FieryBalrog

This thread was clearly designed for constructive dialogue.

/beating my wife

Booyakasha!

Intervention is working well in Afghanistan.

I mean, really, are you people arguing for isolationism? We live in a global world! Isolationism couldn't even work 80 years ago, let alone now. When maniacs are allowed to run free and cause havoc and build their strength, world wars happen.

If we simply ignored the middle east and left them hanging out to dry, we could see more Talibans... more suffering.... more hatred and despair... more ignorance... more religious fanaticism.... and then, worst of all, we would slowly begin to see them acquiring nuclear weapons.

Escaped A.I.

well believe it or not, it was. i may have said it a bit tongue in cheek... meh...

Loren Pechtel

The thread title is wrong--there are few if any Muslim haters on here.

What there are are a fair number of us who see the danger in the current situation. The Jihadists are a threat to the entire world.

Isolationism won't work--they'll force a showdown and they'll have the bomb at that point.

I do not have a good solution beyond the fact that we need to quickly cut our dependance on their oil. So long as they have the oil weapon to wield on us we won't do anything effective.

Reena

I don't hate Muslims/Islam, but I think we have somewhat of a duty to ourselves and to the world to help people living in Muslim nations to be able to think freely and communicate their ideas.

I don't think that most of the Muslim world is made up of the types of people who are burning things on TV, but I bet moderate people have a very hard time making their views known (just as moderate people here had a hard time during the Inquisition). I think the problem will solve itself if the standard of living in those countries is improved, if the quality of education (scientific + historical) is improved, if people aren't persecuted for thoughts/criticizing Islam. And once this happen, once people start to think freely and communicate, fundamentalists will lose their power and many talented people will be freed to use their talents for the betterment of humanity.

Logic&Reason

I hate people who think its ok to kill in the name of Allah, or Christ for that matter. I also hate people who think its ok to riot and shoot guns off over cartoons.

Chew on that.

trendkill

Not really. We had little choice but to attack Afghanistan, since its government sanctioned/supported major attacks on us. Granted, it would probably be working a lot better if we hadn't also invaded Iraq.

Isolationism is a buzzword. No one is arguing for giving Hitler the sudetenland. We are talking about one region where our intervention is generally not constructive.

Is this somehow supposed to contrast with the actual situation of the region? Because you seem to be describing current events. :P

Answerer

Its sad to see that the "Islam haters" are not united in their solution. :devil:

Short term success doesn't guarantee long term one.

By Isolationism, we mean political isolation. Those Middle East nations are not as united as you thought. I bet they will be busy slaying each other if can't find any "exterior" enemies to blame.

Precisely, just let that happens. The day when the apologists/moderates start to get worry and criticize those radicals is the day that we might intervene again. Until then.........zzzzzzzzzzzzz

So after that, what?

Mabus_Zero

I say we start drilling in Anwar, cut off our monetary support to the middle-east, using the oil in Anwar to finish research on a new type of fuel, and finish up with our little nest-egg in Iraq. If North Korea tries to get some nukes, we invade them, and crush them, this time with the assistance of China and Russia, who are getting angry with Iran (for their leader being a doumkof with gila-monster genes, and the support of a country of old-style fascists at his disposal).

We leave, after finishing what we've already started. And if any country steps out of line during this 'intervention', either we, China, or Russia, teaches them the relationship between the words 'slag' and 'residual radiation'

Sue Sponte

As much as I may agree with this sentiment, it does not rationally reflect reality. The reality is that the core group currently bemoaning the islamic religion is the same group claiming that the U.S. was "founded on Christianity" and wanting the same for this country. It's the same crap, just a different fictitious lens through which the world is viewed.

There are several threads of this variety now on these boards, with common themes. One of the themes is to criticize "liberals" who point out that Christianity does the same thing, which misses the enitre point. The point isn't that two wrongs make a right, but rather that this country, at least the majority and those currently running the show, want exactly the same thing as the group they are seeking to destroy. Just a different text that you should be slave to, but it fundamentally is the same thing: people who believe that their goofy religious beliefs are superior to other goofy religious beliefs.

And the most depressing aspect is that all of this is nothing more than history repeating itself, with yet another period in which religion is used to "justify" war against those of another faith. The propaganda is a lot slicker today, making things even worse. Heck, these boards are quite progressive and enlightened compared to many others, and even here there have been threads pondering whether the U.S. should using freaking nukes against islamic countries.

The only solution to this shit is to rid religion from the equation, which is really no solution at all, as it simply ain't ever going to happen, at least not in the lifetime of me or my great grandchildren. As long as "faith" is acceptable anywhere in the world as a basis for policy-making, we are doomed to repeat this crap ad infinitum. Only reason can fashion a meaningful resolution and reason will not dictate the outcome.