Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
elcid    RE:Cult of the warrior    10/20/2004 5:46:29 PM
You are correct about NK. I objected to invading Iraq because I wanted to invade NK. No one is going for my option. This will remain a radical proposal - UNTIL a NK weapon is used (by a terrorist) to blow up some city - like New York. THEN they will say I was right. I hope I am wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

sanman    RE:Musharraf - sanman   10/21/2004 3:53:49 PM
timon wrote: "What I wanted to say, and probably did not say clearly enough, was that the action of the civilian government (whether it was trying to placate the military or not) very nearly triggered an open war with India. This would have been disasterous to Pakistan. And it caused a publicly humiliating retreat." The civilian govt was not in charge of the troops or the policy. The army simply did as it pleased, as it has always done and still does. Musharraf never sought clearance from civilian PM Sharif when attacking Kargil. Sharif simply found out about it when it was in progress, and got scared when he realized that this could easily spin out of control. "Musharraf commended the ISI. He has been less jehadist and less reckless than the civilian regime he replaced. Perhaps it's one of those "Only Nixon could go to China" phenomena." Musharraf is a hardline hawk, but has been forced to turn dovish when confronted with the constraints of his situation. Just like civilian Nawaz did during Kargil. My point is that Pakistan army runs the military policy of the country and isn't accountable to civilian leadership, therefore the hawkish army guys do foolish reckless things that hurt their country, but they don't have to absorb the consequences for their actions -- only the man out in front does (ie. like Nawaz was, or like Musharraf is now). The man out in front then does absorb the flak and sees the constraints of reality. You could then say that having the army chief Musharraf out in front as the overt ruler and public face of the govt is a better way to get Pakistan to deliver the goods (aka "Nixon goes to China"). But unfortunately, there is the big problem that Pakistan's military decided to "outsource" much of its hardline militancy to the terrorist guerrilla organizations which it cultivated through the ISI. This means that there are others waiting in the wings who are even more hardline than the hawkish Musharraf (ie. the ISI and their jihadi terrorist street muscle). If the Pak army are the Wehrmacht, then the ISI are the even uglier SS. Even the Wehrmacht officers feared the SS.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:RE rules of the game and taxi drivers   10/21/2004 4:44:57 PM
El Cid, I doubt I could impress you guys, we have very different world views and very different philosphies which provide context for policy alternatives: 1. we do not agree on the nature of Islamism. 2. We do not agree on the aims of the Islamists- I tend to view thems as political movement with politically definate aims. I get the impression you see them as apocolyptic cult with cosmological aims. 3. We do not seem to agree on notion of terrorism. I think its strategy- I get the impression that you consider to be an ideology. 4. We do not seem to agree on notion of civilization- for me it is an analyitical category I get the impression for you its purely normative. 4. I believe in the fundamental pluarlism of the world order as a value, I think you feel best order for the world can be provided by 'free' Enron style market and free 'Florid-style' elections. 5. I want a political world with history- I think perhaps you would like a de-politicised world where History has come to an end. 6. I believe a safer world would be one in which America recognizes itself as normal. I suspect you feel that only an America aware of its 'exceptional' nature can secure a safe and just world. Given our different paradigms we cannot resolve our differences by appealing to 'rules of the game' since we are clearly playing different games. Any 'alternative policies' that I suggest would not be strictly alternatives (more like suggesting basketball should be armed with baseball bats...)since the philosphical foundations would be different. I guess it bit like a tourist lost in Manhattan asks a taxi driver how do I get Times Square- the taxi looks him up and replies: 'Well if I was you I would not start from here."
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Musharraf - sanman   10/21/2004 4:56:08 PM
If the Pak army was the wehrmacht- there would be any NATO troops in Afganistan for sure! The problem with calculation Musharraf is S.o.B but he is our S.o.B- that these S.o.B use American power to leverage against the internal opposition and once that oppositon is gone they are no longer 'ours'. Little Musharraffs can become big Saddams... the US support of Musharraf means he can portray any opposition to him as oppostion to the US- which means the opposition feels it may have to become anti-American to get rid of their local thug... shades of the Iranian revolution...
 
Quote    Reply

sanman    RE:Musharraf - sanman   10/21/2004 5:32:27 PM
timon wrote: "I would really love for all of our allies to be Jeffersonian, small "d", democrats. I would be ecstatic if they all allied themselves to us out of altruistic idealism. I don't expect this to happen any time soom. As a mattrer of fact, I don't think it will happen until the Messiah sets foot on the Mount of Olives, walks across the valley to the Temple Mount and puts up a large sign that reads, "Under New Management." Until them, I expect that many allies will have to be bribed and coerced. Pakistan among them." Well, like I said before, when you give support to unhealthy regimes to get rid of other unhealthy regimes, you're only Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. This is also like that Little Old Lady Who Swallowed the Fly. You supported Pakistan/mujahedin/AlQaeda during the war against the Soviets, and now you're suffering from the terrorism emanting from them, as well as Pakistani nuclear proliferation. If you continue to support Pakistan, you're only sewing the seeds for future disasters. So even if the moral dimensions aren't worth your consideration and hesitation, then perhaps the practical consequences might be. I don't see how supporting Musharraf is going to keep Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal out of Islamist hands. Musharraf is one guy, and it only takes one bullet to bring down his regime. Just like Sadat. When you can't even apprehend Osama and AlQaeda as it is, I don't see how you're going to stop them from overthrowing the Pak govt. I can't even see how you're going to stop them from overthrowing the Iraqi govt. You're just going to continue to lose soldiers. The enemy doesn't care if they lose personnel, because they feel they have an unlimited supply. And your defensive posture is only giving them the time to adapt and improve their tactics. Their suicide bombs are getting better, their propaganda is getting better, and they seem to be winning the battle for hearts and minds. They're getting stronger, not weaker. By supporting Pakistan and its defense establishment, you're only fattening up the prize for the jihadis when they ultimately take over.
 
Quote    Reply

sanman    The Hidden Hand   10/21/2004 6:55:36 PM
And of course, let us not forget the hidden lobby that is rooting for the Islamists, even though they may not claim directy membership in the Islamist camp. No, I'm not talking about the liberals, since that's too vague and indirect a term for them. I'm talking about those who were directly liberated from the demise of communism in Eastern Europe, and who consider the Russians as the inheritors of the Soviet Union. People like Dr Zbigniew Brzinski, George Soros and even Madeleine Albright. To them, radical Islam was their friendly liberator from their Russian enemy. And in their Russo-centric focus, the Islamic enemy of their Russian enemy is their Islamic friend. So they will always be critical of the war on terror no matter what. There is no argument you could make to them, that would get them onboard. Because to these ethnologues, US national security is subordinate to their extraterritorialist interest in their East European motherlands. And this type of thing is nothing new in history. Following WW2 for example, Jews who regarded communism as a liberating force from Nazi tyranny were favorably disposed towards the communist bloc. This would even include the Rosenbergs, among others. Likewise, the American revolutionaries who appreciated France's help during their war for independence then had special affinity towards France. So likewise, given the role of AlQaeda and Islamists in defeating the Soviet Union, there's going to be a certain section of the anti-communist crowd that has an indelible soft spot for the jihad crowd. Their presence in the Clinton administration was also part of the reason Clinton never seriously went after AlQaeda during his tenure. I vividly remember that New York Times editorial following the USS Cole and African embassy bombings that urged the US not to make pursuit of AlQaeda a priority at the expense of isolating Afghanistan. Hah, I bet they're not anxious to remember that one.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    In defense of sanman   10/22/2004 5:59:35 AM
While I do not like his attitude, nor agree with his conclusions in re policy, and while I don't think sanman actually advocates any policy that is half as good as the Bush administrations, nevertheless sanman knows his Pakistan. He is substantially correct in his description of its institutions and their histories. I have not been comfortable because I know these things myself. I do not think the Bush team diserves an A for policy. More like a B. It is by no means perfect. But it has made substantial progress and the most critical of our opponents have taken many heavy hits in terms of people, funding, bases, etc. These are not trivial achievements, and if Muchariff is not regarded as a friend, it may well be justified to have allied with him.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:RE rules of the game and taxi drivers   10/22/2004 6:28:56 AM
Thanks for your theory Sork. I am not sure you are wrong in principle either - that we have very different world views. But MAYBE you are wrong about that. What is CERTAIN is that you do not grasp my world view in any significant detail. Your reference to Enron implies that I somehow like corporate corruption and its political connections. It also implies that you think Enron is a symptom of a failed system, and policy. I regard it as quite a good thing. Corruption failed, as it must fail in the long run, and the long hand of the law is resting heavily on the sholders of several of the principles, as it should. I myself have been administrator of a corporation, and I have had to deal with owners and managers who believed that laws and ethics were subject to bending for gain of one sort or another. My experience leads me to believe that law and ethics are good business practice, and the reverse is bad, and ultimately unproductive. I was able to save my company impressive sums by being militant on these matters, and after two years of NOT losing money because of lawsuits, labor disputes, equal opportunity disputes, etc. and increasing profitability because we didn't need to advertise so much as we got more and more referral and repeat business, my owners "converted" and came to believe in good practice too. I am embarassed they believed, not because it was right, but because it was profitable. Nevertheless, what is right really IS profitable, and a sound reason for believing in good corporate governance. Similarly, your reference to Florida style elections is an attempt to say something went wrong in Florida. But I have long been politically active, in several states, in both major and one minor party. I even wrote a state constitution. I think what happened in Florida is a fine testimony to legal and democratic processes, and the outcome was quite proper. Close elections really should involve careful recounts. Disputed recounts really should involve court review. The ultimate authority in a state is its supreme court (by whatever name), and in the end (technially although you won't read this in popular leftist accounts) the Florida Supreme Court made the critical decisions. {The US Surpreme Court gave the State court some guidance, but directed IT to make the decisions, and did NOT say what those decisions had to be. Read the decisions.] If I am embarassed, it is that so many Americans were confused by the political process, and that so many thought Al Gore was a reasonable choice. But as a Jeffersonian, I blame myself, and everyone else who was not able to make the reasons he was unreasonable clear. I do not think we should outlaw contested elections, as, say, CCP believes. I think it is really wrong to characterize Florida as a flaw when, in fact, the errors involved were quite small. And I write as a minority advocate, having been asked to represent minority interests in my own city, because I will not compromise them. I have seen real repression of minorities - illegal segregation on a US Navy ship - and refused to compromise even when threatened with death in that matter. I know what real repression is, and I am offended to hear such charges when they are, in fact, not warranted. I raise a minority child and I absolutely insist on equal treatment. In more international terms, I myself believe in a multipolar world. I was one of those who opposed going into Iraq unilaterally, and in fact, the USA did NOT go in unilaterally. The unhappy UN sideline was something a number of people, including me, insisted on. If there is something wrong with it, it is that the SC did not authorize the operation, not that the US didn't ask. I think the US case was badly presented, and I strongly objected to using the wmd line before the fact. I believed, and still believe, that the 12 years of violations of the armistice was sufficient, and that the credibility and effectiveness of the UN and the SC demanded action, never mind US interests. I knew of French and Russian collusion, but not its extent, and I now believe that the entire process was fatally flawed, because neither was going to go along with exposing its own bad activities, nor the loss of profits. If you want a bad corporation scandle, it is these you should be citing. I do not believe in, advocate, nor wish for a unipolar world. I think, to the extent we have one, it is an accident of history, due more to the collapse of the USSR than to the greatness of the USA. I do not expect it to last. If the EU was able to unify into a country, it would be bigger in every sense than the USA. China is bigger in population and could soon be the third largest economic entity on the planet. [I fear China will collapse and break up as the USSR did, but I do not wish for it. I advocate reform for China in the hope it will, so it WILL become a great power.]. I see Japan as the second greatest power in the world today, and I W
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Musharraf - sanman   10/22/2004 6:31:04 AM
OK Sork - I happen not to like the Pakistani military - and there is practically NO Pak civil government. {there is no public school, for example - most "government" functions in Pak do not exist] So what SHOULD US policy be re Pakistan in the PRESENT situation (2001-2004)???
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Musharraf - sanman   10/22/2004 6:34:35 AM
Sanman - you are unrealistic - and you might not even survive in a really nasty situation. There are times and circumstances when "my enemy's enemy is my ally" is not just a good idea, it may be the only way to survive. I am perfectly willing to adopt a long term policy of promoting democracy - but not instantaneously everywhere simultaneously. We can't afford it. We cannot afford to allow AQ to run amok unchecked either. Start telling us how to limit the damage of AQ and NOT ally with Pakistan????? Go ahead - impress us with your superior policy. If you do, we might be able to do somethign with it. What is BETTER than what we are doing? In the practical, real world sense of better.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics