not justifying anything. I am explaining that the United States cannot eliminate “blowback” even through a “hands off” policy. An elephant cannot help but trample the ground underfoot. The United States could not sufficiently scale back its activities in such as a fashion as to prevent the rise of violent enemies in other countries, even if we so desired. Remember that many of our most grievous mistakes in the Middle East arose from an outside context – the Cold War. We cannot stop looking to our national defense or seeking economic expansion because our gain can sometimes result in losses for others.

In other words ... we must keep sending billions of dollars in aid to Israel. Gotcha.

What the fuck does Israel have to do with being unable to abandon oil cleanly, or without repercussions for the oil-producing Arab states themselves? You are not seriously attempting to advocate that our problems in the Middle East begin – and would end – with our relationship with Israel – correct?

Oh for fuck's sake, Bin Laden is not that difficult to fathom. He fears that the US aims to eventually wipe out Islamic fundamentalism. In that, he is completely correct. His problem is that he thinks Islamic fundamentalism is something which must be protected at all costs, and is more important than human life. This is really no different from the Catholic martyrs. Once you elevate the sanctity of your belief system above the sanctity of human life, even if it is only your own life, you have already made the leap from believer to fanatic.

If that is true, then bin Laden views Islamic Fundamentalism as the divergence between law and God’s will, as discussed elsewhere on this forum. He is interested in a temporal nation as he sees it.

I suppose the irony of the bolded section is lost on you, despite the fact that your solutions to America's foreign-affairs problems always involve the use of force.

In order to suppress the terrorism, we must somehow bring military force to bear. We cannot negotiate with governments too illegitimate or too impotent to make the requisite changes in their society themselves. Fighting begets more fighting. It’s the kind of situation we are now encountering.

“Backing off” will not work; there isn’t anybody left to woo with promises of aid or coaxing that will not assist them in getting through to governments that have failed them so long.

[Elfdart]

Sure, we could leave the Middle East with little problem for ourselves. But as long as Big Oil and Big Israel have (as LBJ would say) Uncle Sam's pecker in their pockets, we're going to be stuck in that Middle Eastern tar baby and we'll be stuck listening to Kast and the Shepster fap-fap-fapping "Bomb them! Nuke Them! Oh God YES!"

Kast, you crack me up! This country hasn't been "isolationist" since the brief period after the Civil War. If we had remained honestly neutral (no munitions smuggled to Britain in passenger ships courtesy of J.P. Morgan) during WW1, there wouldn't have been a sequel. Even before entering that war, FDR was openly supporting Chiang and Churchill. Besides, Uncle Sam had been spoiling for a fight with Japan ever since they bitchslapped the Russians. Neutrality hasn't been tried and found wanting -it hasn't been tried at all!

Yeah, those towel-wrapping sand-niggers hate the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave because of "fanatical Islam" and because of our "freedoms". But there are two huge holes in your theory:

1) Some Muslims were every bit as fanatical over a hundred years ago. Yet there were no suicide bombings of Americans during the Chester A. Arthur administration. In fact, Muslim countries were historically friendly to us and among the first to recognize our independence.

2) If Bin Laden and his kind hate America for sexual license, women's rights and tolerance for minority religions, why aren't bombs going off in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo? These countries are MUCH more liberal about such issues than we are. Canadians are culturally more or less Americans -only decent and civilized *. And yet Bin Laden hasn't attacked Canada. What gives?

I'll tell you what: Even though people like to throw around terms like "Islamofascism", they haven't caught on that like other fascists, Bin Laden is up front about his grievances, which are:

U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia

U.S. sanctions against Iraq and the subsequent invasion

U.S. support for Israel and the piecemeal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

So to claim that Bin Laden is offended by America because of our strip clubs and porno channels is proved wrong by far more libertine laws in Scandinavia and elsewhere. To claim that they "hate our freedoms" is also bullshit. Does any other advanced country have shysters like John Ashcroft holding public office? Do pop stars in Britain and Italy get truckloads of death threats for opposing the war like the Dixie Chicks got?

