Who are we actually at war with?

[Nando]

Spun off from another thread to avoid derailment:

and I doubt we will see a Muslim President while we are at war with the Muslim world.

Is the Muslim world entirely really what we're at war with? Just who is the 'enemy' in this day and age?

Discuss.

 

[Falconwing]

Technically we aren't at war with anyone. A war is declared by congress and according to the constitution, war can only be declared against an enemy government.

 

[Big Lutz]

Is the Muslim world entirely really what we're at war with? Just who is the 'enemy' in this day and age?

Discuss.

I mis spoke a bit in trying to condense my post. We are not at war with the entirity of the Muslim World, infact by and large we are trying to help them out of some of their more oppressive regimes. We are how ever at war with part of the Muslim World, the radical sect that desperately wants to kill us.

 

[Nando]

We are how ever at war with part of the Muslim World, the radical sect that desperately wants to kill us.

Could we not expand this to just say "the part of the world that wants to kill us" in that case? Certainly not every person who wants to kill Americans is Muslim.

 

[Jukain]

I will technically go with the "no one" explanation.

 

[Big Lutz]

Could we not expand this to just say "the part of the world that wants to kill us" in that case? Certainly not every person who wants to kill Americans is Muslim.

You know I have heard so many different things being used from "That part of the world" to "Radical Islam" to anything inbetween. Personally I see the two as interchangeable as "That part of the world" is dominated by Islam, and of that it is the radicalized part that wishes us harm.

 

[Satoshi-chan]

Could we not expand this to just say "the part of the world that wants to kill us" in that case? Certainly not every person who wants to kill Americans is Muslim.

Indeed, and I think that's probably why we usually call this the "war on terrorism," because that does lump all the assholes who want to kill us together and doesn't just single out a specific radical sect of any religion/etc.

 

[DragonMaster95]

Well since bush is gone the war is technically over i guess.

 

[Force Fire]

The muslim world, there isn't any. It is just a little fairy tale land Bush made up.

Who are the enemy? Al-Qaeda.

Are they all Muslim? No. Remember that Nigerian man that nearly blew up a plane?

In my opinion, George-son of a-Bush did something to Al Qaeda (or Iraq in that matter) that got them all pissy and formed a cult to kill of America. Hey, they almost pissed of the Koreans.

 

[Nicoleta01]

Who are the enemy? Al-Qaeda.

Are they all Muslim? No. Remember that Nigerian man that nearly blew up a plane?

Um, Muslim isn't a race/group of people. It's a religion and the Underwear Bomber was a Muslim. Al Qaeda is an Islamist organization, who base their beliefs off their interpretation of Islam. Most are Middle-Eastern with a few from Africa and elsewhere.

 

[Big Lutz]

Well since bush is gone the war is technically over i guess.

Yeah because WW2 ended when FDR died, Vietnam ended when LBJ left the White House right?

Are they all Muslim? No. Remember that Nigerian man that nearly blew up a plane?

Al Qaeda is a Muslim Group, and yeah, the guy was Muslim.

In my opinion, George-son of a-Bush did something to Al Qaeda (or Iraq in that matter) that got them all pissy and formed a cult to kill of America. Hey, they almost pissed of the Koreans.

That would truly be a amazing feet, seeing how al Qaeda was formed in the early 90s, and was planning 9/11 since the mid 90s. And that Iraq was pissy at us since the western world defeated them in the first Gulf War and drew up the conditions of ending the war.

 

[evkl]

I think this is actually telling:

I mis spoke a bit in trying to condense my post. We are not at war with the entirity of the Muslim World, infact by and large we are trying to help them out of some of their more oppressive regimes.

(emphasis mine)

Do you really think it should be a policy goal of the United States of America to stop repressive regimes wherever we are? Moreover, do you actually believe that it's such an important goal that we should spend nearly a trillion dollars on the endeavor in the past 10 years? That same trillion is approximately the cost of a health care bill that would provide insurance to approximately 97% of all Americans. It would also be about half the cost of a massive infrastructure overhaul spending program designed to fortify roads, bridges, our water and energy system, etc. And we've only invaded two countries!

That seems like very, very dangerous policy thinking to me.

 

[Big Lutz]

Do you really think it should be a policy goal of the United States of America to stop repressive regimes wherever we are? Moreover, do you actually believe that it's such an important goal that we should spend nearly a trillion dollars on the endeavor in the past 10 years? That same trillion is approximately the cost of a health care bill that would provide insurance to approximately 97% of all Americans. It would also be about half the cost of a massive infrastructure overhaul spending program designed to fortify roads, bridges, our water and energy system, etc. And we've only invaded two countries!

That seems like very, very dangerous policy thinking to me.

And it is also the cost of one failed Stimulus bill. But lets not act as if that was the only reason we went into Iraq and Afghanistan that would be beyond stupid. And no I do not think that toppling oppressive regimes through military force should be the goal of the United States, as there are just too many to exist.

But lets also not kid ourselves in that Saddam and the Taliban represented some of the worst in repressive and brutal regimes in the Middle East. Some of the worst, and that their destruction is a good thing not only to the Middle East but to the world as a whole.

