How to defeat political Islam

[Ten oz]

and where does the west then get their energy if not from Russia or the Middle East?

The U.S. exports more energy than it imports.

[dimreepr]

@Tar, where did I post let Iran take the region over? You are completely exaggerating what is posted in respionse to you. In turn it is impossible to address the question you ask but they are rebuttals to things no one has posted.

 

 

Welcome to "tars" world.

Edited September 10, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Perhaps I overthink things, but you said we should forget our petty disagreements with Iran and call a regional conference there, and hash everything out. Iran is already funding terrorists groups that have the goal of getting Israel off the map and the U.S. out of the area. So I assumed by forgetting our petty differences with Iran you meant forsaking our interests in the area and yielding to their regional desires.

 

Regards, TAR

dimreeper,

 

I have a tendency to think a couple moves ahead. Sorry if you take it as me not hearing you. I hear you, think through the implications, and respond.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 10, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

dimreeper,

 

I have a tendency to think a couple moves ahead. Sorry if you take it as me not hearing you. I hear you, think through the implications, and respond.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

come on tar, your tendency is to consider a goalpost as a movable object, to be placed after the attempt.

[Ten oz]

@Tar, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey border Syria. As the war continues people are crossing borders all over the region inculding into Iran. We have already invaded Iraq, conducted combat operations in Lebanon and Syria. Hundreds of thousands dead. I understand Iran doesn't see eye to eye with us (USA) on Israel and would like us out of the region but that is why we must sit down with them. Currently the region is a bunch of independent nations with no unity. We have intentionally worked to create that enviroment out of fear that any strength through partnership may hurt our (USA) long term goals in the region. However after 13yrs of war and terror attacks around the globe it is obvious that our interests are be hurt by the instability. Of course Iran wants us out of the region. We have support over throughs of their gov't. If any country did that to us we'd want them out of our hemisphere (think Monroe Doctrine).

 

It isn't gov't officials who are putting suicide vests it is individual extremists. Regardless of policy odds we have with Jardan, Qatar, Iran, etc we can at least work diplomatically with them. That is where we must start. We cannot pretend that this is a USA issue specifically and we are the only ones with any real skin in the game. That attitude is foolish and arrogant.

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

Perhaps you could frame it that way. I do tend to consider the answer a movable target. If it was stationary everybody would already know the answer. The thread question is how to defeat political Islam, and as I have pointed out, we have not even parsed the question yet. Is it ISIS we are talking about, or do we want a second crusade? What exactly is it that we are trying to defeat? If we are trying to defeat U.S. imperialism, then we could just stay home. If we are trying to defeat Assad, we could destroy his airforce, start a third world war and destroy Russia's airforce to boot, go in with ground troops, take Assad out of his office and install the leader of our choice. If we are trying to defeat Iran's influence in the area we can declare war on her and fight her on land sea and in the air, until she yields and we can install the leader of our choice in that country. If we are trying to defeat ISIS we can go into Raqqa, with Assad's blessing and take the whole bunch out.

 

So let's set the goal posts, so I know which direction to kick in.

 

Regards, TAR

[tar]

certainly not a simple thing to solve though, I agree...just read about Jabhat Fateh al-Sham which is also fighting the Assad regime and has the liberation of Palestine on their radar

 

It is not all our fault, but we do have to decide who and when and how to support.

[dimreepr]

dimreepr,

 

What exactly is it that we are trying to defeat?

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

We are trying to defeat an idea, it's that simple, and you can't do that by force. You have to understand, not only, the idea but the reason it's so attractive to so many, only then is vanquish possible.

[Ten oz]

 

 

We are trying to defeat an idea, it's that simple, and you can't do that by force. You have to understand, not only, the idea but the reason it's so attractive to so many, only then is vanquish possible.

People often use WW2 as the gold standard for how to defeat ones enemies. In doing so the aftermath is often ignored. The allies worked to rebuild Germany and Japan, forgave debt, opened trade, and made them allies. They were assisted in developing nuclear power, manufacturer, technology, and etc. In the middle east we just call them dangerous and prevent them from have technology. We are doing the opposite we did post WW2. Doing the opposite of what works.

[dimreepr]

People often use WW2 as the gold standard for how to defeat ones enemies. In doing so the aftermath is often ignored. The allies worked to rebuild Germany and Japan, forgave debt, opened trade, and made them allies. They were assisted in developing nuclear power, manufacturer, technology, and etc. In the middle east we just call them dangerous and prevent them from have technology. We are doing the opposite we did post WW2. Doing the opposite of what works.

 

 

I agree completely +1, the only caveat is, WW2 had uniforms.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

We did all that after we defeated Saddam. Our choice to back a Shite government that discriminated against Sunnis, and Iran's backing of anti U.S. elements, made the situation different than Germany. We had the same good intentions. There were other actors that messed things up.

 

Dimreepr,

 

So we are trying to defeat an idea. Can you tell me what that idea is? That is my current question. Is Islam the "idea" we are trying to get out of people's head? Or is it hatred of the Zionists? What? What is the idea we are trying to defeat?

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

Hatred...

[tar]

So we defeat politcal Islam by defeating hatred?

 

Don't quite follow. Can you give an example?

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

We did all that after we defeated Saddam. Our choice to back a Shite government that discriminated against Sunnis, and Iran's backing of anti U.S. elements, made the situation different than Germany. We had the same good intentions. There were other actors that messed things up.

 

Dimreepr,

 

So we are trying to defeat an idea. Can you tell me what that idea is? That is my current question. Is Islam the "idea" we are trying to get out of people's head? Or is it hatred of the Zionists? What? What is the idea we are trying to defeat?

 

Regards, TAR

We did none of that. We forced in a gov't of our choosing and called it democracy and then reward U.S. companies with huge contracts to support projects than either support our militaries logistical needs or were meant to aid Iraqis but ultimatley went unfinished.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Well, I thought the coalition made an attempt to fill the power vacuum and hand the situation back to the Iraqis. Your concentration on contractors was not what I thought was the central point at the time. I think our motivations were similar after the defeat of Hitler and the defeat of Saddam. Execution was not the same. Germany did not have the Sunni, Shite, Kurd rift, nor Iran's finger in the pie. There was, after all, a division of Germany up into control of the British, American, French and Russian hands. The Russian part became East Germany and did not do as well as West Germany did. I served in Germany at an American base that used to be a Panzer Kaserne in WWII. This was in 1980, 35 years after the war. It was 2003 when we captured Saddam. Only 13 years ago. If what we did in Germany should be a template, we should still be present in Iraq. Establishing order, rebuilding, and protecting the place from threats, like ISIS and Iranian rebels.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

@Tar, on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, all the top leaders agree Iraq was a mistake both in the choice to invade and the handling of the aftermath. It was a mistake on multiple levels and that is a nonpartisan statement. You are trying to imply we did the right things and it just didn't work out. I disagree.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

Well even if most think it was a mistake, it might be for different reasons they think that. I for instance am the only person left in the world, apparently, that thinks Saddam DID have WMDs. My thinking was that many were destroyed in the trench that Saddam built around Bagdad, filled with oil and damning evidence, and lit on fire as the coalition approached. Other weapons I think were taken to Syria across the border and buried in the sand there. Assad did use some weapons. I wonder where he got them.

 

But we disagree on this. It might make a difference in whether we did the right thing, if I am right. You say I am wrong, and every body knows I am wrong...everybody but me. I have not yet been convinced that my theory is not correct. Perhaps if there was a study of the residue from the pits, that found out what was burned in there, I might be convinced. Or if WMDs ceased to pop up in Syria, but I think what I think, and tend to build my other characterizations of the war and the aftermath around that basis.

 

Regards, TAR

My fear concerning this, is that ISIS is somewhat composed of the residue of Saddam's guard, and these people would know where such weapons were buried in Syria, if such ever happened. So IF ISIS was to use WMDs that used to be Saddam's, would we have a way to trace the manufacture of the things, and thereby reassess our "correctness" in going after Saddam, because he had WMDs?

Edited September 11, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

My fear concerning this,

 

 

And therein lies the power of ISIS.

 

Intelligence is way way to defeat them, not bombs; I grew up in seventies England so I grew up with news of the IRA's antics and so I also grew up amidst this very debate.That violent hate filled organisation, only chose a different path when they were strangled by British Intelligence.

 

It's such a shame that we, Britain, seems to have forgotten (ignored for political/monetary gain) such a recent lesson.