They hate us for the reasons I listed above. The fact that people in internet forums beat off to the thought of incinerating millions of innocent people must do wonders for our image as well.

[Darth Wong]

An elephant cannot help but trample the ground underfoot.

A lovely analogy which you trot out every time American foreign policy is mentioned. But you forget one thing: the metaphorical elephant can choose whether to do its trampling in someone else's fucking backyard.

What the fuck does Israel have to do with being unable to abandon oil cleanly, or without repercussions for the oil-producing Arab states themselves? You are not seriously attempting to advocate that our problems in the Middle East begin - and would end - with our relationship with Israel - correct?

I like the way you treat involvement and interference as if they are synonyms. They are not. There is a difference between having a stake in the Middle East and trying to run roughshod over it, although you are no doubt incapable of seeing this and will rattle off some long-winded dissertation that assumes you can't do one without the other.

In order to suppress the terrorism, we must somehow bring military force to bear <snip more fap fap fap>

Obviously, you completely missed the point I made about how it was ironic for you of all people to criticise those in the Middle East who can't see their way clear to non-violent solutions.

[Axis Kast]

Sure, we could leave the Middle East with little problem for ourselves. But as long as Big Oil and Big Israel have (as LBJ would say) Uncle Sam's pecker in their pockets, we're going to be stuck in that Middle Eastern tar baby and we'll be stuck listening to Kast and the Shepster fap-fap-fapping "Bomb them! Nuke Them! Oh God YES!"

First of all, I’ve said nothing about dropping nuclear weapons on any country in the Middle East, so you can take that strawman and shove it up your ass.

Secondly, don’t act as if we haven’t already hashed out the question of “Big Oil” to your distinct disadvantage. Not only is the United States far from being alone in needing access to Arab oil (see Japan’s position of the ’91 Gulf War), but we’re nowhere near a practical replacement for the black gold at this point in time. The sheer cost of restructuring both our economy and our infrastructure away from oil and toward the brave new world of hydrogen power is simply too great. We’re talking forty or fifty years away, not ten or twenty. Pulling out of the Middle East simply isn’t a practical option. Not to mention that we’d have a bunch of self-destructing shithole to deal with even if we did forsake their biggest export (and, in general, sole source of hard cash).

Kast, you crack me up! This country hasn't been "isolationist" since the brief period after the Civil War. If we had remained honestly neutral (no munitions smuggled to Britain in passenger ships courtesy of J.P. Morgan) during WW1, there wouldn't have been a sequel. Even before entering that war, FDR was openly supporting Chiang and Churchill. Besides, Uncle Sam had been spoiling for a fight with Japan ever since they bitchslapped the Russians. Neutrality hasn't been tried and found wanting -it hasn't been tried at all!

Come now. You’re smarter than this. Or are you next going to tell me that you honestly believe we’ll be safe, if only we forsake national security and economic interests in the name of pleasing everybody? We’ve reached critical mass, Elfdart. This country is too big not to stir the waters. Europe’s reaction to the War in Iraq is in part about the international repercussions of national security policy.

Yeah, those towel-wrapping sand-niggers hate the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave because of "fanatical Islam" and because of our "freedoms". But there are two huge holes in your theory.

Total the utter strawman. Nobody has said anything at all about “sand-niggers.” Except you.

Some Muslims were every bit as fanatical over a hundred years ago. Yet there were no suicide bombings of Americans during the Chester A. Arthur administration. In fact, Muslim countries were historically friendly to us and among the first to recognize our independence.

Because the United States was barely a speck in anybody’s eye until the mid-nineteenth century, genius. Chester A. Arthur’s United States was largely incapable of stirring resentment among what were then either Ottoman or Persian subjects.

If Bin Laden and his kind hate America for sexual license, women's rights and tolerance for minority religions, why aren't bombs going off in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo? These countries are MUCH more liberal about such issues than we are. Canadians are culturally more or less Americans -only decent and civilized *. And yet Bin Laden hasn't attacked Canada. What gives?

