Paladin77, how do you make friends with an enemy? [/quote] Each enemy is different, for this enemy it is proving that we are stronger and will crush them if they don't back off. It sounds backwards but any sign of retreat is seen as weakness. This is evidenced by how Mr. Clinton handled the first attacks when he was in office. It was seen as weakness and invited more attacks which were not answered either. It was not that the President was weak it was just answered in a way that in thier eyes was weak. They were surprised when we attacked Afghanistan. They never thought that we would go into Iraq. With our history of getting into a fight only to pull back when we are hurt meant that all they have to do is wait us out. We will leave on our own and they will have won and once seen as a winner we will no longer have to deal with the a hundred thousand nutjobs out there we will have to deal with millions of nutjobs. I used to live in the area and the mindset is be on the winning side or die. If you are seen backing the losers you will be killed which is why loyalty is nothing more that something you buy. Sodaiho: I am not so sure of this line. I see no evidence that our attacking has done anything but bolster their resolve to do us more harm. In fact, my understanding is that it has inflamed most of the Islamic world. I am also unclear what "win" means in the context of the Middle East. Since you lived in the area, you must have an appreciation of the clash between cultures. Moreover, the "nutjobs" you refer to are loose cannons, not nations, and will not defeated by conventional armies. Smart people can find a way. Even starter people don't create them in the first place. That said, we must stop giving reason for others to hate. Hopeful people with full stomachs are not as likely to want to tear up their country, nor are they quite so willing to attack others. According to bin Laden the thing that caused us to be their enemy was coming to the aid of Kuwait. Putting our troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. That was his public justification for attacking us on 9/11 what no one cares to notice is the attack in 96 on the WTC. What did we do to become their enemy that time? We had no troops in that part of the world. We support Israel. If supporting a friend is reason enough to be attacked then I guess there is no reasioning with them since we have a lot of friends around the world and sooner or later we will be pissing them off by supporting another friend. We supported Afghanistan in the war we started with the Soviet Union. They might be mad at us for that. Sodaiho: bin Laden is one of those loose cannons. Clearly, trying to figure out an appproach to win him over would be a pointless challenge. But we can work to undermine him by addressing the needs of the people who would support him, give him refuge, and so on. [quote]The Iraq war is not a war on terror, Hussein was a midget, an awful midget, but no credible threat to the United States. The people who attacked us were Saudi, based in Afghanistan with no real, tangible links to Iraq. Want to win a war on terror? In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Sodaiho: Syria, Iran, and probably the Saudis give similar aid and refuge. Iran is building its nuclear program; we don't want to talk to Syria, and our president is in bed with the Saudi princes. What's wrong with this picture? You see after 9/11 the U.S. policy changed; anyone who supports, harbors, funds, feeds the terrorist would be treated as if that nation was a terrorist state. He supported, funded, and gave safe haven to AQ terrorists. That was enough to go in there. The fact that when it became public knowledge that one was in hospital recuperating from wounds suffered in Afghanistan he had the man taken out and shot on the street to prove he was not supporting terrorist shows that he knew what would happen if he was seen to support AQ. The fact that he hired people to start a training camp for AQ to replace the ones lost in Afghanistan is further proof he was a threat. The fact that he stated publicly that he would sell or give his WMD to terrorist that wanted to attack Israel and the U.S. made him a mighty midget. Sodaiho: This policy change made as much sense as Zero Tolerance in schools. Its plain stupid. First it labels as "terrorist" (an amorphic term to begin with, define it please) anyone we want to make an enemy. Second, the policy is literaly unenforcable as it would require us to be at war with nearly the entire world. I don't see us going after Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Venezuela, or Cuba and each of these countries have either harbored "terrorists," threatened us, bought our debt, or in some other way been an 'enemy' cold or hot over the last few decades. Sure it was mostly bluster but we did not know that until we went in there. Should wwe have waited until he provided WMD to AQ before we stomped him into the ground? Who in America are you willing to have killed so we would have better justification for an attack on an enemy? Sodaiho: I think before we commited ourselves to an interminable conflict with poorly defined perameters, no exit strategy, and an incredibly high and decades long cost, we might have looked for a few alternatives. Instead, we were hot to trot and had the draft dodging likes of Cheney and that McNamara clone to lead te way. Again, the enemy was not Hussein. Your line is an after the fact rationialization of our taking the moral low road and doing a first strike. Going after bin Laden, absolutely. He was the attacker. [quote]Want to win a war on terror? Stop doing things that create reasons for terrorists to exist.

Please tell me what we did to get these people to kill almost 4000 people in a five year span before we started to fight back? I will wait for...


Sodaiho: I think some Muslims believe we are the devil incarnate, here to destroy their hearts and souls. We represent everything they fear: modern life, progress, liberal social values. I believe they see us as insatiable consumers of their resources, as fat, immoral, greedy, bullys.

We could fight back, as you say, but in a much smarter way and with a lot less violence. Using violence just adds violence and deepens an enemy's resolve to continue to hate you. We could be listening to the people who want us dead. What makes them hate us so? Hate does not develop in a vacuum. Calling them terrorists does not help. In fact, our choice of weapons confirms their view of us.

Be well.

Paladin77, how do you make friends with an enemy? [/quote] Each enemy is different, for this enemy it is proving that we are stronger and will crush them if they don't back off. It sounds backwards but any sign of retreat is seen as weakness. This is evidenced by how Mr. Clinton handled the first attacks when he was in office. It was seen as weakness and invited more attacks which were not answered either. It was not that the President was weak it was just answered in a way that in thier eyes was weak. They were surprised when we attacked Afghanistan. They never thought that we would go into Iraq. With our history of getting into a fight only to pull back when we are hurt meant that all they have to do is wait us out. We will leave on our own and they will have won and once seen as a winner we will no longer have to deal with the a hundred thousand nutjobs out there we will have to deal with millions of nutjobs. I used to live in the area and the mindset is be on the winning side or die. If you are seen backing the losers you will be killed which is why loyalty is nothing more that something you buy. Sodaiho: I am not so sure of this line. I see no evidence that our attacking has done anything but bolster their resolve to do us more harm. In fact, my understanding is that it has inflamed most of the Islamic world. I am also unclear what "win" means in the context of the Middle East. Since you lived in the area, you must have an appreciation of the clash between cultures. Moreover, the "nutjobs" you refer to are loose cannons, not nations, and will not defeated by conventional armies. Smart people can find a way. Even starter people don't create them in the first place. That said, we must stop giving reason for others to hate. Hopeful people with full stomachs are not as likely to want to tear up their country, nor are they quite so willing to attack others. According to bin Laden the thing that caused us to be their enemy was coming to the aid of Kuwait. Putting our troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. That was his public justification for attacking us on 9/11 what no one cares to notice is the attack in 96 on the WTC. What did we do to become their enemy that time? We had no troops in that part of the world. We support Israel. If supporting a friend is reason enough to be attacked then I guess there is no reasioning with them since we have a lot of friends around the world and sooner or later we will be pissing them off by supporting another friend. We supported Afghanistan in the war we started with the Soviet Union. They might be mad at us for that. Sodaiho: bin Laden is one of those loose cannons. Clearly, trying to figure out an appproach to win him over would be a pointless challenge. But we can work to undermine him by addressing the needs of the people who would support him, give him refuge, and so on. [quote]The Iraq war is not a war on terror, Hussein was a midget, an awful midget, but no credible threat to the United States. The people who attacked us were Saudi, based in Afghanistan with no real, tangible links to Iraq. Want to win a war on terror? In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Sodaiho: Syria, Iran, and probably the Saudis give similar aid and refuge. Iran is building its nuclear program; we don't want to talk to Syria, and our president is in bed with the Saudi princes. What's wrong with this picture? You see after 9/11 the U.S. policy changed; anyone who supports, harbors, funds, feeds the terrorist would be treated as if that nation was a terrorist state. He supported, funded, and gave safe haven to AQ terrorists. That was enough to go in there. The fact that when it became public knowledge that one was in hospital recuperating from wounds suffered in Afghanistan he had the man taken out and shot on the street to prove he was not supporting terrorist shows that he knew what would happen if he was seen to support AQ. The fact that he hired people to start a training camp for AQ to replace the ones lost in Afghanistan is further proof he was a threat. The fact that he stated publicly that he would sell or give his WMD to terrorist that wanted to attack Israel and the U.S. made him a mighty midget. Sodaiho: This policy change made as much sense as Zero Tolerance in schools. Its plain stupid. First it labels as "terrorist" (an amorphic term to begin with, define it please) anyone we want to make an enemy. Second, the policy is literaly unenforcable as it would require us to be at war with nearly the entire world. I don't see us going after Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Venezuela, or Cuba and each of these countries have either harbored "terrorists," threatened us, bought our debt, or in some other way been an 'enemy' cold or hot over the last few decades. Sure it was mostly bluster but we did not know that until we went in there. Should wwe have waited until he provided WMD to AQ before we stomped him into the ground? Who in America are you willing to have killed so we would have better justification for an attack on an enemy? Sodaiho: I think before we commited ourselves to an interminable conflict with poorly defined perameters, no exit strategy, and an incredibly high and decades long cost, we might have looked for a few alternatives. Instead, we were hot to trot and had the draft dodging likes of Cheney and that McNamara clone to lead te way. Again, the enemy was not Hussein. Your line is an after the fact rationialization of our taking the moral low road and doing a first strike. Going after bin Laden, absolutely. He was the attacker. [quote]Want to win a war on terror? Stop doing things that create reasons for terrorists to exist.

Please tell me what we did to get these people to kill almost 4000 people in a five year span before we started to fight back? I will wait for...


Sodaiho: I think some Muslims believe we are the devil incarnate, here to destroy their hearts and souls. We represent everything they fear: modern life, progress, liberal social values. I believe they see us as insatiable consumers of their resources, as fat, immoral, greedy, bullys.

We could fight back, as you say, but in a much smarter way and with a lot less violence. Using violence just adds violence and deepens an enemy's resolve to continue to hate you. We could be listening to the people who want us dead. What makes them hate us so? Hate does not develop in a vacuum. Calling them terrorists does not help. In fact, our choice of weapons confirms their view of us.

Be well.

Paladin77, how do you make friends with an enemy? [/quote] Each enemy is different, for this enemy it is proving that we are stronger and will crush them if they don't back off. It sounds backwards but any sign of retreat is seen as weakness. This is evidenced by how Mr. Clinton handled the first attacks when he was in office. It was seen as weakness and invited more attacks which were not answered either. It was not that the President was weak it was just answered in a way that in thier eyes was weak. They were surprised when we attacked Afghanistan. They never thought that we would go into Iraq. With our history of getting into a fight only to pull back when we are hurt meant that all they have to do is wait us out. We will leave on our own and they will have won and once seen as a winner we will no longer have to deal with the a hundred thousand nutjobs out there we will have to deal with millions of nutjobs. I used to live in the area and the mindset is be on the winning side or die. If you are seen backing the losers you will be killed which is why loyalty is nothing more that something you buy. Sodaiho: I am not so sure of this line. I see no evidence that our attacking has done anything but bolster their resolve to do us more harm. In fact, my understanding is that it has inflamed most of the Islamic world. I am also unclear what "win" means in the context of the Middle East. Since you lived in the area, you must have an appreciation of the clash between cultures. Moreover, the "nutjobs" you refer to are loose cannons, not nations, and will not defeated by conventional armies. Smart people can find a way. Even starter people don't create them in the first place. That said, we must stop giving reason for others to hate. Hopeful people with full stomachs are not as likely to want to tear up their country, nor are they quite so willing to attack others. According to bin Laden the thing that caused us to be their enemy was coming to the aid of Kuwait. Putting our troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. That was his public justification for attacking us on 9/11 what no one cares to notice is the attack in 96 on the WTC. What did we do to become their enemy that time? We had no troops in that part of the world. We support Israel. If supporting a friend is reason enough to be attacked then I guess there is no reasioning with them since we have a lot of friends around the world and sooner or later we will be pissing them off by supporting another friend. We supported Afghanistan in the war we started with the Soviet Union. They might be mad at us for that. Sodaiho: bin Laden is one of those loose cannons. Clearly, trying to figure out an appproach to win him over would be a pointless challenge. But we can work to undermine him by addressing the needs of the people who would support him, give him refuge, and so on. [quote]The Iraq war is not a war on terror, Hussein was a midget, an awful midget, but no credible threat to the United States. The people who attacked us were Saudi, based in Afghanistan with no real, tangible links to Iraq. Want to win a war on terror? In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Sodaiho: Syria, Iran, and probably the Saudis give similar aid and refuge. Iran is building its nuclear program; we don't want to talk to Syria, and our president is in bed with the Saudi princes. What's wrong with this picture? You see after 9/11 the U.S. policy changed; anyone who supports, harbors, funds, feeds the terrorist would be treated as if that nation was a terrorist state. He supported, funded, and gave safe haven to AQ terrorists. That was enough to go in there. The fact that when it became public knowledge that one was in hospital recuperating from wounds suffered in Afghanistan he had the man taken out and shot on the street to prove he was not supporting terrorist shows that he knew what would happen if he was seen to support AQ. The fact that he hired people to start a training camp for AQ to replace the ones lost in Afghanistan is further proof he was a threat. The fact that he stated publicly that he would sell or give his WMD to terrorist that wanted to attack Israel and the U.S. made him a mighty midget. Sodaiho: This policy change made as much sense as Zero Tolerance in schools. Its plain stupid. First it labels as "terrorist" (an amorphic term to begin with, define it please) anyone we want to make an enemy. Second, the policy is literaly unenforcable as it would require us to be at war with nearly the entire world. I don't see us going after Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Venezuela, or Cuba and each of these countries have either harbored "terrorists," threatened us, bought our debt, or in some other way been an 'enemy' cold or hot over the last few decades. Sure it was mostly bluster but we did not know that until we went in there. Should wwe have waited until he provided WMD to AQ before we stomped him into the ground? Who in America are you willing to have killed so we would have better justification for an attack on an enemy? Sodaiho: I think before we commited ourselves to an interminable conflict with poorly defined perameters, no exit strategy, and an incredibly high and decades long cost, we might have looked for a few alternatives. Instead, we were hot to trot and had the draft dodging likes of Cheney and that McNamara clone to lead te way. Again, the enemy was not Hussein. Your line is an after the fact rationialization of our taking the moral low road and doing a first strike. Going after bin Laden, absolutely. He was the attacker. [quote]Want to win a war on terror? Stop doing things that create reasons for terrorists to exist.

Please tell me what we did to get these people to kill almost 4000 people in a five year span before we started to fight back? I will wait for...


Sodaiho: I think some Muslims believe we are the devil incarnate, here to destroy their hearts and souls. We represent everything they fear: modern life, progress, liberal social values. I believe they see us as insatiable consumers of their resources, as fat, immoral, greedy, bullys.

We could fight back, as you say, but in a much smarter way and with a lot less violence. Using violence just adds violence and deepens an enemy's resolve to continue to hate you. We could be listening to the people who want us dead. What really makes them hate us so? Hate does not develop in a vacuum. Calling them terrorists does not help. Understanding our enemies, listenin to them, offering them something that is the offering of a friend, these are ways of overcoming hostility. Yet, instead, our choice of weapons confirms their view of us.

Be well.

We could fight back, as you say, but in a much smarter way and with a lot less violence. Using violence just adds violence and deepens an enemy's resolve to continue to hate you. We could be listening to the people who want us dead. What really makes them hate us so? Hate does not develop in a vacuum. Calling them terrorists does not help. Understanding our enemies, listenin to them, offering them something that is the offering of a friend, these are ways of overcoming hostility. Yet, instead, our choice of weapons confirms their view of us.

They hate the way we live, the freedoms that we have and the fact that our culture is taking root in their country (IE: allowing women to go to school). Now please explain to me just "how in the h*ll" do you fight against that?

Sodaiho: I think some Muslims believe we are the devil incarnate, here to destroy their hearts and souls. We represent everything they fear: modern life, progress, liberal social values. I believe they see us as insatiable consumers of their resources, as fat, immoral, greedy, bullys. [/quote] So what you are saying is you don't know the reason why? [quote]We could fight back, as you say, but in a much smarter way and with a lot less violence. Using violence just adds violence and deepens an enemy's resolve to continue to hate you. We could be listening to the people who want us dead.

How do you propose to fight them smarter?

There is no way to fight these people without violence. Period. When people form an organization, arm it, and get together into a big group to prepare for battle, what else really is there to do? Offer to settle the question with thumb wrestling?

What Sodaiho has never, ever understood is that the goals of these people are the deaths of their enemies. This isn't ancient Greece where we can offer to settle it with a fight between two champions. Wait, that would be violence, too, anyway.

Ok I will ask agian since Sodaiho seems to be on vacation.

What did we as a nation do to cause AQ to attack us for 8 years before we fought back seriously?

How do we fight smarter?

Those are the two questions I have asked liberals for years and never got a serious answer. Anyone care to give it a try?