Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply Extended Discussion
The Middle East and Radical Islam Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

karllikespies

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:46 pm


I was wondering what all you guys thought about the problems that have been happening in the Middle East lately. This includes a wide variety of things such as the war in Iraq, Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, and the war between Hezbollah and Isreal. I have become very deeply interested in the topic since I had to do a semester long research paper on Iranian nuclear pursit and reading books about the rise of mass unintergrated musilim population within Europe. Below I have a paragraph about my positions on the various issues in the middle east.(sorry it may sound a little wierd since its from a different thread)



Iran is at the epicenter of all these problems, while they may not be the sole source of it all they are right in the middle. So many have by far underestimated the threat that Iran, and to some lesser degree syria and north korea pose not only to the US and Isreal, but all of western society. Ahmednejad poses the greatest threat since the cold war for the US. The man is a psychopath and is bent upon not only destroying Isreal/the west, he is intent on bringing about the apocolypse, literally.
For all of those who don't see the conection between Iran, Iraq, Al-Queda, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization/state it is important to open your eyes to the obvious facts. 1. They are all radical Islamic organizations which use terroristic actions or states which support such organizations. 2. They have common purpose and goals and mutually support eachother or at least have non-hostile coexistance. 3. It is radical Islam as a movement as a whole that we are fighting.
For any of you that fail to see how the situation affects you, you have only to look at whats happening around you. Wheter it is 9/11, the Madrid bombings, the london subway bombings, the french riots, or the Danish cartoon riots, they all have one thing common and that is the attack of innocent civilians by extremists that hope to destroy the west. There have also been foiled terroist attempts since then in the US, Canada, United Kingdom, and Italy. This isn't an isolated event and it won't go away even if we all packed up and left the middle east, it is a gihad upon the west which will not end until one side has been annihilated.
These aren't people that you can reason with, diplomacy will only work with middle east states that completely and totally reject radical islam. These people are responsible for other violations against people including: Genital mutilation of females in order to prevent pleasure from sex, violent and brutal murders of people who have sex outside of marriage and gay people, forced religious conversion, torture and use of secret police to stop disenters from their governments, and the most violent hate crimes against jews and christians.
The only problems that I can see with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is not going in there in the first place but the handling of the situation afterwards. Both were transitioned to democracy way too fast, and needed more time and effort dedicated to rebuilding the country, education, and building a respect for human rights among the countries' inhabitants. I know a lot of you may freak out at this statement, but yes I would have supported a form of benign dictatorship for about 10 years before throwing them into a democratic form of government. As for the sectarian violence in Iraq, it is only a front, it is a hope by radical islamic groups in order to get shite and suni arabs into a civil war in order to throw off the government now in place, and to get the americans out.
The most frightening part has been the large amount of restraint shown by other nations in handling the situation. So far the only nations that seem to have any level of commitment to stoping terrorists are: the US, UK, Germany, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, and Canada(now that the conservatives are in control). France, Russia, Spain, China, and Italy as well as many other countries have put delays in the war on terrorism.
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:04 pm


we need to stop ******** things up and let them figure it out.


but, we won't. we'll get in the middle of it again, we'll break out into *gasp* world war 3, with propoganda flying even more freely than it is now. most of us will hate the enemy because we're told to. a few of us will be hippies and try to stop everyone from killing. but we won't. we'll lose a lot of men, honor them as heros for fighting because we told them to, and we'll make several billion/trillion dollars from sacking the countries we defeat through the business and economic system.



who wants to bet against me? stare neutral

divineseraph


DCVI
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:49 pm


All I have to say:

It just depresses me to think that there are people who only know how to hate.

That part of the world is just one big boiling tea kettle.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:12 pm


One thing I forgot to mention is my hatred for the fact that we are dependent on the oil from the middle east. Why we aren't energy independent at this point I will never know.

kp: This isn't just in the middle east anymore its everywhere.

karllikespies


Hillbilly Hikari

Sarcastic Bibliophile

31,600 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Attending the Ball 25
  • Happy Birthday! 100
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:10 pm


karllikespies
Why we aren't energy independent at this point I will never know.


Simple Answer: Money.

divineseraph
we need to stop ******** things up and let them figure it out.


but, we won't. we'll get in the middle of it again, we'll break out into *gasp* world war 3, with propoganda flying even more freely than it is now. most of us will hate the enemy because we're told to. a few of us will be hippies and try to stop everyone from killing. but we won't. we'll lose a lot of men, honor them as heros for fighting because we told them to, and we'll make several billion/trillion dollars from sacking the countries we defeat through the business and economic system.



who wants to bet against me?


No you're right. Of course, nobody butts out of anyone's problems these days. Everybody has an opinion on how it should be done, and so everybody becomes these nosy little busybodies to fix it.

The people I feel the worst for are the troops still over in Iran and Iraq. They're just following orders and trying to do the right thing. We've lost a lot of men because of being nosy.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:33 pm


...yes, because they choose to. unfortunately, the stupid will fall victim for the military's schemes. so it is, so it was, and apparently, so it will be. if the soldiers realised that they are only causing more trouble for the wealth of a few, if they quit fighting, there would be no more war, because there would be nobody to fight.


i think that would make an awesome mini-movie thing, somehow word gets out that they are being used, and everyone on the battlefield just takes off their helmets, drop their guns and walk away.

divineseraph


Hillbilly Hikari

Sarcastic Bibliophile

31,600 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Attending the Ball 25
  • Happy Birthday! 100
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:52 am


divineseraph
...yes, because they choose to. unfortunately, the stupid will fall victim for the military's schemes. so it is, so it was, and apparently, so it will be. if the soldiers realised that they are only causing more trouble for the wealth of a few, if they quit fighting, there would be no more war, because there would be nobody to fight.


i think that would make an awesome mini-movie thing, somehow word gets out that they are being used, and everyone on the battlefield just takes off their helmets, drop their guns and walk away.


Hmm, as interesting as a thought that is. I really don't think it would work.

Last time someone spoke out against what the troops are doing and what they feel is the right thing, it was a huge deal to them. The Dixie Chicks had made a statement against the president and agains the war while they were touring in London. Well one unit had seen the broadcast and that unit wrote a letter to all the surrounding units and they gathered up all the merchandise anyone owned in relation to the Dixie Chicks, wrote (from what I understand) a fairly nasty letter, put it all in a box, pooled all the cash together and mailed it to the Dixie Chicks. The letter was emailed out too. I used to have a copy but I think I lost it in one ofmy many folder purges.

Some how I think the troops are listening or watching anything anymore that goes against what they feel is the right thing.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:39 pm


...and no matter what they feel is right or wrong, they are still risking their lives to continue the planet into a downward spiral of hatred and war.

divineseraph


I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:34 pm


eek How could I have not noticed this thread yet?

Divine, I completely and utterly disagree with you. I personally find it insulting that you think the military is "using" the troops.

They signed up for it. For the most part, they believe in it. Are you telling me that your opinion, the opinion of a civilian who has never seen war and is basing their opinion solely on what the liberal media says, is more valid then theirs? Are you really saying that everyone in the military is stupid? Are you really restating the old addage that "Military intelligence" is an oxymoron?

For shame. Just because your opinion is that the war is bad, and that we shouldn't be there, doesn't make it the only valid opinion, doesn't make it the informed opinion, and doesn't make it the smart opinion.

As for the Dixie Chicks, the reason their "opinions" are so insulting is not that they have them, that's fine. It's America, you can believe and say what you like.

But they stopped in the middle of a concert, where people had paid to listen to their music, in order to bash Bush and the war. And that's not right at all. These people didn't pay to hear a political diatribe. They paid to hear some pop country music.

Anyways, for the subject at hand, I unfortunately agree completely with karllikespies. We are going to continue our so-called crusade, because it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we don't have many supporters. And, again, unfortunately, we're handling the aftermath badly. But we're learning, I think. Maybe in Iran, or Syria, it will go better. I think that with North Korea we may get more support, happily, because they are very clearly bad and a threat.

What I'm most afraid of, though, is that a) A Democrat will come into office and ignore what's happening in the outside world, immediately pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, thus allowing the wounds to fester, or b) North Korea and Iran and Syria, etc. etc. will realize that we're not going to stop after Iraq and band together, starting World War III. I was actually afraid of that on 9/11. That was one of my first thoughts; That, when we invaded Afghanistan, all the Arabic countries over there would band together, and start WWIII in an effort to wipe the infidels off the face of the planet. And I'm still afraid of that happening. I really hope that we manage to pull more countries over to our side, and that the radical Islamic groups and North Korea don't quite realize fully what's happening until it's too late. But I doubt it.