[tar]

I think perhaps ISIS has intelligence equal or superior to ours.

[dimreepr]

I think perhaps ISIS has intelligence equal or superior to ours.

 

 

That's not the intelligence I was talking about...

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

Well even if most think it was a mistake, it might be for different reasons they think that. I for instance am the only person left in the world, apparently, that thinks Saddam DID have WMDs. My thinking was that many were destroyed in the trench that Saddam built around Bagdad, filled with oil and damning evidence, and lit on fire as the coalition approached. Other weapons I think were taken to Syria across the border and buried in the sand there. Assad did use some weapons. I wonder where he got them.

 

But we disagree on this. It might make a difference in whether we did the right thing, if I am right. You say I am wrong, and every body knows I am wrong...everybody but me. I have not yet been convinced that my theory is not correct. Perhaps if there was a study of the residue from the pits, that found out what was burned in there, I might be convinced. Or if WMDs ceased to pop up in Syria, but I think what I think, and tend to build my other characterizations of the war and the aftermath around that basis.

 

Regards, TAR

My fear concerning this, is that ISIS is somewhat composed of the residue of Saddam's guard, and these people would know where such weapons were buried in Syria, if such ever happened. So IF ISIS was to use WMDs that used to be Saddam's, would we have a way to trace the manufacture of the things, and thereby reassess our "correctness" in going after Saddam, because he had WMDs?

"The intelligence was as clear as any intelligence I've ever seen and I've been in this business a long time...The problem is, the intelligence wasn't right."

- Condoleezza Rice

 

"If we had known the intelligence was wrong, we would not have gone into Iraq. But the intelligence community, all 16 agencies, assured us that it was right,"

- Colin Powell

 

“I believe that everybody believed that they were there, but there was no hard proof that they were there,” he continued. “And yet it was presented to the American people as if there was."

- Donald Rumsfeld

 

So the National Security Advisor, Sec. of State, and the Sec. of Defense who were in office during the lead up to and start of the Iraq war no longer believe Saddam had WMDs but you still do? To a person all the key players concede that the intelligence was wrong yet you still believe?

[iNow]

^Why bother with actual reality when we can simply invent our own?

[tar]

iNow,

 

 

I am not inventing reality I am proposing a theory that satisfies all the facts and explains how it should happen that we sell Sadam WMDs and the technology, he uses some, and the rest and any more he manufactured are thought very correctly to be in his possession. The international community searches for them and he plays cat and mouse with the inspector, and we don't find his stash. When we actually go in a take control, there are no weapons. If they did exist at some point, and were not used, then they must have been hidden, moved to another country or destroyed. I have a theory that he felt the weight of the world coming down on him and destroyed the damning evidence in the trenches of fire, to make the U.S. look foolish and him look persecuted. In addition, Saddam had some relationship with Syria, where crossing the border and hiding the munitions underground in Syria would not be hard, and it would escape the pervue of the inspectors, and the reach of the coalition, and retain the WMDs in known hands.

 

Fits all the facts, and explains why intelligence had WMDs there, yet the international inspectors and then our own troops did not find them.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Do we know the history of the WMDs that were used by both sides during the 5 1/2 years of Syria's civil war? Have they all been destroyed now? Does anybody over there, you think, maybe knows were at least one shell is hidden, that escaped the international eye?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Say he had them, we couldn't find them, some turned up later...consistent with my theory, and in any case, the statement Saddam did not have WMDs is not accurate.

Edited September 12, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

@Tar, the people who pitched the idea that Saddam had WMDs have since admitted they were wrong. The facts you list, the facts the public is aware, came from the same people who now admit they were wrong.

[tar]

You are talking black and white, and the situation is gray. What the intelligence now says is that he had them but cut off his program and was going to resume as soon as the inspectors left and the sanctions were lifted. He didn't have any we found. Does not mean he did not destroy what the inspectors did not. He still had them, and wanted to resume manufacture when the world left. The numbers of shells and their condition that existed in Iraq when we got there was not what we expected, almost none. A few old shells here and there. I am not saying we did not find any, nor am I saying we were not wrong in thinking he was still manufacturing when he had suspended manufacture. I am saying he absolutely had WMDs and disposed of them or hid them so they would not be found. Are you suggesting he never had them?