At War

[lowracer]

Drilling through Glass

Does anyone know if it is possible to drill for oil through a sheet of warm glass? I've googled for this and have yet to come up with any definitive source.

I think there are precedents here for eminent domain. Since we are the worlds only superpower, We take that right as self-evident. Stop testing nukes in computer simulations like geeks and wimps. Nuke all Islamic-controlled sands till they glaze over, claim the land as U.S. territory, then call out Halliburton to drill drill drill and pump pump pump. If the Russians and Chinese complain, we cut them in on the oil in a 3-way split, which makes them happy and they look the other way. If the E.U. complains, we tell them to shut up, we've had enough of their crap back in WWI and WWII. No one would want the mid-east territory for anything else, for one it's a stinking desert and for another, it'll be uninhabitable for a good while after the dust settles.

Side benefit is that we rid our arsenals of the old and decaying nuclear warheads, stock up on some new improved ones to replace them, and gasoline drops back to 80 cents a gallon where it should be and I can buy a bigger SUV and drive it more, maybe an RV to see more of this great land, do some camping, maybe some hunting or fishing.

While the middle eastern sands are still hot, outlaw Islam in the USA. Make it a crime punishable by death to believe anything but Christianity and while we're at it let's decide on only one flavor of that religion as well and make the others illegal. Pick the currently most popular flavor or the easiest to follow, doesn't really matter, and either exterminate or convert the heretics. Think of what a great superpower we could be with the mid-east oil at our disposal, and strengthened under a unified system of belief. Friends with the Russians and Chinese at last, we could and should rule the world.

Great nations have fallen because they failed to take the initiative while they still could. Remember the Spanish Armada? The great and invincible British Navy? Once powerful, now just history.

Strike now.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"White Guilt"? That The New Catch Phrase?

"Europe's halls of internationalism would suddenly open to us." What ever for and why would we care?

"(thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old)." We threw off that yolk about 140 years ago.

It's just that today the United States cannot go to war in the Third World simply to defeat a dangerous enemy. Yes we can. We're doing it. Sit back and watch.

"And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past." Again, we're not part of any "avaricious white supremacist past". Look up the Nazis of WW II if you want to explore the proclivities of white supremacy.

"Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so." A victory of rhetoric the left in this country must be SO proud of!

Know the grounds upon which we fight, know the fanaticism of the enemy, and deal. The enemy are cowards dressed in civilian garb, masquerading as women when convenient to them, and are women, and children. View them as the enemy. That is all they are. If you want to win any war with these people, utter inhalation of all those bent to the extremist goals of this "jihad" is the only acceptable end. Anything less will ensure it will last until the purge(inhalation) takes place.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[gc70]

by shootinstudent:
Right, you posted a list of Islamic countries that radicals would like to control.

No. I posted a list of countries that impose elements of Islamic or Shar'ia law on their populations. That is a fact of those countries' legal systems, not an aspiration of some radicals.

by shootinstudent:
My point is that the idea that these nuts want to go to Sweden and force them all to pray is untrue. There's no "conquer the world for Islam!" plan, and the conflicts bear that out.

This is not about "nuts" or radicals. Again, my point is that "when Muslims are in the majority in a country, they want to impose their religious beliefs or value systems on the entire country."

With the exception of some of the former Soviet republics, nearly every nation with a Muslim majority (and some with only dominant minorities) has imposed elements of Islamic or Shar'ia law on their populations. That is not what some nuts or radicals want to do - that is an observed fact in a large number of countries.

Is there some reason that good Muslims should not want Islamic or Shar'ia law imposed in their countries?

And is there any reason that good Muslims in Europe or America would not want the same thing if they could get it?

by shootinstudent:
I think the claim that terrorists are trying to force us all to convert to islam by terrorism is mainly used to sell the war on terror as a war that can be made on any country at any time which has a significant muslim population or problems with radicalism.

It's not about the terrorists, ...... it's about the religion.

Whenever a country has a significant Muslim population, those good Muslims want to "improve" matters. And religion and the State are not separate in Islam.

 

[shootinstudent]

In a classic guerilla war if the insurgents are seen as responsible for wide spread destruction, the murder of innocents, and the crippling of the country they will lose any popular support.

That's sure worked well in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Chechnya. Oh wait...people tend to blame the party dropping the bombs on their homes, regardless of why the bombs are being dropped. This is a very simple concept.

When Osama Bin Laden attacked the US, Americans did not get furious at their government and at US citizens for drawing the ire of terrorists. There is no reason to believe middle easterners will do the opposite if their cities are attacked.