I certainly didn’t say he did.

U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia

We were invited by the government to station large troop contingents in case of a resurgence of Iraqi power.

U.S. sanctions against Iraq and the subsequent invasion

And you believe the post-Gulf War sanctions regime was unnecessary? Or the Gulf War? Bin Laden’s anger here is directed against America’s ability to shape events without his input – even when those actions were fairly popular.

U.S. support for Israel and the piecemeal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

Hatred of the United States in the Middle East goes far beyond our support for Israel. There would still be an al-Qaeda even without an Israel.

A lovely analogy which you trot out every time American foreign policy is mentioned. But you forget one thing: the metaphorical elephant can choose whether to do its trampling in someone else's fucking backyard.

And a lovely purposeful misinterpretation you trot out every time, as well. Nobody’s denying that the United States did its share of “Very Bad Things,” Wong. But Elfdart himself just gave the truth to my point. Look at the Gulf War. Part of bin Laden’s anger is over the United States’ ability to change the course of events in the Middle East – even when that change comes at the express wishes of Arabs, and in the cause of stopping future aggrandizement.

I like the way you treat involvement and interference as if they are synonyms. They are not. There is a difference between having a stake in the Middle East and trying to run roughshod over it, although you are no doubt incapable of seeing this and will rattle off some long-winded dissertation that assumes you can't do one without the other.

Our running roughshod was an offshoot of Cold War politics and national security needs. We dabbled in the affairs of the Arab world because there was a danger of Soviet encroachment – and a credible danger, at that. We put a boot on Saddam because he became too powerful as a result of our balancing act, and we put the boot on Iran because it was a necessary off-shoot of having made a mistake. You act as if the nasty aspects of damage control in attempting to corral nations like Iran are somehow unnecessary because we wronged them first. But that’s not how it works.

And frankly, there’s not much left to run roughshod over. As I’ve already said – and as you’ve purposely ignored because you clearly have no argument with which to respond –, change won’t come by taking a “hands off” route. The current governments are too corrupt and incompetent to do that without our prodding. Look at Saudi Arabia, for example. It’s a very difficult and very blood task, but rearranging the Middle East is a long-term necessity.

Obviously, you completely missed the point I made about how it was ironic for you of all people to criticise those in the Middle East who can't see their way clear to non-violent solutions.

You have a non-violent solution that actually promises to work? Let’s hear it. And don’t even think about trotting out that, “Let’s stop using oil,” crap, because it’s simply not in the realm of possibility.

[Rogue 9]

If we had remained honestly neutral (no munitions smuggled to Britain in passenger ships courtesy of J.P. Morgan) during WW1, there wouldn't have been a sequel.

You, sir, are a Goddamn idiot. Had the U.S. not entered WW1, it would have dragged on longer than it did, the Allied Powers would still have won albeit with more losses, as a result of those losses France and Britain would have been even more bloodthirsty when it came to reparations, and Wilson wouldn't have been present at Versailles to be a moderating influence on the talks and resulting treaty. Germany would still have been impoverished and stripped of her colonial possessions, and Hitler would still have had his fertile breeding ground for the seeds of National Socialism. In conclusion, if you think that U.S. noninvolvement in WW1 would have prevented WW2, you're on crack.

[Darth Wong]

And a lovely purposeful misinterpretation you trot out every time, as well. Nobody’s denying that the United States did its share of “Very Bad Things,” Wong.

Wrong. You have claimed that America tried to practice noninterference and was basically dragged into the Middle East, when nothing could be further from the truth.

But Elfdart himself just gave the truth to my point. Look at the Gulf War. Part of bin Laden’s anger is over the United States’ ability to change the course of events in the Middle East – even when that change comes at the express wishes of Arabs, and in the cause of stopping future aggrandizement.

More typical Kast bullfuckery. Bin Laden doesn't complain about the US interfering against Iraq; he warned that once the US was allowed to put bases in Saudi Arabia, they would not leave, and he was correct.

Our running roughshod was an offshoot of Cold War politics and national security needs. We dabbled in the affairs of the Arab world because there was a danger of Soviet encroachment – and a credible danger, at that.

So? The point is that your "elephant cannot help but trample" analogy is bullshit; there was deliberate interference, not incidental contact.

We put a boot on Saddam because he became too powerful as a result of our balancing act, and we put the boot on Iran because it was a necessary off-shoot of having made a mistake. You act as if the nasty aspects of damage control in attempting to corral nations like Iran are somehow unnecessary because we wronged them first. But that’s not how it works.

I love the way you casually talk about alternately supporting and then "putting a boot" on various nations in the Middle East in order to keep the whole area in a state conducive to your wishes, and then you deny that people in the Middle East have any legitimacy when they claim that America has been unduly interfering in their affairs

And frankly, there’s not much left to run roughshod over. As I’ve already said – and as you’ve purposely ignored because you clearly have no argument with which to respond –, change won’t come by taking a “hands off” route.

Yes it will; it just won't necessarily be the change you want. And that's where you are supposed to either admit that the US treats the Middle East as a possession to which it dictates terms (thus validating their claims of imperialism) or spew endless streams of bullshit. You choose the latter path.

The current governments are too corrupt and incompetent to do that without our prodding. Look at Saudi Arabia, for example. It’s a very difficult and very blood task, but rearranging the Middle East is a long-term necessity.

See above.

You have a non-violent solution that actually promises to work?

It will be as effective as yours, and without all the needless interference. Simply buy oil from them at whatever price the market will bear. Fears of massive price hikes without our "boot" on their throats are exaggerated; they cannot afford to dry up the supply for their own sake.

Let’s hear it. And don’t even think about trotting out that, “Let’s stop using oil,” crap, because it’s simply not in the realm of possibility.

Oooh, a pre-emptive strawman! How clever by your standards, Kast.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'd like to point out that the only reason anyone in the middle east gives a flying poop about Palestinians is because it undermines Israel. In no country in the middle east can they have citizenship or vote EXCEPT FOR ISRAEL. Most other countries don't have Palestinians because they ethnically cleansed them 30 or 40 years ago.

This funfact brought to you by the Wookiee Spelling & Grammar Agency.

[Rogue 9]

Okay, that deserved its own post. Now on with the rest of the idiocy...

Even before entering that war, FDR was openly supporting Chiang and Churchill.

Gee, I wonder why...

Besides, Uncle Sam had been spoiling for a fight with Japan ever since they bitchslapped the Russians.

Prove it, since the end of the war was negotiated by a U.S. President (Teddy Roosevelt), who won the Nobel Peace Prize for it.

Neutrality hasn't been tried and found wanting -it hasn't been tried at all!

The problem with this is? Neutrality in WW2 would have doomed the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Catholics, and other people Hitler didn't like to the Holocaust. It would also have required ignoring the fact that the Japanese blew Pearl Harbor to shit in a preemptive strike stemming from imperialist ambitions rather than any casus belli given them on our part. In other words, Hawaii was attacked largely because it was there.

1) Some Muslims were every bit as fanatical over a hundred years ago. Yet there were no suicide bombings of Americans during the Chester A. Arthur administration. In fact, Muslim countries were historically friendly to us and among the first to recognize our independence.

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli... Ever hear of a little thing called the Barbary States? You know, the ones that declared war on the U.S. for refusing to pay protection money to keep their navy and privateers off of our trade?

2) If Bin Laden and his kind hate America for sexual license, women's rights and tolerance for minority religions, why aren't bombs going off in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo? These countries are MUCH more liberal about such issues than we are. Canadians are culturally more or less Americans -only decent and civilized *. And yet Bin Laden hasn't attacked Canada. What gives?

*cough*Madrid*cough*

U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia

The U.S. is not currently and has never undertaken a military occupation of Saudi Arabia. Try again.

