OK I'll bite

 

How do you reason with a group that is willing to hijack airplanes full of innocent people and fly those planes into buildings populated by more innocent people?

 

How do you reason with people that believe it is noble to strap bombs on women and children and then explode those bombs in "combat areas" like resturants and funerals?

 

How many people that they disagree with are a "reasonable" number that they can kill while we try to win the war of ideas.

 

I very firmly believe that had we not taken the action that we have there would have been another attack on American soil. Call me selfish but I would much rather fight the extremists in their back yard. I grieve the loss of every American life in Iraq but I do believe that their sacrafices have kept us safer. I also unfortunately believe that another attack on American soil WILL happen and that the more we can disrupt them at the source the less effective that attack will be.

 

You equip the moderates to fight the extremists.

 

It is a poor analogy, but I will make it anyway . . . For 20+ years the religious right has dominated the conversation in this county, even electing a president and congress. Recently the moderates have found the courage to begin speaking up and now and people like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo have given a voice. Only when the moderates have the courage and the werewithal to speak up will the radical voice be tempered.

 

The goal is to make the Radical Islamist like the Westboro baptists and those that will blow up abortion clinics in the name of God the fringe element and insignificant.

 

Hezbollah made headway in Lebanon with the people b/c they began building schools, hospitals, libraries and homes for the people.

 

We blew up the schools, hospitals, libraries and homes, and are seeing innocents die. What battle are we really winning?

 

If we are victorious (whatever that means) in Iraq, do we then move to Iran, then Pakistan, then Lebanon, then Saudi Arabia, then Morroco, then Southern Europe . . . we are NOT GOING TO DESTROY ISLAM - it is as old as the Jews and older than Christianity. We tried to do it with the Crusades and couldn't, why do we think we will do it now?

Before we put too much faith in Mr. Kraft's analysis of history, we should question his qualifications. At least three glaring errors jump off the page in his article. First the Japanese invaded China in 1931, not 1928. Second, the United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, not Germany. The United States did not declare war on Germany until December 11, AFTER Germany declared war on the US. Third, Ireland was not one of the Allies in WWII. Ireland was neutral.

 

I do agree that fighting radical Islam is the great fight of the first half of the 21st century. I believe very strongly that the war in Iraq is the wrong strategy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time and using the wrong tactics. The west funds both sides in the war on terrorism. Even worse, we can't use our full military might because to do so we would cripple our own economies by disrupting oil supplies. Oil is the key. They know they can hit us and our response will be tempered and moderated by the need to keep the oil flowing. Do you want to really combat radical Islam? Get us off middle eastern oil. Without oil revenue they can't fund war and we have a full range of retaliatory responses available to us should any country be so foolish as to attack us or allow those within their borders to attack us. We can't win the war against terrorists until we free ourselves from middle eastern oil. A Manhattan style program toward energy independence would do more to protect the United States than a complete victory in Iraq (whatever that means) ever could.

 

I don't disagree that we need to find a way to be weened off of oil. But I don't see that as happening the near future, do you? In the meantime, you propose we do what to combat terrorism? And even if we ween ourselves off of oil, do you think all other countries will be able to do so? If not, won't the terrorists still be able to use oil to fund there despicable actions? And even if everyone was to stop using oil tomorrow, don't you think terrorists would find other ways to fund their activities, like illegal drugs?

 

Personally, I'm of the belief that democracy, and the freedoms and benefits it brings (such as education and entrance into the world economy), is the best way to stop terrorism. And I'm likewise of the belief that if we can bring safety and security to Iraq, democracy can flourish in Iraq and then spread throughout the middle east.

You equip the moderates to fight the extremists.

 

It is a poor analogy, but I will make it anyway . . . For 20+ years the religious right has dominated the conversation in this county, even electing a president and congress. Recently the moderates have found the courage to begin speaking up and now and people like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo have given a voice. Only when the moderates have the courage and the werewithal to speak up will the radical voice be tempered.

 

The goal is to make the Radical Islamist like the Westboro baptists and those that will blow up abortion clinics in the name of God the fringe element and insignificant.

 

Hezbollah made headway in Lebanon with the people b/c they began building schools, hospitals, libraries and homes for the people.

 

We blew up the schools, hospitals, libraries and homes, and are seeing innocents die. What battle are we really winning?

 

If we are victorious (whatever that means) in Iraq, do we then move to Iran, then Pakistan, then Lebanon, then Saudi Arabia, then Morroco, then Southern Europe . . . we are NOT GOING TO DESTROY ISLAM - it is as old as the Jews and older than Christianity. We tried to do it with the Crusades and couldn't, why do we think we will do it now?

 

PLEASE show me any quote from anyone, anywhere which indicates anyone wants to destroy Islam. That is a real distortion of the fight against terrorism. Also, please note in Iraq we are the ones rebuilding schools, libraries and hospitals that the radicals blow up. What does that say to your theory?

Again, I am joining the discussion late...