No. I posted a list of countries that impose elements of Islamic or Shar'ia law on their populations. That is a fact of those countries' legal systems, not an aspiration of some radicals.

Not the relevant point. They are mostly not controlled by the radical parties, but those are places (where Shariah is already incorporated into the law) that they want to control. Like you've pointed out, they do not express any real interest in making all Americans pray five times a day like they do. They are inherently isolationist, but they picture an isolated Islamic state comprised of all former Islamic territories.

Whenever a country has a significant Muslim population, those good Muslims want to "improve" matters. And religion and the State are not separate in Islam

This is not accurate. There is no "Islamic government" that's required of Muslims. This is a myth that's been propogated mainly by radicals, reciting the mantra "Islam is both religion and government!", even though it appears nowhere in their holy texts or authoritative writings.

Most muslim countries are not theocracies. Iran is the only exception. There's a difference between a state that takes account of religion, and a state with no separation between religion and government.

But certainly, the radicals who do want theocracy are gaining ground...how are more bombs going to slow that down?

 

[jungle]

How is more bombing going to slow that down?

I can't determine the exact outcome, but it will certainly be more effective than more talking about the fine points of Muslim religous theory.

 

[shootinstudent]

I can't determine the exact outcome, but it will certainly be more effective than more talking about the fine points of Muslim religous theory.

If you can't determine the exact outcome, then how do you know it won't be worse than doing nothing?

Like, for example, how destroying afghanistan's infrastructure led to the rise of radicalism...and how you can watch the same thing happening in Iraq right now.

Seems to me bombing should be something that has a reasonably predictable result. It's somehow strange to me to think it might be a good idea to start killing lots of people without any reasonable idea as to what the result of that killing will be.

 

[Fletchette]

What war? The USA hasn't declared war since WWII.

And I think that's part of the problem. You can't properly fight a war if you haven't the nerve to declare one. That lack of nerve may very well be the result of the "white guilt" indicated in the first post. Maybe it's that WWII was indeed SO destructive and SO deadly that, as a societal "subconcious", we are desperately trying to not go there again. Wiping out whole cities, from carpet bombing to nukes, is anathema to the leading culture of freedom, individualism, and democracy - but we will if we have to, and wars since WWII haven't fallen into the "we have to" category.

Bingo.

 

[gc70]

by shootinstudent:
There is no "Islamic government" that's required of Muslims. This is a myth that's been propogated mainly by radicals, reciting the mantra "Islam is both religion and government!", even though it appears nowhere in their holy texts or authoritative writings.

I did not say that there was a specific, prescribed structure for "Islamic government" and your suggestion to the contrary reflects gross misunderstanding or deliberate misdirection on your part.

"Islamic government" means that Islamic law or Shar'ia must be the base on which government is built.

Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is subservient to the Divine Law and exercises its authority in accordance with the injunctions of Allah and within the limits prescribed by Him.

However, the law in an Islamic form of government is secondary to the Islamic shari’a(basic Islamic Law) which gives the ultimate frame of reference. Thus, any legal rights should not contradict the fundamental teachings of Islam.

While both of the above quotes are from Islamic learning sites, here is an analysis from another "radical" source - the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Religion and the State are not separated in Islam. Hence Mohammedan jurisprudence, civil and criminal, is mainly based on the Koran and on the "Traditions".

by shootinstudent:
Most muslim countries are not theocracies.

There is no need for a formal theocracy when Islamic law or Shar'ia is the basis for whatever form of government will exist.

 

[shootinstudent]

"Islamic government" means that Islamic law or Shar'ia must be the base on which government is built.

Right, and I'm saying there's no such proposition in the religious texts or authoritative comments on the religious texts. Some groups have decided that this must be the case, but it's not an inherent feature of the religion.

While both of the above quotes are from Islamic learning sites, here is an analysis from another "radical" source - the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Look at the publication date on that Catholic Encyclopedia. It's not the best source of information for comparative religion.

There is no need for a formal theocracy when Islamic law or Shar'ia is the basis for whatever form of government will exist

One serious problem for this theory is that there is no one "Shariah." The above is more accurate to what mainstream religious Muslims would say, I believe, in that it's best to have a government that does not contradict the teachings of their religion...that's a much different thing from having a government which operates primarily upon religious law.

 

[jungle]

Shootingstudent, You seem to be a big fan of muslim culture and religion. I'm not, but then that may be because I have lived in Muslim countries for 18 months.
Their contribution to the current world arts, culture , medicine, philosophy, technology and manufacturing is nil.
They sit on some oil that westerners have shown them how to pump out of the ground.
Large aircraft stopped hitting large buildings after we started bombing. They will find it very expensive to continue on the current path.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Muslims in church.

From: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1053


Allah Takes Over Church
From the desk of Paul Belien on Sun, 2006-05-07 11:40

The Belgian Bishops have opened their churches to illegal immigrants in order to pressurize the Belgian authorities to allow the immigrants to stay in the country.

Most of the immigrant squatters in the churches are Muslims. They display banners in the church showing the name of Allah (picture taken in the church of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Brussels).

church-allah-1.jpg (go to article link for the pictures.)

The Belgian Bishops are so ignorant that they do not see what is going on: their churches are being turned into mosques before their very eyes.

curch-allah-2.jpg

The Muslim squatters hold Islamic prayer services in the church. The altar has been moved and the statue of Our Lady covered by a cloth to hide her from the eyes of the Muslim believers.

church-allah-3.jpg

The squatters are living in the churches. "Church occupations" by illegal immigrants have been going on for a number of years in Belgium. They are not really "occupations" because the Bishops condone the actions and actively support them. Chris Gillibrand visited a number of Brussels churches to take these pictures.

The squatters live in tents in the churches. The tents are being provided by Catholic relief organisations. They have also been offered radios, television sets and computers.





Chris saw them light a fire. We apologize for the poor quality of the photo. The man was quite aggressive. Aggression in desecrated churches that are being turned into mosques with the approval of Cardinal Godfried Danneels. This is Brussels, AD 2006.

 

[Fletchette]

Two things that I believe that perhaps the American population has a hard time living with:

1) War is sometimes absolutely necessary, even if the enemy isn't a few miles from your house.

2) When we go to war our government protocals must be followed. The President must ask Congress for a Declaration of War and Congress must approve it if we are to go to war. Since we have not actually declared war since WWII we have had major political problems at home that has adversely affected our country.

As for the Muslim/Western World conflict specifically, I think we are going to have a large war whether we like it or not. This is simply based on the fact that there are way too many people living in the Middle East than that region can naturally support. The only reason so many people live there now is that their corrupt governments can export oil and import food, medicine or anything else they need, giving just enough to the populace to allow them to reproduce. Once the oil stops flowing from the Middle East (even if we have oil in other parts of the world) there will be no way to support these people, many of which are already living in poverty.

Mass starvation has a way of making people do irrational things. Add Wahhabism and things get interesting.

 

[shootinstudent]

Shootingstudent, You seem to be a big fan of muslim culture and religion. I'm not, but then that may be because I have lived in Muslim countries for 18 months.

I am a big fan, but maybe that's because I've lived with Muslims and their families for five years or so.

Large aircraft stopped hitting large buildings after we started bombing. They will find it very expensive to continue on the current path.

Yeah, them arabs is so scared of americans they wouldn't dare hurt an american....

Then it's a mystery to me who's doing all the attacking in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a longer interval between WTC attack 1 and September 11th than there's been between 2001 and now. This proposition simply does not wash, but I don't think the logic of it is what matters to you. What matters to you seems to be this:

Their contribution to the current world arts, culture , medicine, philosophy, technology and manufacturing is nil.
They sit on some oil that westerners have shown them how to pump out of the ground.

Well, I guess the "undesirables" don't have as great a right to live as we do?

The fact that you believe they don't contribute anything to the culture, arts, and medicine you're so concerned with has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's acceptable to kill them.

 

[jungle]

I don't really mind if they want to set the calender back 400 years and oppress their own people. I don't consider that undesirable along with the other qualities I mentioned.
What I do consider undesirable is their eagerness to kill Americans in order to attempt to make us see things their way. They foster the American satan in their schools and mosques, and they encourage actions against the EU and the USA.
Are they all terrorists? No, but they had best clean house before we have to get down to the task of sorting them all out.
I really don't think an attempt to understand an insane death cult religious nutcase or reason with same is going to get us anywhere.
When enough Saifs and Abduls don't return to the village after their great Jihad the message will start to sink in for their brothers.

 

[shootinstudent]

Are they all terrorists? No, but they had best clean house before we have to get down to the task of sorting them all out.
I really don't think an attempt to understand an insane death cult religious nutcase or reason with same is going to get us anywhere.
When enough Saifs and Abduls don't return to the village after their great Jihad the message will start to sink in for their brothers.