Also, I completely disagree that this is "leading the planet into a downward spiral of hate and war." The radical Muslims are the ones who already hate, and already fight us dirty. To fight back is not to "continue the hatred," it is to end it. And we may be starting a long and devistating war, but it is in order to greatly reduce the amount of suffering out there. I know that sounds like an oxymoron to you, but it's true: When diplomacy can't stop all those atrocities that karl mentioned, sometimes you have to use the big stick you're carrying.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:31 pm


Thanks I.Am for the support. I think a large part of the problem is people's misconceptions about the war. Many thought that it would be an easy takeover, that we'd liberate the oppressed people, fix it up a bit, put in a government and leave, all within a short period of time. The problem is not that Bush handled the war wrong its that he didn't(doesn't?) understand how things work over there. He has failed to take an iron fist to the nation, which would be whats necessary, which would include the following.
1. Immediate imrisonment of any leading figure who voices support for terrorist action.
2. Implementation of a 10-15 year benine dictatorship, then to tansition into democracy after proper education though the population is set up.
3. Ratification of a constitution that sets up what is need throughout the country not by public opinion but by a legislative body.
4. Deporting of all convicted terrorists out of the country, should they not be executed.
Now that may shock some with the freedoms and liberties, democracy is vital to existence mindframe, but the fact is that they are in war and terrorsits have been using the advantage of the governments weakness to throw the country into civil war hoping they could set up another Islamic regime in the aftermath.

As far as allies go I think in the near future we will see more and more european countries giving us aid and fighting terrorism. People in Europe have been indocterinated in the ideals of tolerance to the point that they won't protect themselves even with a gun pointed to their heads. Although I think recently more and more people are waking up in Europe, their governments are doing so less slowly. The policies Europe has implemented across the nation have seriously weakened both the moral and the motivation for survival among the population. Liberal parties in Europe still fail to see the stupidity of their own politicies which have created or failed to correct among other things.
1. Low level of spiritual or religious life. And while this may irk some of you that seek a brick wall between church and state, it is vitally important for a nation to have some type of religious life, and no not necessarily the hardcore extermists view on religion.
2. Low birth rates. Which have created a need for a huge supply of immigrant populations in order to stabilize the workforce, and brings in thousands of musilim extremists.
3. Reduction of bureacracy, promotion of free market economy, and the economic independence of most of Europe. The governments of Europe have become so weighed down by bureaucracy and overregualtion that it has become impossible to expand the economy of Europe. Most countries rely heavily on foreign oil which along with high musilim population puts them at the mercy of the middle east.
Among other things the ineptitude of these governments has lead to a high level of populism, which generally is in favor of conservative politics.

As far as Canada and Australia are concerned, they both have conservative governments are relatively pro-Bush. Although Australia's elections are coming up next year and that may not be true for long.
Japan is just hoping not to be nuked and might be willing to go to war with N. Korea even if we don't.

What has made me the most pissed though is that Isreal gave into that half-a** retarded U.N. proposal which basically leaves Lebanon open and defensless against takeover by Islamic extremists. Even more pissed that Bush gave voted for it instead of vetoing it.

As for those of you who would define themselves as liberal. Some questions I have.
How are we suppose to reason with people that want to kill us?
Why do we spend so much time worring about not hurting anyone, even if those people constantly and without restraint oppress and kill others including, christians, jews, homosexuals, women, moderates within their own communities, ect.
Is it more important to keep to ourselves, even if that means sacrificing more of our own people?

Note to I.Am, we don't have to wait as long as 2008 to see if our country will be able to see if our country will continue the war on terror. If liberal democrats have thier way then they will control both houses of congress, yes a very real scenario, that is becoming more and more likely. Also the primary loss for Lieberman(by far my most favorite politician) shows the democratic party's unwillingness to confront evil where it stands, and instead run back to thier homes and pass resolutions on what bad people the murderers are and ask them to please stop.
WWIII isn't that far away, all it will take is Iran's signal. Now what the United States can determine is wheter that signal will be a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv or a simple declaration of war. It will depend on how soon the United States and allies will stop screwing around in that usless contraption called the UN, and decide that it needs to take action.

karllikespies


Faeyas

6,700 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Invisibility 100
  • Popular Thread 100
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:19 pm


The sad thing is that while we could be causing problems there, there is *gasp* a reason for it, no matter how much I dispise it.

There are MANY falling nations in the middle east, we are doing what we can to help them. This is in general GOOD foreign policy for a hedgemon*. (while at the same time what usually destroys said hedgemon*)

MY problems with the whole thing are

1) we are attempting to make the government into what we are, which might not be what the nations need to start picking themselves up again, considering the fact that those nations ARE so religious, and believe that their government is related to their relgion directly, unlike our government (kinda) where there is seperation of church and state, supposedly there.

2) THERE ARE SO MANY FALLING AND FAILED STATES OUT THERE WHY IN THE WORLD MUST WE ONLY FOCUS ON THE MIDDLE EAST!

