that's because you take too long to post.
Reading through your responses again you make assumptions regarding my stance that simply are not true, I am not "Gung-Ho" or however you put it. I however see that what we did in the past has bore this fruit you speak of. Yes we backed the very people we are now fighting in Afghanistan and it would be easy and short sighted to say this however without mentioning the Cold War ramifications of the past.
You speak to the west's involvment in the ME as the sole cause, as if radical Islam does not attack its own, as if Bin Laden for example states in his letter to America that Clinton gettin a hummer is one of the reasons they attack us, and for them to stop, we must "come to Islam"...
There are many factors involved here, what I see a lack of however in your posts is the level of culpability of the other side. Perhaps you can speak to that as well.
As for you quoting my response to 10, this simply was a like response to her statement:
See you asked me how I "try not to do that".... lets re-read my statment:Everything we've done since all this began has strengthened our enemy, rather than weakening it.
Originally Posted by The Good Reverend
note the bolded part. I try not to call people out over emotions, or make baseless
accusations against other posters. I look for evidence before I call them out as prevaricators or anti-america, or anything else.
her post was a clear baseline for my astute response to her in kind.
Regarding your ad-hominen response:
Hell, I'm still waiting on you to offer an idea that consists of more than three sentences and doesn't involve criticizing someone else for not fixing the Middle East.
I believe this would be false. I have stated in more than "3 sentences", over and over again, like you that we need to "take it to the terrorists". I have also explained in detail how a mini cold war with the UN, france, germany, over iraqi oil and the worlds largest embezzlement scheme helped set the stage for the players in this war to come together.
I have also offered solutions in the past, and I see progress in Iraq, I see this war as winding down, I have friends serving in both theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. I see victory. I agree with Obama that more troops are needed in afghanistan......
More troops were needed on both fronts, Bush did not do this. A better strategy, IMO of a massive occupation would have shortened this war. There are many things we could have done better, the solution to islamic terrorist organizations though should work like this.
Countries that harbor terrorists organizations should not be considered soverign, meaning that we should, could, and would land forces and support anywhere we deem it neccesary for the security of our people. Bush gave lip service to this. however he did not follow through. I am worried that Obama's assured pull back will only embolden the enemy at this point.
Which this latter is your position, that we can't go around bombing the ME or some such policy of non-engagment. At this point that would be disasterous for the peoples of the ME, give carte blanche to the savage terrorists to create talibans, and other extreme forms of government, and a safe haven for those who would do us harm., This is no solution.
Regarding the poor plight of the enemy. IIRC many of the 911 terrorists were highly educated. this is in stark contrast to your seemingly claim of poor uneducated people indoctrinated into islamic terrorism..
Now I am no mathematician, but I count more than 3 sentences....