Again, so your theory seems to be that if we kill enough of these people, the rest of them will just want to leave us alone in response, and conclude that the US is not the great satan, or at least that it's not worth fighting?

This is a proven failure. The russians killed a million afghans, and that didn't take the fight out of them. We killed a couple million vietnamese...that didn't take the fight out of them.

So why then is your idea now: "Kill lots of people from these places, and they won't fight anymore"?

 

[jungle]

And your idea is to live with them in harmony no matter how many terrorist atrocities they commit against Americans and their own people?

As a student of warfare you have missed quite a few points about past campaigns, but I don't have the time or inclination to educate you. If you think it's bad now for your Muslim friends, just wait and see what the next decade brings.
They have made violence a way of life and they will be repaid many times over just as they have been in the past and just as they are as we talk about it.

What they have gotten in the last five years is exactly what they have asked for and almost what they deserve. No sane man wants war, but no sane man refuses to fight when he is forced to.

 

[shootinstudent]

What they have gotten in the last five years is exactly what they have asked for and almost what they deserve. No sane man wants war, but no sane man refuses to fight when he is forced to.

Yeah, except the "they" is not all one voice here speaking in unison.

Does some widow in Iraq who never supported Saddam, terrorism, or wanted anything but to feed her kids deserve to be in the middle of this?

Who was "asking for" attacks? Terrorists, whom you acknowledge are not most of the population? Does that mean the rest of the populations of these countries deserve any attacks that come their way, because of what some minority group in their society "asked for"?

As a student of warfare you have missed quite a few points about past campaigns, but I don't have the time or inclination to educate you. If you think it's bad now for your Muslim friends, just wait and see what the next decade brings.

I'll be watching closely, for sure. Can I count on you to oppose attacks on my Muslim friends, none of whom have anything to do with terrorism?

 

[jungle]

That is why I have suggested that good Muslims everywhere clean house and refuse to support or stand by in silence when religious leaders advocate violence as a means of destroying the west and it's philosophy of freedom.
Innocents will always die in every war, the blood is on the hands of those who advocate violence in the name of religion not those who defend freedom.
You know as well as I that the fundamentalists are not very worldly, don't bother to try and tolerate other cultures and have no qualms about killing to make a point about religion.
I will kill you because you don't respect the God I have conjured up-I mean this in the kindest way, but do you know how stupid that sounds?

There is a large and beautiful mosque in Washington, DC, and there are many large and beautiful mosques throughout the US. Show me the Temples and Churches in the Muslim countries in the Middle East and then we may begin to discuss tolerance.

 

[shootinstudent]

There is a large and beautiful mosque in Washington, DC, and there are many large and beautiful mosques throughout the US. Show me the Temples and Churches in the Muslim countries in the Middle East and then we may begin to discuss tolerance.

Okay, I didn't think we had discussed tolerance, but now I'm confused.

I asked if I could count on you to oppose attacks on my muslim friends "when things get much worse", as you said they would.

Your answer is what?

That you won't, because in other countries with Muslim dictators, there aren't any big churches? That's the same thing as saying: I don't care if anyone attacks you, because you follow the same religion as some dictator who doesn't allow churches to be built.

How is that any less insane than:

I will kill you because you don't respect the God I have conjured up-I mean this in the kindest way, but do you know how stupid that sounds?

 

[jungle]

I don't know your muslim friends, but it appears that you are asking for tolerance and yet at the same time the muslim culture is unwilling to offer any at all.

As I said before, the blood is all on the hands of those who preach religious violence, if your friends tolerate or accept that then I wouldn't count on too much help. There is a tremendous difference between attacking someone as a nonbeliever and tolerating violence and oppression when compared to a people that have accepted and lived peacefully with muslims in their own country for decades.
Nobody is going to kill them for not allowing a Temple in Tehran, but they will be killed if they threaten our way of life or demand that we live by their rules. Which is the problem with the fundamentalist of any religion, they cannot accept anyone else.

Shukran Mas sallam.

 

[RiverwinoIA]

I don't know your muslim friends, but it appears that you are asking for tolerance and yet at the same time the muslim culture is unwilling to offer any at all.

hmmmm, who does that sound like... MEXICO.

double standards... guilt mechanisms...

we (western society) are getting crapped all over. And we are supposed to like it. That story i read of the "what if" was quite chilling. A bit extreme perhaps... but i understood where he was coming from.

multiculturalism is not comfortable. people dont like those that are different. its a fact of life (im not talking strictly color here as i have black friends, im talking cultures and belief systems). deny it all you want... its built into your primal instincts. Those from poor countries will tolerate it (not well, as they want us to compromise) because its better than being at home. I have no idea why we are tolerating it.
I bet many of these asylum seekers secretly laugh at the stupid white man behind our backs. They would never allow hordes of foreigners to march into their homelands and demand anything. But, as the article says, they are not burdened by "white guilt". they dont feel they owe anything to anyone. In fact it seems they feel "brown righteousness", as if they are owed something just because they were born in a poor/uncivilized place.

 

[shootinstudent]

I don't know your muslim friends, but it appears that you are asking for tolerance and yet at the same time the muslim culture is unwilling to offer any at all.

So because you don't know these particular muslims personally, it's alright to judge them and punish them (or allow them to be punished) according to what your idea is of "their culture" and what it allows?

Nobody is going to kill them for not allowing a Temple in Tehran, but they will be killed if they threaten our way of life or demand that we live by their rules. Which is the problem with the fundamentalist of any religion, they cannot accept anyone else.

Yeah, except that you're talking about punishing individuals who do not harm anyone based on the actions of terrorists who do. That is the problem above...so if "things get worse", like you say, you're perfectly willing to look the other way on killing individuals who aren't terrorists, because "their culture doesn't show tolerance"?

I'd hate to think of what I might be held guilty of based on what "american culture" does or does not do.

 

[Fletchette]

Yeah, except the "they" is not all one voice here speaking in unison.

Does some widow in Iraq who never supported Saddam, terrorism, or wanted anything but to feed her kids deserve to be in the middle of this?

Who was "asking for" attacks? Terrorists, whom you acknowledge are not most of the population? Does that mean the rest of the populations of these countries deserve any attacks that come their way, because of what some minority group in their society "asked for"?

This is a fundamental injustice of war. However, the fact that innocents will get killed is not a justifiable arguement for pacifism as innocents will also get killed if we do nothing. Reality is not perfect.

Again, using WWII as the model for a "good war" there were many innocent Germans and Japanese that did not support their respective governments who suffered greatly during the war. However, most people agree that had we not gone to war the world would have suffered even more.

The question is the same for the current conflict: will going to war now make the world a better place than it is now than if we do nothing?

 

[shootinstudent]

Again, using WWII as the model for a "good war" there were many innocent Germans and Japanese that did not support their respective governments who suffered greatly during the war. However, most people agree that had we not gone to war the world would have suffered even more.

The question is the same for the current conflict: will going to war now make the world a better place than it is now than if we do nothing?

Very good question, and here's the distinction as I see it:

In world war II, you had clearly defined enemies represented by governments, and to stop those enemies, it was obvious to all involved what to do. We didn't expect World War II to silence every pro-Nazi faction in the world (it didn't) or to end anti-semitism as we know it (it didn't.) We stopped a German war machine, and that was it.

But if you take a look at the "war on terror", people want to end all terrorist incidents, end "muslim intolerance" (whatever that might mean), and all kinds of other attitudes. Wars should not be fought over attitudes, because they are not tangible things, and you will end up having no clue what specific goal you are fighting for in an extremely short period of time (as is already happening with the war on terror.)

I think a more appropriate question is: "Which country should we go to war with and what is the specific, tangible result we seek to achieve?"

If you want to invade a country like Afghanistan to capture bin laden and dismantle terror training camps, that's one thing. Making war on "their hatred of freedom" by invading whichever country seems most conveniently prepped for an invasion is an entirely different thing.

How on earth can you expect a good result from "things getting worse" with respect to unnamed countries, over "their culture's problem with intolerance"? Is it worth killing an unspecified number of innocent people to achieve a goal that isn't even clearly defined in the dictionary, much less defined by tangible circumstances on the ground?

 

[Fletchette]

I think a more appropriate question is: "Which country should we go to war with and what is the specific, tangible result we seek to achieve?"

I agree. This is why I am against esoteric "wars"; ie. the "War on Drugs", the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Terror". We should have actually declared war according to the Constitution on the nation that is responsible for our grievance. My choice would have been Saudi Arabia. It is possible that we could have justly declared war on other nations as well (just like we went to war against Italy due to their solidarity with Germany) but it would still require a Declaration of War.

Also, we should be cognizant of the flipside of this strategy - if Congress votes 'no' on a Declaration of War than we do not invade other countries.

When you think about it, it really isn't all that complicated; our Founders figured out all of this and wrote it down. What we lack is leadership and resolve.