Are the bad guys winning?

[MichFan]

Do you think the regime installed in Afghanistan will last any longer than our willingness and ability to keep them in power by force?

Do you think it wise to have installed a minority tribe in Afghanistan as against the Pashtuns, the majority tribe, the guys who sent the Soviets packing?

Do you think the Taliban have been eradicated?

Do you think AQ has been crippled or are they as dangerous, if not more so, than they were before 9/11?

Is UBL more admired than despised by Muslims in the Arab world?

Do you think there are more or less jihadists in the world since 9/11? The invasion of Afghanistan? The invasion of Iraq?

Do you think that we are going to eventually be dealing with the same level of frequent attacks as the Russians and Israelis are now? If not, why?

 

Do you have any solutions to these problems?

Retrospectively, what would you have done differently that would have been better?

 

It's pretty easy to look around the world, or just our country for that matter, and find problems. Seems that's all the libs care to do lately. Where are the solutions? Where is the hope that is supposedly on it's way? Bush gave us a pretty clear image of what that hope looks like in his mind (century of liberty part of his speach), the libs just tell us it is coming and we'll have to trust them. Show me, don't tell me!

[Mickey]

I think the bigger issue is: is that list actually representative of the war?  Or it it representative of the reporting of the war?  Necessarily and by definition, we can't know what's omitted or unreported based on that list...so how from that list can you pose the rhetorical question "Are the bad guys winning?"  You say it yourself...

Either way, the list therefore cannot be considered to be complete, and hence not representative of the situation as it is.  It's a hell of a thing on which to base the aforementioned rhetorical question.

Sorry...but this a typical American view.  Failure is measured as a deviation from perfection.  Any deviation from perfection is failure.  Pardon me...but that's a piss-poor definition of "failure". 

 

And the "facts", as posted, demonstrate virtually anything someone wants them to demonstrate, being as they're posted in a virtual vacuum.  3000+ people have died in terrorist attacks in two years...how many haven't?  How many were saved from terrorist attacks that never happened?  How many died that otherwise would not have, if Iraq hadn't been invaded?  That logic is kind of like deciding that Germany won WWII because they killed 14 million more Russians than the Russians did Germans.  That logic also harkens back to the Vietnam "body count" definition of success and failure.  Real wars don't work that way.  A simple listing of facts exclusively as they are seen in the news is a poor estimation of success or failure...not just in warfare, either.  Just ask Al Gore.

20905[/snapback]

 

We can only deal with what we know. If we have to have perfect knoweldge upon which to draw a conclusion then we can never draw any conclusions and all data is useless. Success against terrorism isn't going to be measured by comparing how many died to how many could have died. If you are fighting a fatal disease that could have killed 2 million but "only" killed 1 million, it wouldn't be much of a success. The President says we are "safer." I don't know of any way I can examine that assertion without looking at terrorist attacks, actual attacks over the last 4 years and I see no basis for dismissing them simply because there are other factors involved that are not known. If that were true, I could assert that "for all we know" 9/11 was a successful defense against terrorism because it is possible they had plans to attack 15 other buildings but were thwarted by our security safeguards and we just never found that out.

 

The facts were not drawn from the news. They were from a book written by a CIA officer in the agency for 22 years and still working there. He headed the bin Laden unit from 1996-1999. It is his list. It can be easily verified and in fact, I don't think it is in dispute that these attacks happened. I pointed out that he has a list of wins for the good guys as well. His ultimate position on how this war should be fought would likely curdle the spine of the average democrat. It is not a partisan issue.

 

I actually hoped the list would spark debate on how best to fight terrorism but apparently the very thought that there is the tiniest bit wrong about how we have fought this war and that it might reflect negatively on Bush in the slightest way was just too much.

[MichFan]

I actually hoped the list would spark debate on how best to fight terrorism but apparently the very thought that there is the tiniest bit wrong about how we have fought this war and that it might reflect negatively on Bush in the slightest way was just too much.

 

Posting an actual strawman on how you think we should fight that war would start the kind of debate you are hoping for. Posting a list of "failures" in the war on terror will merely start debates on the potential motives behind your posting such a list. You are saying a whole lot of nothing in this thread because you have yet to offer up one specific strategy.

[Mickey]

Do you have any solutions to these problems?

Retrospectively, what would you have done differently that would have been better?

 

It's pretty easy to look around the world, or just our country for that matter, and find problems.  Seems that's all the libs care to do lately.  Where are the solutions?  Where is the hope that is supposedly on it's way?  Bush gave us a pretty clear image of what that hope looks like in his mind (century of liberty part of his speach), the libs just tell us it is coming and we'll have to trust them.  Show me, don't tell me!

