US being driven out of Islamic world

[Az]

no no no. Muslim people are generally good people. They do, OTOH, have different values, etc. which the french public doesn't support. Remember 20 percent going to lepen? From the non-muslim population it is slightly more, 2/9. all of those people don't like muslims, and are also racist, to some degree. Now consider the amount of people that AREN'T racist, but still don't like Islam, since they think it's un-democratic, and opressive? ( I feel so, just as I feel about all people who're religious, jews included). I am sure that there is a large amount of those too. Generally, as the percent of the muslim population in the country will grow, the muslim community leaders will try to divert more and more of the apsects of the local communities to muslim values. At some point a clash will occur. then, you'll see suicide bombings, attacks by europeans. With all of this turmoil, you can BET there would be very strong links with extreme elements back in muslim countries. muslim countries themselves will become more and more radicalized. generally, the **** will be hitting the fan.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: US being driven out of Islamic world

Originally posted by techumseh
It's looking more and more as if the Bush regime is losing it's war in the Middle East. It's the old adage, "don't take what you can't hold."

If they start inflicting 30 KIA's a week on a regular basis, then maybe you're on to something. However, "losing" isn't really it. Worst case, they'll just demonstrate that occupation and reform is a pain in the ass, so let's just send 'em back to the stone age and **** 'em. That's what the *******s want - a power vacuum so they can assert control, and the majority of the populace doesn't support that - they just don't want to stick their necks out to get chopped off in case we start going lefty and losing our vertebra and balls and leave them in the lurch.

Iraqi Resistance forces are clearly gaining strength, and having greater military successes against US forces everyday. US command centres are being frequently targeted, and casualties are increasing steadily. The American forces are now on the defensive.

It's not at all clear that they're "gaining strength" - they're getting more aggressive, and stepping up their number of attacks, but a majority of attacks still are token efforts of popping off a few rounds of smallarms fires or 2-3 wildly scattered mortar rounds, with no casualties. In other words hit and run, but with far more emphasis on "run" than "hit"

The US remains isolated internationally, most countries refusing to bail them out financially or militarily. The decision of Turkey to withhold troops this week was the latest blow to the Bush regime.

The Iraqis didn't want the Turks anyway, and if everyone else is too yellow or otherwise not inclined to help out (I wouldn't either, if I was another country's leader), then the US can handle it, and the rest of the world can kiss our ass. It's not like the rest of the world doesn't do that anyway. For all the whining about "illegal wars" and "human rights abuses" at Gitmo, etc., none of the rest of the world makes any real issue of it internationally. We may live in an aggressive empire with a moron for a leader, but y'all live in countries that are unprincipled, spineless lackeys of that empire, and the closest thing to a collective ball you can muster is to not actively cooperate. But taking a stand on moral and purported "international law" principles? Naaaah, no need to be confrontational, we're hypocrites, after all.

In Saudi Arabia, he US has been forced to close it's embassy and two consulates from fear of terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, in Afganistan, the Coalition forces control only the area around Kabul and a few cities and bases. Warlords, and increasingly the Taliban, control the rest of the country.

In Saudi, we closed it for three days due to specific intel. Big whoop. In Afghanistan, the scheme (which I personally am not an advocate of from the outset) was to let warlords (those NA and EA guys we picked as allies, remember them) run their respective areas like they'd been doing since they fought the Soviets. Taleban, shmaleban - the last time they moved in force in the open, we sent about forty of 'em to Allah. They're still ducking in the rocks for the most part.

The situation is deteriorating daily for the US. How long before they are forced to withdraw completely?

"Forced to withdraw completely" - oh, that'll happen about the time of the Second Coming of Christ.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by skywalker

"War on Terror" is probably going to be the biggest euphemism of the 21st century.

Kinda like what "Free World" was for the 20th century.

A lie.

B) are you saying that the US, Europe et al. aren't free?

During the cold war, "free world" was the euphemism for any country not under communist control. So right wing military dictatorships, monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, etc. were all claimed to be in the "free world"

Hell, if Hitler hadn't started warring with everybody and gotten wiped out, Nazi Germany would have qualified as part of the "free world" - that's the context to which Axi is referring. The "Better dead than Red" days.

[GePap]

The US won't loose the military apsects of this "war" (in reality a series of conflicts with varying degrees of interconnection). But we are doing badly in the ideological aspects of it. For all the talk about this being a war about freedom vs. "terrorism" (which could be used to bring freedom....), this admin. still paints it primarily as an act of self-defense. This is enough for the military campainging, but in the war of ideas it simply does not cut it: when you have the press ask for more freedom in the ME and miuslim world while still dealing with dictatorships in Central Asia that we use for the war in Afghanistan is the sort of mixed signal that undermines the whole message.

Whether we will create a stable democratic Iraq is up in the air..but as of now, we are loosing the war of ideas in the Muslim world.

[Dr Strangelove]

Arm the Shiites. Stand back and watch with a certain degree of satisfaction as the battle degenerates into muslim zealots suicide bomb each other. If we play our cards right the Iraqi Civil War might divert the lion's share of extremists from the world over. That would be a pity for the innocent people of Iraq, but also a great object lesson for the muslim world.

[Sandman]

I don't think there are enough Muslims in France or Europe for serious ethnic tension to break out.

The EU has 15 million Muslims, or 4% of the population. This will fall to 3% when the new members join.

Even France is only 10% Muslim.

[Lefty Scaevola]

A strange and depressing little universe you have created for yourself, Tecumseh.

[techumseh]

Re: Re: US being driven out of Islamic world

At last, a bite! What would I do without you MtG?

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If they start inflicting 30 KIA's a week on a regular basis, then maybe you're on to something. However, "losing" isn't really it. Worst case, they'll just demonstrate that occupation and reform is a pain in the ass, so let's just send 'em back to the stone age and **** 'em. That's what the *******s want - a power vacuum so they can assert control, and the majority of the populace doesn't support that - they just don't want to stick their necks out to get chopped off in case we start going lefty and losing our vertebra and balls and leave them in the lurch.

Back to the stone age? You've already sent them back a couple of decades. So if they're not suitably grateful, it's another few millenia?

No MtG, you consistently overestimate American power by underestimating the political constraints on it. Even the militarists now in power in Washington cannot completely ignore domestic and international opinion.

And you're wrong about the Iraqi people. They want you the hell gone! Try looking at the world through non-American media for awhile. We see a very different reality than that shown in the US media.

It's not at all clear that they're "gaining strength" - they're getting more aggressive, and stepping up their number of attacks, but a majority of attacks still are token efforts of popping off a few rounds of smallarms fires or 2-3 wildly scattered mortar rounds, with no casualties. In other words hit and run, but with far more emphasis on "run" than "hit"

It took several years of fighting before the NLF could get close enough to the American embassy to attack it during Tet in 1968. American security is MUCH worse in Baghdad today, than in Saigon in 1968.

The Iraqis didn't want the Turks anyway, and if everyone else is too yellow or otherwise not inclined to help out (I wouldn't either, if I was another country's leader), then the US can handle it, and the rest of the world can kiss our ass. It's not like the rest of the world doesn't do that anyway. For all the whining about "illegal wars" and "human rights abuses" at Gitmo, etc., none of the rest of the world makes any real issue of it internationally. We may live in an aggressive empire with a moron for a leader, but y'all live in countries that are unprincipled, spineless lackeys of that empire, and the closest thing to a collective ball you can muster is to not actively cooperate. But taking a stand on moral and purported "international law" principles? Naaaah, no need to be confrontational, we're hypocrites, after all.

Despite the fact that the US bullied, threatened and bribed various nations to join in it's aggression, most refused. The exception amoung western countries are those where conservatives are in power (Spain, Italy and Australia), Britain (led by that twit Blair), and an assortment of US aid dependencies in Eastern Europe and the third world.

I think France, Germany, Russia and China are playing a waiting game. By denying the US any legitimacy in Iraq, and forcing them to go it more or less alone, the US gets bogged down and loses both prestige and military and economic strength. This is in the long term interests of all the above powers. It's just a theory, but hey....

In Saudi, we closed it for three days due to specific intel. Big whoop. In Afghanistan, the scheme (which I personally am not an advocate of from the outset) was to let warlords (those NA and EA guys we picked as allies, remember them) run their respective areas like they'd been doing since they fought the Soviets. Taleban, shmaleban - the last time they moved in force in the open, we sent about forty of 'em to Allah. They're still ducking in the rocks for the most part.

The fact remains that the US can no longer protect it's diplomatic facilities in the Middle East. How is this winning?

In Afghanistan, the Coaliton and it's puppet Karzai don't really control much of the country at all, except the big cities. The rest is still under the control of the warlords. It's a perfect situation for the Taliban to recruit and grow. Here's a link to a Reuters article which supports this: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...7&section=news How is this winning the War on Terrorism?

"Forced to withdraw completely" - oh, that'll happen about the time of the Second Coming of Christ.

Where have we heard that before?

a) -Chiang Kai-shek in 1947
b) -Gen. Westmoreland in 1967
c) -Leonid Brezhnev in 1982
d) -all of the above

[Lord Merciless]

If we have to leave Iraq, we'll make sure the Kurds want our protection and Shiites and Sunnis kill each other in an endless civil war. The Kurdish North leaves us with 50% of Iraq's oil and an easy base to launch a new invasion should one side cry again for help.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: US being driven out of Islamic world

Originally posted by techumseh
At last, a bite! What would I do without you MtG?

I won't answer that.

Back to the stone age? You've already sent them back a couple of decades. So if they're not suitably grateful, it's another few millenia?

If we've sent them back a couple of decades, then that would be a major improvement, considering the effects of the sanctions imposed by the Lima Deltas in the UN, and the disastrous results for southern Iraq in particular of Saddam's little adventure with the Ayatollahs.

But if there's too much widespread resistance, we have to go back to point one of the lesson - you **** with us a little on our turf, and we will **** with you a hundred or a thousand fold.

No MtG, you consistently overestimate American power by underestimating the political constraints on it. Even the militarists now in power in Washington cannot completely ignore domestic and international opinion.

Domestic opinion, no, but yes, we can and often do ignore international opinion on a regular basis. Why? Because the holders of international opinion are generally gutless, and won't stop doing business and whatnot. In short, they have no intention of letting their supposed principles get in the way of their acquisition of principal.

And these chickenhawks aren't militarists by a long shot. I think their approach has been half-hearted and half-assed from the beginning.

And you're wrong about the Iraqi people. They want you the hell gone! Try looking at the world through non-American media for awhile. We see a very different reality than that shown in the US media.

I live in Mexico, so most of the media I see is non-American. I've also done Iraq - not in this goround, but last time. There's no monolithic "the media" - that's the crap for ideologues. There are many subsets, and "reality" is always a bit deeper than leftist or rightist ideology. Of course they want us "gone" - they have no desire to be a defacto colony, when being a lackey has so much prestige. The thing is, most of them want the Baathists gone more, most of them want Shiite fundies with squirrelly ideas gone more, and they all want the Turks gone before they'd ever arrive. They don't want us calling the shots and being the visible authority, but a majority of Iraqis also like (a) the end of sanctions (b) the amount of foreign investment into rebuilding infrastructure (c) being rid of the Baathist *******s. What they want as both an intermediate and long term result is a rapid return to true sovereignty and greater control of local administration and state authority.

It took several years of fighting before the NLF could get close enough to the American embassy to attack it during Tet in 1968. American security is MUCH worse in Baghdad today, than in Saigon in 1968.

Not quite true. The VC could have attacked the embassy pretty much at any time, but there was no strategic imperative to do so. They were also hosed by the NVA and NV leadership, because the result of Tet was a huge attrition of VC cadres in the south who might have had some "independent" notions of how things should run in the future. VC elements were active all over the south for years before Tet, including in and around Saigon, but they simply chose not to make one big huge coordinated move until late in the process - had they done it in 1965, the course of the war would have been much different.

Despite the fact that the US bullied, threatened and bribed various nations to join in it's aggression, most refused. The exception amoung western countries are those where conservatives are in power (Spain, Italy and Australia), Britain (led by that twit Blair), and an assortment of US aid dependencies in Eastern Europe and the third world.

Well, we all know who'll get the oil, now don't we?

I think France, Germany, Russia and China are playing a waiting game. By denying the US any legitimacy in Iraq, and forcing them to go it more or less alone, the US gets bogged down and loses both prestige and military and economic strength. This is in the long term interests of all the above powers. It's just a theory, but hey....

Of course, I don't trust them or expect them to have benevolent reasons for anything, but look at it this way - the more we get bogged down in the short term, the more incentive we have to make whoever controls the spigots for all that Iraqi oil are our boys, not someone else's.

The fact remains that the US can no longer protect it's diplomatic facilities in the Middle East. How is this winning?

No diplomatic facilities anywhere can be protected if a terrorist or guerilla force really wants to hit them. It used to be a convention of civilized peoples that you don't **** with other country's embassies. (Just the nests of spies in them, if you can get ahold of any ) These guys don't play by any rules, in fact, they specialize in embassies (despite the fact that most casualties are 3rd nation innocents, not Americans) because they're symbolic targets that are by definition hard to protect, because they're in major urban centers and designed to be accessible.

In Afghanistan, the Coaliton and it's puppet Karzai don't really control much of the country at all, except the big cities. The rest is still under the control of the warlords. It's a perfect situation for the Taliban to recruit and grow. Here's a link to a Reuters article which supports this: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...7&section=news How is this winning the War on Terrorism?

Considering that when we started, the Taleban controlled 95% of the country, and al Qaeda practically swaggered around with impunity and gave live TV interviews. Now we don't see those smug mother****ers swaggering around, OBL, AAZ and Mullah Omar, if they're really alive, are hiding in the boonies afraid to make any direct communictation, lest we intercept it and nail their asses. Mohammed Atef went to Allah, and KSM and Ramsi Binalshibh are probably wishing they did about now, not to mention the hundreds of minor *******s we've killed or captured.

From a nationbuilding perspective, Afghanistan sucks, but from the narrower perspective of severely disrupting AQ and depriving it of open sanctuary areas, the results have been excellent.

Where have we heard that before?

a) -Chiang Kai-shek in 1947
b) -Gen. Westmoreland in 1967
c) -Leonid Brezhnev in 1982
d) -all of the above

(a) Certifiable looney who thought the US would bail his ass out of a crack because he and Madame Chiang were regular bridge partners and ******* buddies of MacArthur

(b) Politically hamstrung, and any combat division of the US Army now has more firepower than all allied forces in 'Nam combined. Plus the Iraqis don't have neighboring superpowers supporting them, or decades of tunnel network construction. And it's a lot harder to hide in the terrain in Iraq.

(c) A commie leading the red army. What else need be said?

Nice comeback, but keep tryin'

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
A strange and depressing little universe you have created for yourself, Tecumseh.

Actually, I think things are looking up!

[techumseh]

(a) Certifiable looney who thought the US would bail his ass out of a crack because he and Madame Chiang were regular bridge partners and ******* buddies of MacArthur

Usually I can tell what your asterisks mean and don't give a ****. This time I can't and curiosity has got the better of me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

ass hole

[axi]

that's the context to which Axi is referring. The "Better dead than Red" days.

My point exactly. Thank you MtG.

That particular phrase has put it's mark on the 20th century, much more than anything else. Kinda like the "white man's burden" euphemism marked the 19th century before that.

[Kuciwalker]

During the cold war, "free world" was the euphemism for any country not under communist control. So right wing military dictatorships, monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, etc. were all claimed to be in the "free world"

Hell, if Hitler hadn't started warring with everybody and gotten wiped out, Nazi Germany would have qualified as part of the "free world" - that's the context to which Axi is referring. The "Better dead than Red" days.

In that case, I agree that he is right.