U.S. sanctions against Iraq and the subsequent invasion

And you would propose allowing Saddam to get away with occupying Kuwait? That would have been far more of a gaffe than Desert Storm; if all the little dictators out there learned that the big bad United States doesn't do shit when someone actually decides to test it, how many others would have undertaken similar actions with their neighbors?

U.S. support for Israel and the piecemeal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

I have to give you the first one in part (I hardly think that supporting Israel is intrinsically bad in and of itself, though bin Laden does and that's what counts for the terrorists), but not the second. If Israel wanted to cleanse the West Bank of Palestinians, they'd damn well get on with it. There'd be nothing the Palestinians could do to stop them.

To claim that they "hate our freedoms" is also bullshit. Does any other advanced country have shysters like John Ashcroft holding public office? Do pop stars in Britain and Italy get truckloads of death threats for opposing the war like the Dixie Chicks got?

Those occurred well after al Qaeda started its terror campaign against the United States. See the African embassy bombings in 1998, the USS Cole bombing, the casing of the targets that caused the terror alert level to rise (the fact that it was old intelligence is working against you here), and possibly the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (I'm not sure if that was AQ or not, though some of the bomber's relatives are in AQ).

[frigidmagi]

he warned that once the US was allowed to put bases in Saudi Arabia, they would not leave, and he was correct

I am not on Axis Kast's side here. But according to this We did leave Saudia Arabia a few months ago... To move next door. However we have already signed an agreement that if the Iraqi government ask us to leave after the January elections, then we will.

If Darth Wong meant the Middle East in general has opposed to Saudia Arabia, I will withdraw my objection.

[Ma Deuce]

If Bin Laden and his kind hate America for sexual license, women's rights and tolerance for minority religions, why aren't bombs going off in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo? These countries are MUCH more liberal about such issues than we are.

Because OBL and those who think like him don't see it that way: They don't see the fundies or the excessive religosity: They only see Hollywood, fast food, rampant consumerism, and "evil vices" (pornography, alcohol, gambling etc). They also view America as the the heart of Western civilization...

[AniThyng]

*cough*Madrid*cough*

there were Spanish troops in Iraq, no?

when terrorist bombs start going off in Paris or Berne then maybe we have a case for the "they bomb everything connected to western civilization" idea.

[Darth Wong]

Neutrality hasn't been tried and found wanting -it hasn't been tried at all!

The problem with this is?

The problem is that he was answering Kast's ridiculous claim that the US tried neutrality throughout most of the 20th century and failed, so now they must reluctantly be dragged kicking and screaming into involving themselves as daintily as possible with the rest of the world.

2) If Bin Laden and his kind hate America for sexual license, women's rights and tolerance for minority religions, why aren't bombs going off in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo? These countries are MUCH more liberal about such issues than we are. Canadians are culturally more or less Americans -only decent and civilized *. And yet Bin Laden hasn't attacked Canada. What gives?

*cough*Madrid*cough*

*cough*Not done because of Spanish religious tolerance or sexual freedom, moron*cough*

The U.S. is not currently and has never undertaken a military occupation of Saudi Arabia. Try again.

Don't be a nitpicker. Bin Laden's beef is infidels on the holy land regardless of whether they fit the Geneva Convention definition of occupiers. And yes, I know, it is nearly as ridiculous a source of outrage as gay marriage.

U.S. sanctions against Iraq and the subsequent invasion

And you would propose allowing Saddam to get away with occupying Kuwait?

No, because the US and the UN all agreed to uphold the principle that a nation should not attack another nation for any reason other than self-defense [EDIT: or a humanitarian disaster]. That principle has, however, had rather spotty application in the Middle East.

Those occurred well after al Qaeda started its terror campaign against the United States. See the African embassy bombings in 1998, the USS Cole bombing, the casing of the targets that caused the terror alert level to rise (the fact that it was old intelligence is working against you here), and possibly the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (I'm not sure if that was AQ or not, though some of the bomber's relatives are in AQ).

Nice irrelevant details, but you have failed to disprove his underlying claim that Al-Quaeda's beef is demonstrably with American interference in Middle East affairs rather than America's short skirts and relatively tolerant society.