 

Which of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq? Where were the terrorist training grounds there? How has our presence there lessened terrorist activity? Hasn't Iraq become more of a radical islamic "hotbed" since we arrived?

 

One of the biggest problems is that we are very self-centered. We assume that, given freedom, people will choose to be like us. Some yes, many no. We cannot change other people's beliefs and cultures. We cannot wave the magic wand of freedom and think that our problems will go away.

PLEASE show me any quote from anyone, anywhere which indicates anyone wants to destroy Islam. That is a real distortion of the fight against terrorism. Also, please note in Iraq we are the ones rebuilding schools, libraries and hospitals that the radicals blow up. What does that say to your theory?

 

If you read all of the posts you will see that I said that as long as you have Islam you will have radical islamists, same with Christianity, so unless you can destroy Islam you will not be able to destroy the radicals.

 

I don't recall one article, blog, newstory talking about the radicals blowing up those buildings. In Bagdad we destroyed the buildings when we invaded and now we are rebuilding them. That is not the same as Hezbollah.

PLEASE show me any quote from anyone, anywhere which indicates anyone wants to destroy Islam. That is a real distortion of the fight against terrorism. Also, please note in Iraq we are the ones rebuilding schools, libraries and hospitals that the radicals blow up. What does that say to your theory?

 

The only point I'm going to make here is that Islamic extremists do not hold the monopoly on terrorism. Within our own citizenship, we have factions who terrorise other citizens.

 

 

OK..one other point...we're not only rebuilding what radicals blow up. We have done, are doing, and continue to do our fair share of "blowing up". We should be doing the rebuilding. We started this, and those insurgents wouldn't have flocked there if we hadn't destabilized the country.

I very firmly believe that had we not taken the action that we have there would have been another attack on American soil.

 

Too bad we can't have a "It's a Wonderful Life" glimpse at what could have been had we not taken the fight over there. Instead of seeing what life would be like without George Bailey, we would see what life would be like without George Bush. I think people would be surprised at what else would have happened.

 

I also firmly believe that the lack of another 9/11-type attack is directly attributable to putting the terrorists on the defensive far removed from American soil.

Too bad we can't have a "It's a Wonderful Life" glimpse at what could have been had we not taken the fight over there.

 

I also firmly believe that the lack of another 9/11-type attack is directly attributable to putting the terrorists on the defensive far removed from American soil.

 

You, of course, mean the ones in Afghanistan - b/c there were none in Iraq before we deposed the government.

We started this, and those insurgents wouldn't have flocked there if we hadn't destabilized the country.

Destabilized? We removed a vicious murderer.

 

Just to comment on some other posts while I'm here:

 

I don't think anyone in their right mind is "pro-war." I don't know what label to use; but that certainly isn't the right one.

 

I don't think we have a chance to win this "war" -- because we're too busy fighting ourselves at home.

 

Is this really even a war? Maybe it's just the atrocious PR job our govt. and military are doing; but it seems to me like our soldiers are just over there waiting for the next bomb to go off or sniper to shoot. I don't call that a "war." I call that a blood bath.

You, of course, mean the ones in Afghanistan - b/c there were none in Iraq before we deposed the government.

 

 

So Iraq is like a big bug-zapper? Drawn to the light and then killed. I can live with that.

The only point I'm going to make here is that Islamic extremists do not hold the monopoly on terrorism. Within our own citizenship, we have factions who terrorise other citizens.

 

 

OK..one other point...we're not only rebuilding what radicals blow up. We have done, are doing, and continue to do our fair share of "blowing up". We should be doing the rebuilding. We started this, and those insurgents wouldn't have flocked there if we hadn't destabilized the country.

And if they wouldn't have flocked there I believe they would have flockrd to our shores.

 

Is this really even a war? Maybe it's just the atrocious PR job our govt. and military are doing; but it seems to me like our soldiers are just over there waiting for the next bomb to go off or sniper to shoot. I don't call that a "war." I call that a blood bath.

 

I agreed with your entire post but wanted to comment on this particular item. It certainly does seem that way and I would be very interested to find if this is the case or just doesn't seem newsworthy when our troops fight back.

You, of course, mean the ones in Afghanistan - b/c there were none in Iraq before we deposed the government.

 

I mean the ones at all points East of the United States' Atlantic Ocean coastline and all points West of the United States' Pacific Ocean coastline.

 

You honestly don't think the Saddam Hussein government would fall under the "terrorist" definition? My definition may be a bit broader than yours.

And if they wouldn't have flocked there I believe they would have flockrd to our shores.

 

Do you really believe they would have 'flockrd' to our shores? How do you suppose they would have gotten here?

And if they wouldn't have flocked there I believe they would have flockrd to our shores.

 

 

I don't think the would have. I believe a larger, more effective offensive in Afghanistan would have contained the radicals in that area.

 

Birdsfan, sure Sadaam needed to go. But we weren't prepared for the complete and utter lack of self-governance that was left. A better plan should have been in place before we decided to topple Sadaam.

 

Plus, going to Iraq wasn't about Sadaam, remember? At least, not until we got in there.