The War on Terror is THE Issue!

[bishopnl]

Would to God we would have interfered with the internal affairs of Germany in the 1930's as they violated the Versailles treaty time and time again. 60 muillion people could've been spared!

Woodrow Wilson sacrificed every good point about the Treaty of Versailles to get his League of Nations. So maybe you should be saying "Would to God we'd have kept our noses out of entangling European alliances."

Do you really believe that the Islamofascists would be content to leave us alone if we even built a concrete wall around our country?

They might be content to leave us alone if we pulled our military bases out of their holy land, stopped trying to meddle in their internal affairs, and stopped trying to force them to like us at the point of a gun. They're Muslims. Let them kill themselves...why should we be over there at all?

We stay out of a lot of nations business. But when nations threaten our way of life or bring instability to the world or allow terrorism and despotism to run amok, we can no longer stand idly by.

We don't stay out of a lot of nations business.

And of those nations you are referring to...we gave weapons and training to Afghan rebels to fight against the USSR...we gave Saddam cash and intelligence...and we knew, at the time, that those groups were evil and untrustworthy. You are talking about standing idly by...for years, America was supporting these groups! The training they got from us they've passed down and are now using against us.

Again...they're Muslims. Let them kill themselves. What is it to America if their countries are run by radicals and despots? If we stopped inserting ourselves, they'd happily be killing each other, or maybe Israel would unleash a few nukes and kill them or something. My point is, what is any of that to America?

[H2H]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

Out of the abundance of the HEART, the fingers typeth!

Not sure if I mistyped or if someone is playing with the post....

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

What you and most of the American sheeple don't get is that it was America's foreign policy in the Middle East over the previous 50 years that led Muslim terrorists to retaliate!

That's just an excuse. Islam has been spreading all over the world via violence and political take over long before there was an America. We have had MORE security now than in the past, yet it has only been very small groups that even attempted something in the US like in 93, before that it was just military targets of OTHER groups wanting to take over an area like Lebannon...

Muslim "terrorists" never needed an excuse to "retaliate"

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by H2H

Not sure if I mistyped or if someone is playing with the post....

Now I think they are playing. I hate that. It is so annoying.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

They believe this way because of more than 50 years of America butting its nose in the Middle East.

BTW, this butting in is not completely accurate either. Sure we have butted in in some areas but consider that us being allies to any nation might be opposed by some minority group. Us being allies with Pakistan has made the extremists there more full of hate. Wanting to help Lebanon was received by many and opposed by many. Being allies with the Arabs is received by many and opposed by many and on and on and on.

Butting in in the first gulf war was received by many and opposed by many.

Yes, the extremists that want themselves to take over the middle east would that we NOT be there at all in any capacity...The extremists in the Philippines don't want us there.

The North Koreans don't want us in South Korea and there are south Koreans that don't want us there, but there are South Koreans that DO want us there. They WANT our help...

So while some Muslims might see it as butting in, others do not. There are many in Iran that wished we were allies with OUT trying to dictate to them...yes they would want us there in some form and there are others that would want us out.

They wanted us in Afghanistan back in the Cold War....Some wanted us there after 9/11...some want us there now...and some want us out. Muslims they are

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

Actually, in explaining the appeal of Osama Bin Laden to fundamentalist Muslims, the 9/11 Commission Report actually lists his grievances against the West, starting with American military bases on holy ground in Saudi Arabia, and US enforcement of UN sanctions following the first Gulf War. So it's not all about I-S-R-A-E-L. Perhaps a more in depth study of Islam would help you to understand that. It's part of it, to be sure, but a much bigger part is the fact that we've stepped in time and again, placing our military bases in the Middle East on Islamic holy ground, forbidding them to do activities we ourselves were engaging in, and arming them and training them to fight communists even when we knew they were irrational, evil maniacs. At one time we were equipping "insurgents" in Afghanistan like Al-Quaeda to fight the USSR...now they've turned on us, and we act like they've hated us all along. You've been citing history...perhaps a better historical example is the CIA's support of Iranian rebels in overthrowing their democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, in the 1950's.

Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina. Though I think even this is partly an excuse...who is funding these extremists?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW, this butting in is not completely accurate either. Sure we have butted in in some areas but consider that us being allies to any nation might be opposed by some minority group. Us being allies with Pakistan has made the extremists there more full of hate. Wanting to help Lebanon was received by many and opposed by many. Being allies with the Arabs is received by many and opposed by many and on and on and on.

Think "entangling alliances." Some of the founding fathers warned against that sort of thing.

Butting in in the first gulf war was received by many and opposed by many.

Yes, I know: I was there. It was still unconstitutional.

Yes, the extremists that want themselves to take over the middle east would that we NOT be there at all in any capacity...The extremists in the Philippines don't want us there.

