Quote Originally Posted by mrdevious
Bong's post makes a good point. Our hazy, conflicting, vague ideology about who the enemies are is going to make winning this war very difficult. I'm sure we disagree on the details, but the general idea is right.

For instance, you have one group of followers of extreme liberalism who believe that no war is EVER justified, for any reason, no matter how obvious the threat is. These people would complacently allow us to be conquered by hate-filled maniacs who twist religion for their own ends.

Then you have the the far-righters (not all of course, just like not all liberals) who have taken such a generalized, vague view of the enemy that they believe that because the enemy is middle-eastern, any war, anywhere in the middle east is therefor a war with terrorism by default.

Just because certain extremists declare that they are fighting in the name of all islam, doesn't mean all Islamics are on their side. Just like George Bush invading Iraq in the name of American freedom, doesn't mean every freedom-loving american is in support of the war. The real solution to winning this war is through winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic people, but guiding this war logically. We need to clearly identify who the enemy is, not distract ourselves with useless wars like Iraq, and zero in on the true enemies and propogandists embedded within the Muslim world. This is why I'm for the war in Afghanistan, and against the one in Iraq. Saddam may have been an evil son of a bitch, but he was still an enemy of most terrorist states and a counter-balance to our considerably more immediate enemies. Enemies can be as usefull as allies, depending on how you manipulate the situation.
I agree 100%. The war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Even countries which we would expect to be against us, China, Pakistan, etc. gave us the thumbs up. There we had a specific target, Al Qeada and the Taliban, well known radical groups who had done us a great wrong.

Going after Iraq, on the other hand, was probably the worst thing we could have done. It took the focus off of going after the bad guys, who just happned to be Muslim, and put it on going after Muslims. I am certain that G Dubya has done far more for Al Qeada recruitment than Osama Bin Laden could ever have dreamed of. If we are so concerned about the 1% of Mulims who are extremists, why do we do our best to raise that # to 2%?
Fengzi Reviewed by Fengzi on . Why radical Islam might defeat the West Middle East http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG08Ak02.html SPENGLER Why radical Islam might defeat the West "Does Spengler know, for instance, that in the last century 2,000 distinct ethnic groups have gone extinct?" Eric Garrett asks in his June 12 riposte, A question of identity, to an earlier article of mine, Neo-cons in a religious bind. Garrett's organization, the World Conservation Union, is devoted to preserving fragile cultures. As a matter of fact, I reported in Rating: 5