 

[TTEchidna]

And we toppled them. The end, great, let's get out and move on with our lives.

Except that we haven't left Germany and Japan, even, despite it having been nearly 70 years since we did so there, too, and of course, with them having great democracies since then.

I mean, really... how would you feel if we elected a President who turned out to be the biggest asshole of all time, started taking things over left and right, and blah blah blah. Would you welcome external help to depose a dictator? Duh. Would you want that external help to then babysit you until the end of the world, just in case you're not smart enough to elect a good leader? What if the French stayed here in the US after the Revolution, to "make sure" our system was working, essentially turning us into another colony of theirs.

 

[evkl]

But lets also not kid ourselves in that Saddam and the Taliban represented some of the worst in repressive and brutal regimes in the Middle East. Some of the worst, and that their destruction is a good thing not only to the Middle East but to the world as a whole.

This is true. And I'll even grant you that maybe we needed to invade Afghanistan because surgical strikes wouldn't displace a pseudo-nation-state from which large-scale attacks on America could be launched. But even with foresight Iraq seemed like not a great idea. And in hindsight it's just been an absolute quagmire for our country. I'll ask again: do you believe it should be the policy position of the government of the United States to topple especially evil or repressive regimes?

If so, why have we completely ignored the Saudis? (Well, it's because of oil.) Why aren't we in North Korea? China? Some of the post-Soviet states? A bunch of African dictatorships or lawless states, like Somalia?

 

[Big Lutz]

This is true. And I'll even grant you that maybe we needed to invade Afghanistan because surgical strikes wouldn't displace a pseudo-nation-state from which large-scale attacks on America could be launched.

Well good atleast we agree with that.

But even with foresight Iraq seemed like not a great idea. And in hindsight it's just been an absolute quagmire for our country.

I will give you that pre Surge, it could be called a Quagmire in Iraq for the US. But, not so in the past 3 and a half years. The Iraqi Government has reconciled, the Iraqis are now in control of most if not all of our country, Iraqi Troops are trained and taking control of the country themselves. And the Insurgency and Terrorists are a shadow of their former selves. And US Troops are withdrawing as per the 2008 US/Iraqi Troop Withdrawl agreement. That isn't a quagmire that is victory.

And in hindsight, the justification to going in should be even stronger. Can you imagine what the world would be like today with Saddam still in place? There is no way in hell he would have allowed his most hated enemy conduct a nuclear weapons program. Just as he tried before, he would have done everything possible to conduct a nuclear weapons program on his own. Thus we would not just be dealing with one oppressive psychopathic nation with nukes. We would be dealing with two.

I'll ask again: do you believe it should be the policy position of the government of the United States to topple especially evil or repressive regimes?

Through military force? No. As we do not have the resources to do so. Through economic sanctions, and possibly even funding of militants that could topple such regimes? Yes. Infact I would say that it should be the policy position of every major free nation that can help, not just the United States. To allow such suffering and evil to go on, and to do nothing about it, is akin to being a pedestrian and seeing a rape happen and to continue on.

If so, why have we completely ignored the Saudis? (Well, it's because of oil.) Why aren't we in North Korea? China? Some of the post-Soviet states? A bunch of African dictatorships or lawless states, like Somalia?

As we do not have the resources to topple all of those regimes. I would love to go replace the regimes in all of those nations, but it is fundamentally impossible for the US to do so alone.

 

[hurristat]

I really think that all the wars were and are unnecessary, and all have been since World War II.

 

[Big Lutz]

I really think that all the wars were and are unnecessary, and all have been since World War II.

Even the war in Afghanistan? Against a enemy that has shown they could and will strike at the United States, while working with a brutal regime that would kill women or sell them off to be sex slaves if they are found walking in public with out a man at their side?

 

[evkl]

Lutz, there's a difference between a war turning out okay (Iraq apparently as it stands today) and a war being 'worth it.' I can very much imagine a world with Saddam. Saddam kept Iran in check and is no worse than Kim Jong Il. We are not the world police. Iraq was a bad idea.

Also, if we can fund militant groups to destabilize countries, why can't nations like Iran fund militant groups to destabilize us?

 

[Big Lutz]

Lutz, there's a difference between a war turning out okay (Iraq apparently as it stands today) and a war being 'worth it.' I can very much imagine a world with Saddam. Saddam kept Iran in check and is no worse than Kim Jong Il.

He did? Is that why Iran had a nuclear weapons program while Saddam existed? Granted it was in its infancy stages but they were starting it up. As for being no worse. Iran was heading toward a nuclear weapons program, Saddam would not allow for his enemy to have such a program with out him also having one. As for North Korea, I am sure we can go through and compare them side by side, with the horrors both countries have wrought on its people. But we did not go into Iraq on just humanitarian purposes alone.

We are not the world police.

Some one apparently has to be.

Iraq was a bad idea.

That is a opinion...

Also, if we can fund militant groups to destabilize countries, why can't nations like Iran fund militant groups to destabilize us?

They have, well not in the United States, but Iran had a direct hand in making Iraq the hell hole that it was in 04 - 06, so much so they offered Britain the opportunity to stop destabilizing Iraq.