I agree that the government of the United States shouldn't be butting its nose in the internal affairs of other nations. Trade with them, be congenial toward them but stay out of their business.

The North Koreans don't want us in South Korea and there are south Koreans that don't want us there, but there are South Koreans that DO want us there. They WANT our help...

Greece wanted our help when it was fighting for independence in the 1800s but we rightly stayed out of it.

So while some Muslims might see it as butting in, others do not. There are many in Iran that wished we were allies with OUT trying to dictate to them...yes they would want us there in some form and there are others that would want us out.

The fact of the matter is that there are extremists who are retaliating against the United States because of our butting in (and I don't mean by our supporting Israel, though that's part of it).

They wanted us in Afghanistan back in the Cold War....Some wanted us there after 9/11...some want us there now...and some want us out. Muslims they are

We helped put the Taliban into power and what did they do? They supported Osama bin Laden. Again, our foreign policy in the Middle East over the last 50 or so years is coming back to haunt us as Muslim extremists are choosing to retaliate.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's just an excuse. Islam has been spreading all over the world via violence and political take over long before there was an America. We have had MORE security now than in the past, yet it has only been very small groups that even attempted something in the US like in 93, before that it was just military targets of OTHER groups wanting to take over an area like Lebannon...

Muslim "terrorists" never needed an excuse to "retaliate"

More security and less liberty! Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little security don't deserve to have either one! And, no, retaliation is not "just an excuse."

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Not necessarily good decisions for us in the Mid-East, but tell me the last time you heard a modern-day terrorist or a member of Al-Qaeda state that they want to avenge America's support of the Shah, or b/c Saddam was helped against Iran, etc? No, almost unequivocally the Zionist State is cited as the main reason they hate us and will destroy us. Not even AJD talks about the Shah of Iran, he talks about Israel.

9/11 is proof that those decisions were bad for us because Muslim extremists retaliated and, yes, I have heard Al Qaeda members cite our foreign policy over the last 50 or so years as a major factor in their terrorist actions against us.

I-S-R-A-E-L. Until you start understanding EVERYTHING in the Mid-East through this lens you'll miss the point, which you do.

It's not all about Israel.

It was a good policy then? Did it work? Ask the families of the 3,000 men who perished in the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted to enter the war but Congress and public sentiment was against it. Congress and public opinion was wrong and FDR was right. Hesitation and reluctance to recognize evil for what it is cost many more lives and prolonged the war than if the Allies would've interfered with Hitler before he became too strong.

It was a good policy. It did work. By the way, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States had already started down the interventionist road. In fact, it was Teddy Roosevelt that started us down that road. I'm not sure why Japan chose to attack Pearl Harbor (maybe because it was allied with Germany and it wanted to get us out of the way so that we wouldn't help out in Europe, I don't know). But when that happened, CONGRESS did its constitutional job and declared war.

1787 foreign policy didn't have to deal with modern weaponry, WMDs or nuclear bombs. It worked then for that time in history. It is naive to think it would work now. Do you really believe that the Islamofascists would be content to leave us alone if we even built a concrete wall around our country?

Modern weaponry, WMDs, nukes are all irrelevant to the discussion. And, yes, the policy of not interfering in the internal affairs of other nations is still a good policy. I realize you think the founding fathers were isolationists but they weren't. They encouraged trading with other nations and being congenial with them but they warned against entangling alliances and against interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. It was a good policy then and it is still a good policy today.

I guess Israel should've allowed the Arab nations to attack them in 1967. The Six Day War was a tactical masterpiece and a great victory for Israel b/c they preempted the enemy. Bro, we can no longer afford to wait to be attacked, then retaliate. They wanted us destroyed as soon as we sided with Israel. Unless we abandon Israel, they will seek our destruction. Even if we did abandon Israel, they would seek to eliminate us from the Earth. Their faith compels them to do so.

What Israel chooses to do to defend itself is Israel's business. If Israel wants to bomb Iran's nuclear plants so that it doesn't start making nuclear missiles, that's Israel's business. It's not our business!

Quit blaming America. You're falling for the liberals propaganda.

Where America is to blame, I do blame America. But obviously, the choice to retaliate against America was their choice alone. No one forced them into it.

We're right, they're wrong, and so are you and Ron Paul.

No action that is unconstitutional is ever right!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

We helped put the Taliban into power and what did they do? They supported Osama bin Laden. Again, our foreign policy in the Middle East over the last 50 or so years is coming back to haunt us as Muslim extremists are choosing to retaliate.

That's right...and my point remains. While some justify what they do based on "butting in" others (Muslims) welcomed it.

BTW I doubt we did not but in with Greece. We probably sold or gave them arms