20941[/snapback]

 

Actually, I do have some ideas and I was hoping you did as well which is why I asked. That would have been an interesting discussion to have. Clearly, I'll have to have it with someone else.

 

I have tried numerous times to take this out of the prism of Bush vs. Kerry and/or Republican vs. Democrat but I guess in an election season, that just isn't going to happen.

[MichFan]

Actually, I do have some ideas and I was hoping you did as well which is why I asked. That would have been an interesting discussion to have. Clearly, I'll have to have it with someone else.

 

Come on, Mickey. I can't believe I just read this -- you are saying that you have ideas but I have to offer something up first. I'm willing to debate you today, but this is your thread so it's up to you to put out a little red meat aka your ideas. If that's too much to ask, I'll start my own thread on this subject later on.

[Mickey]

Come on, Mickey.  I can't believe I just read this -- you are saying that you have ideas but I have to offer something up first.  I'm willing to debate you today, but this is your thread so it's up to you to put out a little red meat aka your ideas.  If that's too much to ask, I'll start my own thread on this subject later on.

20973[/snapback]

 

That is why I asked you questions, you see, I already know what I think those answers are, I wanted to know what you thought. Here are my answers if that is what you need:

 

Do you think the regime installed in Afghanistan will last any longer than our willingness and ability to keep them in power by force?

 

No, I don't think it will last any longer than our ability to keep them in power by force.

 

Do you think it wise to have installed a minority tribe in Afghanistan as against the Pashtuns, the majority tribe, the guys who sent the Soviets packing?

I think it was a bad idea to align ourselves with a minority tribe. However, its water under the dam. I don't think any government besides one dominated by Pashtuns can hold its ground in Afghanistan.

 

Do you think the Taliban have been eradicated?

No, I think at worst they have retreated out of the cities and into their natural home, the mountains. I think they will eventually take down the government we installed. I think we have concentrated too much on taking cities and not enough on killing the enemy where ever he is.

 

Do you think AQ has been crippled or are they as dangerous, if not more so, than they were before 9/11?

I think they are more dangerous. They have shown you can do a lot of damage to the US and live to tell the tale. They are heroes to many, many Muslims. They were damaged, no doubt, by our efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere but they regenerate and replace people easily.

 

Is UBL more admired than despised by Muslims in the Arab world?

I think more admired than despised by a long shot. I don't here criticism of this from either party. Where are the Muslims marching in the street to protest the twisting of their faith of peace into one of death by jihadists?

 

Do you think there are more or less jihadists in the world since 9/11? The invasion of Afghanistan? The invasion of Iraq?

To all three questions: more and I will add: that is not good.

 

Do you think that we are going to eventually be dealing with the same level of frequent attacks as the Russians and Israelis are now? If not, why?

I fear we are. I don't think we are ready. So far, except for military families, the biggest sacrifices we have been asked to accept in this war are longer lines in airports and larger tax cuts. Kerry promises that somehow all this will be relieved by allies joining in to share the load. I don't know, maybe he can convince Spain to send back those 100 or so troops. Whoopeee.

[MichFan]

Do you think the regime installed in Afghanistan will last any longer than our willingness and ability to keep them in power by force?

It depends on the Afghans. They have an election coming up next month. If they vote the "regime" out of power than it will not outlast our willingness. If they vote for the "regime" to maintain power then they will last at least until the next election. This is a question of the resolve of the Afghans, not Americans. This is also a U.N. mission, not strictly American. All things considered, Afghans have it pretty good as of late and there would be no reason for them to support any type of return to Taliban rule. The only reason the Taliban came into power was because of a sense of desperation from lawlessness. The Taliban have now become the lawless ones. They no longer have the credibility needed to gain political power.

 

Do you think it wise to have installed a minority tribe in Afghanistan as against the Pashtuns, the majority tribe, the guys who sent the Soviets packing?

Interim governments are exactly that -- interim. The people have a choice to elect their own leader next month. If the Pashtuns don't agree with the composition of the government, they'll have a chance to do something about it.

 

Do you think the Taliban have been eradicated?

The Taliban will probably never be eradicated. Has Naziism been eradicated? Anarchism? Communism? Facism? Don't make the mistake of confusing Taliban and terrorism, as they are separate issues that overlapped in the case of Afghanistan. There may always be a Taliban party in Afghanistan but they likley would not continue to support terrorism.

 

Do you think AQ has been crippled or are they as dangerous, if not more so, than they were before 9/11?

I don't have access to the information needed to assess this. My gut tells me their capabilities have been significantly impaired but that they had enough in place pre-9/11 to pull off a lot of nasty stuff for years to come and they can still mobilize limited new attacks.

 

Is UBL more admired than despised by Muslims in the Arab world?

I would guess most "peaceful" Muslims despise bin Laden even if they hate America. If a Catholic terrorist organization were to attack Iran or North Korea and kill thousands of innocent people, I wouldn't consider them heroic or even admire them because of what they did. If those countries responded by attacking Italy, I'd be pissed but I'd blame the terrorists for bringing it upon Italy.

 

Do you think there are more or less jihadists in the world since 9/11? The invasion of Afghanistan? The invasion of Iraq?

Jihadists don't just rage against America. In fact, there are many pro-America jihadists who have different focal points for their jihad. If you mean are there more or less anti-American Islamic Fundamentalists since 9/11, I'd say there is no way of measuring this and what's the point? We are at a stage of the war on terror where you implement systems to deal with terrorism that promote long term results. Taking any measurement at this stage of the game is crazy. Is Clinton judged by the economy after 3 years or 8 years? Bush is only 3 years into something that is much more complex and of which we have much less understanding than the economy.

 

Do you think that we are going to eventually be dealing with the same level of frequent attacks as the Russians and Israelis are now? If not, why?

No. We don't have a native/regional population of Islamic Fundamentalists seeking independence similar to Russia. The attacks we get will be of the more spectacular variety, designed to throw knock-out punches on our economy. Doing something to one of our schools like they did in Belsan would cause the American public to rage against the Middle East like nothing they want to see. Bringing in suicide bombers would cause the same. Doing these tactics in Russia means they rage only against the Chechnyan separatists.

 

My thoughts -- To win the war on terror we first have to set the right conditions for the war to be won. This war can not be won with the Taliban harboring al Quaeda. Taken care of. This war can not be won with Saddam Hussein destabilizing the region and making a mockery of the U.N. Taken care of. This war can not be won with Pakistan toeing the line between legitimacy and being a terrorist government. Work in progress. Iran - work in progress. Syria - incomplete. Saudi Arabia - incomplete. Lebanon - incomplete. When these issues are addressed, then and only then will the Israeli/Palestinian issue be able to be resolved. Bringing respectable governments to the region and increasing security will eventually provide the climate needed for foreign business investment beyond oil. Establishing a more diverse economy with a broad middle class in the Middle East will ultimately cause the end of Islamic Fundamentalism as an international threat. It will then finally become the law enforcement issue some think of it as today. Doing the ugly work we are engaged in now should allow the later stages to be relatively bloodless.

[IDBillzFan]

Do you have any solutions to these problems?

Retrospectively, what would you have done differently that would have been better?

 

It's pretty easy to look around the world, or just our country for that matter, and find problems.  Seems that's all the libs care to do lately.  Where are the solutions?  Where is the hope that is supposedly on it's way?  Bush gave us a pretty clear image of what that hope looks like in his mind (century of liberty part of his speach), the libs just tell us it is coming and we'll have to trust them.  Show me, don't tell me!

20941[/snapback]

 

This has been the Dems mantra for some time now: tell the American people what is wrong, wrong, wrong with the world, and then make them afraid of it.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Posting an actual strawman on how you think we should fight that war would start the kind of debate you are hoping for.  Posting a list of "failures" in the war on terror will merely start debates on the potential motives behind your posting such a list.  You are saying a whole lot of nothing in this thread because you have yet to offer up one specific strategy.

20952[/snapback]

 

What to do is very simple, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out...

 

FIRST, we must clean up the stupid Iraq mess... DON'T set a date on which we are to leave Iraq, because it would only give the extremists a target by which to operate. Continue training operations of Iraqi army units, except expand it further to make the pullout process easier. When the Iraqi army has been sufficiently formed, prepared, and trained, get the hell out of there, and let Iraq defend itself. Provide a 'valve' of US forces at the ready in case of massive insurgency.

 

SECONDLY, we must hold the loan guarantees of Israel over their head, giving them a clear ultimatum: Either come to the table of peace willingly and with good intentions, or you will be forced to defend yourself and pay for your own welfare. THEN we must go to the Palestinians, and tell them that these attacks must CEASE, a STABLE and BELIEVABLE representation of their interests MUST be formed, and that Israel will come to the table IF you conform to the standards of civilized people. No more Netinhayu crap, no more Sharon 'say one thing, do another' crap... if we have to be the ones to do it, then so it shall be done. You CANNOT get to the roots of terrorism without wirst dealing with this problem.

 

THIRDLY, We MUST have an all-out effort to find an alternative energy source that WORKS, that will get us off of oil once and for all. We CANNOT look to the future and well-being of America without first removing this HUGE obstacle. The Middle East is far too unstable right now for us to have a dependence on that oil and its prices. ONCE that source is found, the region will never be the same... our link to them will be forever be changed, and IMO, they will be set into the category of Africa. If you notice, Africa only comes up when there is massive starvation or killing or AIDS... that is because their resources aren't important to us.

 

The three basic things that tie us to the Middle East, Iraq, Israel, and the oil, would be forever changed for the good if we implemented these changes. However, I don't think that our government is capable of such moves... we have not had an intelligent leadership in AGES, and we continue to elect these bozos, for we have no choice.

 

I have ignored the nuclear question because it will take a worldwide effort to control this new threat. Unlike other matters, the UN CANNOT ignore this threat and sit on its hands. IT MUST act; for if it does not, we are ALL screwed.

 

And so, my plan... pretty straightforward.

[MichFan]

What is up with all this lib pessimism. Mickey posts answers to a slew of questions that basically says we're billsfanone and the Middle East is screwed. Then Rabid says that the Middle East's destiny is to be forever poor like Africa and we should just gain freedom from their oil and leave them to wither.

 

If we pursue policies that isolate the Middle East this will become the century of terrorism. Cutting ties and bailing on them will cause the Islamic Fundamentalists to gain power across the region and become a much larger and more lethal terrorist force. Like it or not -- and both parties seem to agree with this -- winning the war on terror requires democratization and stabilization of the Middle East as well as building a more diverse economy across the region. The goal should be to champion the development of countries who are respected trading partners and socially responsible/accountable to the people.

 

Lastly -- Rabid, will doing the things you mentioned regarding Israel and Palestine work if you have Iran, Syria, and Lebanon continuing to engage in the support and funding of attacks? I tend to think these countries need to be addressed first so the Palestinians have no fallback position. I may be overcomplicating things, though.

[Mickey]

Democracy won't work in the middle east. It is hard enough to establish a stable democracy when the people themselves want it. It is impossible to do so where the people have no interest at all in such a government and in fact are hostile to it. It is even less likely that democracy could arise where it is being imposed by the force of arms and by a foreign, non-Islamic, power.

 

I don't think we are going to see a government in Iraq that is going to survive beyond our willingness to keep them in power by force. The same is true of Afghanistan where we have not defeated either AQ or the Taliban. We have simply ran them out the cities. That having been said, we now have little choice in the matter and have to just do the best we can. I think there is hope in Iraq that some sort of durable government can arise. Afghanistan though is another story. I don't think we should really care much whether the government the emerges is democratic or not. Stability and Islamic without the jihad part is good enough.

 

We do need to make resolution of the palestinian question a top priority but simply doing so will not actually solve the problem. The Isrealis have been pressured in the past and they have put on the table about as much as they are ever going to and Arafat turned them down because it wasn't enough for the Palestinians. If the only successful strategy to fight terrorism depends on a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are in big trouble.

 

I don't think our military presence in the middle east is propping up moderate regimes. In fact, it is destabilizing those regimes. It makes it that much easier for the Islamists to argue that those regimes are nothing more than corrupt apostates who sold out Islam in exchange for opulence. Conventional armies are not a very effective tool against terrorist attacks. Our troops in the middle east are not at all preventing attacks in Riyadh or in Karachi. Attacks are occurring there because Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cooperating with us. The rulers of those countries are supporting us, for now. The people of those countries pretty much hate us and their government for supporting us. There have been two attempts on Musharraf's life so far. That is going to continue and they only have to get lucky once. What then?

 

I know it is a depressing picture but better we be realistic and know what we are up against than deluding ourselves to the point of ignorance. No pixie dust as a substitute for oil is going to fall from the sky any time soon. Democracies are not going to spring from the sands of the middle east and our enemies are not going to suddenly become our friends.

[MichFan]

How about Turkey? Naaah, wouldn't work there either. They don't want it, can't support it. Next thing you know we'll have a dictatorship and shariah law established in Dearborn, they don't like democracy there either. Those gosh darn violent, incompetent muslims...

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

What is up with all this lib pessimism.  Mickey posts answers to a slew of questions that basically says we're billsfanone and the Middle East is screwed.  Then Rabid says that the Middle East's destiny is to be forever poor like Africa and we should just gain freedom from their oil and leave them to wither.

 

If we pursue policies that isolate the Middle East this will become the century of terrorism.  Cutting ties and bailing on them will cause the Islamic Fundamentalists to gain power across the region and become a much larger and more lethal terrorist force.  Like it or not -- and both parties seem to agree with this -- winning the war on terror requires democratization and stabilization of the Middle East as well as building a more diverse economy across the region.  The goal should be to champion the development of countries who are respected trading partners and socially responsible/accountable to the people.

 

Lastly -- Rabid, will doing the things you mentioned regarding Israel and Palestine work if you have Iran, Syria, and Lebanon continuing to engage in the support and funding of attacks?  I tend to think these countries need to be addressed first so the Palestinians have no fallback position.  I may be overcomplicating things, though.

21591[/snapback]

 

The Palestinian situation is DIRECTLY RELATED to Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. As long as Israel remains stubborn and does not actively seek a real and lasting plan of peace, these other states will continue to fund terrorism. It is my firm belief that our support of Israel and our non-action when Israel has acted inappropriately has gotten us into this terrorism mess... I REFUSE to believe it is a Muslim-Christian problem; it is all a red herring.

 

Turkey will forever be a model that Muslims around the world should follow... our support of the Kurds was not looked upon highly at ALL by Turkey. Once again, we supported the Kurds when it suited us, but when they became terrorists all of a sudden when Turkey put the thumbscrews to Bush, they were enemies and our weapons support for them dissapeared. ONCE AGAIN, like Bin Laden and Saddam, we chose evil to combat evil. We never learn.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The Palestinian situation is DIRECTLY RELATED to Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. As long as Israel remains stubborn and does not actively seek a real and lasting plan of peace, these other states will continue to fund terrorism. It is my firm belief that our support of Israel and our non-action when Israel has acted inappropriately has gotten us into this terrorism mess... I REFUSE to believe it is a Muslim-Christian problem; it is all a red herring.

 

Turkey will forever be a model that Muslims around the world should follow... our support of the Kurds was not looked upon highly at ALL by Turkey. Once again, we supported the Kurds when it suited us, but when they became terrorists all of a sudden when Turkey put the thumbscrews to Bush, they were enemies and our weapons support for them dissapeared. ONCE AGAIN, like Bin Laden and Saddam, we chose evil to combat evil. We never learn.

22464[/snapback]

 

Clap, clap!

[MichFan]

As long as Israel remains stubborn and does not actively seek a real and lasting plan of peace, these other states will continue to fund terrorism.

I don't think that would matter. As long as the regimes in Iran and Syria are in power, Jews will not be accepted regardless of any peace with the Palestinians. The Palestinians are just a convenient front for them.

 

our support of the Kurds was not looked upon highly at ALL by Turkey. Once again, we supported the Kurds when it suited us, but when they became terrorists all of a sudden when Turkey put the thumbscrews to Bush, they were enemies and our weapons support for them dissapeared.

We also supported questionable warlords in the Afghan war to help us get the job done with fewer American boots on the ground. We fought on the same side as Russia in WWII. War requires making interesting bedfellows at times.

[Mickey]

How about Turkey?  Naaah, wouldn't work there either.  They don't want it, can't support it.  Next thing you know we'll have a dictatorship and shariah law established in Dearborn, they don't like democracy there either.  Those gosh darn violent, incompetent muslims...

21895[/snapback]

 

What does Turkey have to do with anything? What are you blathering about with that "violent, incompetent muslims" crap? Peaceful and competent muslims could conceivably find democracy to be a useless form of government. Just because we love democracy doesn't mean every one else would if we would only be so kind as to impose it upon them by force of arms. By taking the position that democracy will not likely work in Afghanistan or Iraq, I was not at all commenting on whether they are incompetent or violent.

 

The Turks have a history with democracy and embracing western influences being, as they are, as much a part of Europe as they are of the middle east. Their history with democracy goes back a long way and it wasn't imposed upon them by a foreign power at the point of a sword. The Ottoman Background Constitutional and democratisation movements in Turkey during the Ottoman period go back to the end of the 18th century. At the time, Sultan Selim II envisaged the formation of an advisory assembly. The Tanzimat Decree issued in 1839 assured the subjects of the Empire respect for basic rights.

 

At the time, the Empire was suffering its first defeats and starting to rapidly lose its territory. The Ottoman Empire sought salvation in a series of reform movements and established education institutions taking after the western institutions which had shown great developments after the Renaissance.

The declaration of the "Tanzimat" Reform movement in 1839 is considered a major link in the chain of modernization events which had continued unabated since the beginning of the 17th century. The Tanzimat Decree is considered to be a kind of constitution which gave Turkey the means to enter road to contemporary civilization. The principles inherent in the Tanzimat Reform Decree thereby laid the basis for the constitutional regime of modern Turkey and the realization of secularism. (Turkish History)

 

That is a history and tradition that easily separates Turkey from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Democracy and Islam, even in Turkey has not always worked. Democracy was "interrupted" by the military in Turkey in 1980 and free elections were not restored until 1983.

[GG]

The Palestinian situation is DIRECTLY RELATED to Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. As long as Israel remains stubborn and does not actively seek a real and lasting plan of peace, these other states will continue to fund terrorism. It is my firm belief that our support of Israel and our non-action when Israel has acted inappropriately has gotten us into this terrorism mess... I REFUSE to believe it is a Muslim-Christian problem; it is all a red herring.

 

And an ostrich believes he's well protected. And gravity is responsible for plane crashes.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

And an ostrich believes he's well protected. And gravity is responsible for plane crashes.

22678[/snapback]

 

Ostriches can't fly because they aren't able to; birds with real wings can choose to fly whenever they wish to, or they can sit and make noise, and not fly.

 

Gravity is responsible for bringing any plane down that is unable to fly, whether by plane crrashes or not.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

What does Turkey have to do with anything?  What are you blathering about with that "violent, incompetent muslims" crap?  Peaceful and competent muslims could conceivably find democracy to be a useless form of government.  Just because we love democracy doesn't mean every one else would if we would only be so kind as to impose it upon them by force of arms.  By taking the position that democracy will not likely work in Afghanistan or Iraq, I was not at all commenting on whether they are incompetent or violent.   

 

The Turks have a history with democracy and embracing western influences being, as they are, as much a part of Europe as they are of the middle east.  Their history with democracy goes back a long way and it wasn't imposed upon them by a foreign power at the point of a sword.  The Ottoman Background Constitutional and democratisation movements in Turkey during the Ottoman period go back to the end of the 18th century. At the time, Sultan Selim II envisaged the formation of an advisory assembly. The Tanzimat Decree issued in 1839 assured the subjects of the Empire respect for basic rights.

 

At the time, the Empire was suffering its first defeats and starting to rapidly lose its territory.  The Ottoman Empire sought salvation in a series of reform movements and established education institutions taking after the western institutions which had shown great developments after the Renaissance.

The declaration of the "Tanzimat" Reform movement in 1839 is considered a major link in the chain of modernization events which had continued unabated since the beginning of the 17th century.  The Tanzimat Decree is considered to be a kind of constitution which gave Turkey the means to enter road to contemporary civilization. The principles inherent in the Tanzimat Reform Decree thereby laid the basis for the constitutional regime of modern Turkey and the realization of secularism.  (Turkish History)

 

That is a history and tradition that easily separates Turkey from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.  Democracy and Islam, even in Turkey has not always worked.  Democracy was "interrupted" by the military in Turkey in 1980 and free elections were not restored until 1983.

22613[/snapback]

 

PLEASE don't bother to explain this history to certain people... to them all Muslims are bad and evil, and need to be gotten rid of. Don't you know there is no such thing as a reasonable Muslim? *heavy sarcasm to go*

[MichFan]

PLEASE don't bother to explain this history to certain people... to them all Muslims are bad and evil, and need to be gotten rid of. Don't you know there is no such thing as a reasonable Muslim? *heavy sarcasm to go*

 

Rabid - you offer the explanation of sarcasm in your own post and then support Mickey's criticism of me over what was obvious sarcasm in my post? Guess that's what being respectful of your opinions in this thread gets me.

 

Mickey - Go back to Encarta again and do some research on Dearborn this time. Explain to me how people that have no experience with or desire for democracy seemingly have overtaken a metropolitan suburb and prospered in a democratic/capitalist world. Almost all of them have families in the Middle East. Almost all of them want for their families what they have here, and their families want the same. To say that Arabs don't want freedom and self-determination IMHO is a serious miscalculation. I have talked with clerics in my travels who disagree with the tactics of war, but their goal is essentially to bring the American dream to the Middle East (without the sex, drugs, and rap of course). When a middle class starts to rise up in the region, things will snowball. It will take time, but it will happen.