Oh yea....oil...and WMDs.... >< Honestly, if our government is really doing this to help out the country then WHY wern't they doing this BEFORE and with other states who have been LONGER without a working government. Is it because we destroyed their government (going after their leader) instead of their government falling in on itself and losing legitimacy? The US government needs to be more stable in its policy on such issues, and since very LITTLE has progressed in the middle east since the "Elections" why haven't we tried CHANGING tactics?

And I'm done.

*Hedgemon = Single world power. Above the rest, over powering superpower of the entire world. Usually needs to keep face in order to keep other non hedgemon nations from joining together to attack it.
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:43 pm


Actually, I'm fairly certain there's no 'd' in Hegemon. Hedgemon sounds like a grass Pokemon. whee

And I agree that we should have looked into other systems for them, at least at first, that would go better with their religion. I think that Democracy is the best system we have, and it works great, but their religion is so much a part of who the nation is it's kind of hard to do the seperation of church and state.

And I disagree with people who say that the seperation of Church and State in the US is disintigrating; Bush's religion may influence the way he thinks, but it's not like he's taking orders from his pastor or anything.

I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100

Hillbilly Hikari

Sarcastic Bibliophile

31,600 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Attending the Ball 25
  • Happy Birthday! 100
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:51 pm


Faeyas

2) THERE ARE SO MANY FALLING AND FAILED STATES OUT THERE WHY IN THE WORLD MUST WE ONLY FOCUS ON THE MIDDLE EAST!

Oh yea....oil...and WMDs.... >< Honestly, if our government is really doing this to help out the country then WHY wern't they doing this BEFORE and with other states who have been LONGER without a working government. Is it because we destroyed their government (going after their leader) instead of their government falling in on itself and losing legitimacy? The US government needs to be more stable in its policy on such issues, and since very LITTLE has progressed in the middle east since the "Elections" why haven't we tried CHANGING tactics?



We're actually not. Right now, the focus IS the middle east because of everything that has happened and/or is happening in the past about 6-9 years. However, before that we were constantly sending different branches of the military out to different countries to aid. The Navy was sent to aid Sri Lanka and Taiwan and India countless times in the 90s.

Other countries are being helped. Just right now the middle east is the focus.

I.Am
Actually, I'm fairly certain there's no 'd' in Hegemon. Hedgemon sounds like a grass Pokemon. whee


lol, I thought the same thing. blaugh
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:12 pm


Sorry, I.AM, but i cannot believe in what you are saying. war kills people- more often than not, it is the civilians who are hurt. not our civilians, of course. thiers. and when they do, we shrug it off, call it a part of war.

9/11 is what people in those countries go through every day while we are bombing them. they lose family, friends, lovers and loved ones. and for what? for one man? for one group? we have lost maybe 10,000 civilians in all of our wars that we were not fighting with ourselves in. we have killed, of other countries, millions. it is not fair, it is not right, and it is not acceptable for us to go apeshit when we get the favor returned. honestly, that kind of attitude is like the school bully who has no problem punching kids, but when someone stands up to him and hits back, he breaks their arm.

not everyone in the military is stupid, no. they are, however, not going to solve anything. if they think that killing MORE people will help stop the violence, they are very misguided. we are not defending ourselves anymore. if we want to defend ourselves, we should tighten security. this way, nobody will be able to hurt us AND We will only kill those who wish to do us harm. as it is now, we are only continuing the suffering we felt, but on innocents in another country.

one more thought- even if we are killing terorists, to what gain? so then their sons take up a rifle? so the other members of the community, who saw the building crumble and picked out the bodies of his daughters take arms as well? i realize that we do not always hit civilians, but we do. one time is too often. one child killed, for no reason, is too many.

divineseraph


Tiger of the Fire

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:35 pm


Divine, you have a very poetic view of life...i feel sorry for you.

No one who sighsn up for the militery is stupid. Any oen who sighns up know damn well the potential. It says right in the contract in bold print that you may be asked to put your life on the line and if you agree to this. It also asks if your a constious objector and forbids you to sighn if you are. If you are, and you sighn, your commiting fraud and will be shipped righ tout back itno civilian life. Sorry divine, but after putting up wiht the militery untill i was 16, and my dad puttign up with it for 20, and my uncle puttign uo with it for four, and my grandpa for 20, and my step grandfather for several. i can honostly say you know jack s**t about the militery.

As fr the whole oil thing? Thorughly debunked. You can find one of them on Popular Mechanics.
Reply
Extended Discussion

Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum