I have a couple of JCBs if you need help...:)

I had to Google JCB to figure out what the hell you were talking about...:O:

One of the few British things still going....

While some here seem to find my blunt views, bluntly stated as "dangerous" - I stated this at the beginning - this is intended to create some discussion. So far - 2 people other than myself have put forth options regarding the war on terror. While I disagreed with one, and discussed my reasoning, the other I admitted was a wise PIECE of the puzzle, and should be pursued - even today under the current administration. *Should have been in place from the beginning to be honest.*

The rest seem to want to ridicule or try and negate ideas - without proposing answers themselves. To date, it has been intimated that I am egotistical and condescending - yet how am I supposed to refine policy views without discussion. After all - were I to be POTUS, its still my job to not only help educate and lead, but also to listen. So far - other than a few individuals, it seems everyone else wants to simply be negative. I personally can easily take insinuations, after all - if I do run for POTUS I am going to take much harsher ones that anyone on this board can dish out.

However, it seems to show the attitude of the US voter today, that the only ones who speak approach everything with a negative view, and want only for someone to come up with the "perfect answer" that they like that will solve everything. Instead of taking the opportunity to become involved in constructive discussion of ideas, instead the responses go from merely *Thats a stupid answer* to *I do give input and ideas - just not uhm... here*.....

Look at how the current president got elected. He said little of substance, avoided issues, made promises that any sane person could see were not logically possible, and basically made himself out to seem like he has all those perfect answers so no one has to get off their duff and do anything, just trust him to make it all better. And that is what the majority of voters in this country did. Now - in 4 years, when the federal deficit has nearly doubled from 10 Trillion to almost 20 Trillion, those same voters whose level of involvement was putting out campaign signs will be sitting around like some here - grousing about how bad ideas are and why doesn't anyone have any good ones. When there is still no peace in the Middle East, when there is an increased threat of terrorists acts here because no firm action was taken to stop it, they still will be waiting on their "perfect answer" and "perfect candidate" to come along and make it all better.

Sure my policy regarding the war on terror is "outside the box". Where exactly has inside the box thinking gotten us? I said in my initial posts we must learn from our history. For three presidents we have tried "moderate" responses to terror. Has the threat been eliminated. We have spent a decade at least combatting this threat. From blowing up an "aspirin factory" for the attack on the Cole (boy that really hurt the terrorists didn't it?) to removing them from government in Afghanistan, the level of force has escalated, but still remained very limited. Now, 10+ years later, the sources of power behind terror - the sponsors, still are doing their own thing. The lead terrorists themselves are somehow untouchable, while they continue to take the hopeless and downtrodden, strap them with bombs and promise them everlasting glory if they just go blow themselves up and take some heathens with them.

The statement has been made that this is a war that cannot be won. Well -if you can't ever win a war, your doomed to either go down fighting it anyway, or being forced to surrender. Because in war there is always a winner and a loser. The comment that we cannot win it- means we are forced in some way to lose it. That is a position I cannot ever agree with. I love my country too much to throw up my hands and give her up like that. That attitude is the definition of defeatism.

We have tried "measured" responses. We have tried "moderate" responses. *Note I do not see the Iraq war as initially a part of the war on terror - it is however a conflict that has BECOME part of the war on terror. I don't think anyone can say they think the current President is going to be harder on the terrorists than his predecessors (though we will see). So after 14 years of fighting - can anyone say that all the strategies that have been used won the war? Doubtful.

Think about it - 14 years of war. 14 years of death and destruction, with no end in sight. How many dead will it be by then, between the combatants and innocents? How much infrastructure across the world will be destroyed. How much fear will people still be in of terror attacks?

Some here say that the strategy would unite the muslim world against us. Ok - after 10 years of fighting - all you hear of by the pundits in the media is that our presence anywhere in the middle east is making recruits flock to the terrorists. Our mere support of Israel does it even if every soldier were to leave today. No matter what we do it seems, these people will find those willing to commit these acts of terror for the promise of glory in the afterlife. Well - maybe it isn't politically correct to say it - but lets shake the foundations of that belief. Lets make those poor saps who are taught hate from the time they start 'school" see that an attack on OUR WAY OF LIFE is going to result in an attack on THEIR WAY OF LIFE.

Thats what so many people don't get - Terrorism is out to destroy our way of life. They seek to disrupt our society and force us to change the foundations of our way of life. Look at how Sharia law is being forced upon certain areas of Europe - and by those wonderful "MODERATE" muslims. If your fool enough to think this is just about our foreign policy, your blind beyond my help.

This IS a religious war. Its a war in which the followers of Islam - in all its "moderate" AND "extremist" factions, are out to change the world and how the rest of us live. Its not just the extremists that act to undermine the freedoms the rest of civilization enjoys. The moderates just don't use terror tactics. They don't strap bombs on people or set up IED's on the road. Instead they use our system of religious freedom to blair out arabic calls to prayer from the city square every few hours,violating the rights of non-muslims to be free from religion. And yes - that is right here in the US. ***** See Hamtramck, MI***** There are other examples across this country that are similiar.

Look, I believe in the constitutional right of freedom of religion. In fact - I think the framers would have been wise to also note the right of freedom FROM religion (on an individual basis) should a person choose it. However, that freedom - among many others we have here in the US - is under attack - by a religion whose followers are demonstrating, both at home (moderates) and abroad (extremists) that they are not willing to practice their religious beliefs while respecting ours. Just as they do not respect the rest of the way of life we lead.

So am I willing to shake the foundations of a world religion that has now become a manifest threat to our freedoms and way of life. Again it comes down to the question of war - them or us. Again - I choose us. So the answer is yes. I would.

I look at this with a sad heart, much like I expect leaders in wars past have done when tough decisions had to be made. Scream about the humanitarian cost of bombing a major city that is recognized by Islam as holy. Go ahead. But before you do, weigh that against the loss of life that has occured over a decade of war, with another 4 to go, and still no end in sight. Weigh it against death, destruction, terror and fear - leading ultimately to a change in our lives that will result in a theocratic despotism to all of our people, with all the killing and horror that goes along with it. If your willing to stand on "high moral ground" thinking it will save you - go ahead. I am fighting to make sure there is some high moral ground somewhere in the world in the future. Hard to stand on what doesn't exist - and without a harse, unbending will to remove the threat of Islam taking over this world - via terror and not, there will come a day when "high moral ground" only exists by the words of some islamic leader that you will have to answer to.

Regardless of whether or not I run for Potus, I can promise this - I will not stand silent while the foundations of MY country are torn down to be replaced by religious dogma - Islamic or otherwise. I swore many years ago to protect this country from "enemies both foreign and domestic" - and for any who have said that same oath, I will remind you - there was no time limit on the oath itself. I served my time in both green and brown suits - but my dedication to uphold the pillars of this great country will end when I release my last breath.

The war cannot be won? Bullcrap. But you can't win the war if your not willing to hurt the enemy. And you can't hurt the enemy unless you can truly see him for what he is. Politically incorrect? Absolutely. In case you haven't noticed - the country needs a large dose of that.

In closing - before anyone starts hollering that I am "anti-islamic" - yes - I am - but only to the point that they are "anti-American". When they figure out they can worship whatever they want, as they want - but they are not going to tell you or me or anyone else that WE have to abide by islamic law and theological beliefs, all will be well. If that makes me "intolerant" - well it makes them the same. I simply am that way only as far as it is needed to protect my nation and our way of life. Harsh huh? At the least - it is an "out of the box" stand.

I understand the point CaptainHaplo is trying to make. If it came to hitting Mecca I suspect terrible things will have already come against us already. But the threat from Islam is real. They will keep coming at you and the more you sit thinking if you don't do anything they will eventually live in peace with me you are dead wrong. You are weak in their eyes and they will hit again and again until they have conquered. As I said before Islam is a peaceful religion. BUT there can be no peace until all (meaning you) have submitted to Islam.



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

I just have to quickly point out a glaring flaw, because explaining to you the specifics of why your policy is dangerous is getting a bit tedious:What you CLEARLY don't understand is the concept of the War on Terror. That fact that you cannot grasp that there are no battle lines and no specific parameters for victory makes you wholly unfit to lead.

The War on Terror is going to have to be fought continously and diligently - and just because that's something we must do, doesn't mean that we will somehow lose the war as you imply.

Dude, this IS NOT WORLD WAR II. :damn:

Oh, and in wars, there are NOT always winners and losers, as you've said. Many wars throughout history have been fought to statemates.

But, again, the War on Terror is not a "war" in the traditional sense. The fact that you don't get that is disconcerting.

Aramike - just accept that we see this differently.

I am fully aware that this is not a war in the conventional sense. As I pointed out - there are no armored columns to attack, no well defined "front line". To say I don't "get it" when I have pointed out the same thing - and agreed with you on that point, is to try to discredit me with untruths. I would have hoped any debate could have at least dealt with facts and views, versus attempts to discredit with falsehoods. I have to say, I see a rather leftist approach - if you can't convince your opponent to accept your point of view - you discredit him by lying about him.

I also have to laugh - because you do this - while calling my views "stalinist". Seems to be a bit of irony there.:har:

Now - I will thank you for one thing though. You clarified an important point - and that is that you see no clearly defined parameters for Victory. No wonder you say the war cannot be won - because you wouldn't recognize victory even if you had it. Now do not take that personally - it is not meant that way. But in your view, its obvious that victory is unreachable because it cannot exist. This is where we have our biggest disagreement. I CAN define what victory in the war on terror is very simply. Allow me to do so.

Victory against terror requires the following two conditions are met:

#1 Those that would use violence against innocent civilians to force any group to conform to their will under the batter of religious dogma are no longer able to find succor and support or haven by any nation or group.

#2 Those that would commit such atrocities under the guise of religious ferver are shunned instead of allowed to hide and multiply. Where their acts of hatred are held to the light, and they cannot cowardly hide from the repercussions of their own actions.

With these two conditions met, terrorism as we know it today - and by that I am speaking purely of the violent physical kind (though there other types), would pretty much cease to exist.

Now - let me be clear - I am not naive enough to think my policy would wipe terrorism off the face of the earth. You will always have some wacko out there. But the idea here is to make the world - and yes that includes those "moderate" muslims - realize that continuing to allow these elements to exist - hiding among the everyday people - comes at too high of a cost.

George Bush tried it one way - by offering some level of hope to people with the thought that they would reject extremism. That attempt has been, at best, marginally effective. He believed that people - given a taste of freedom - would not allow it to be taken. Some have held strong with a willingness to fight for their freedom. Others have given in to the fear of retribution by extremists. All in all - not an overwhelming success. Plus, speaking on what is best for the US - we should not be in the business of "nation building" or giving the citizenry of another nation jobs and hope when so many here lack the same. Ultimately, his thought was to give them something they could not abide to lose to extremism - that something being freedom.

Sun Tzu once offered a pearl of wisdom regarding war. It is not always in the striking of the enemy that one wins, but it striking that which the enemy cannot lose that brings them to surrender.

By refusing to see the enemy as Islam in its current incarnation - bent on a worldwide theocracy - you cannot fight your enemy with any hope of success. By seeing the enemy - we can see what they cannot lose - and that is the foundations of their beliefs. Can we try other measures - of course - I have advocated that - but if it ever is a push comes to shove situation - I will make a target out of that which my enemy cannot lose. By doing so I can force them to take a different path of action. One that forces them to police their own so that they do not lose what they hold closest to their heart.

Take what your enemy cannot lose, and you will have the path to victory.

And you cannot honestly think that the majority of "moderate" muslims in the world would sit quietly by while the extremists among them perform more acts of terror - when they know that those acts will cause retaliation that they - the moderates - will lose so much from. They would not. Now - the question is - where would they fall? Sure - the first time they will be against us - but when you hold hostage 3 other holy sites that they cannot defend - they will be forced to act to stop those whose acts would cause retaliation. Will they be happy about it? No of course not. So they are pissed. I can stand being disliked if we are safe. Beats the other option of being alternatively tolerated and blown up.

Mikhayl - it was offered from a US perspective - and sorry - but one cannot say the people of Iraq had any type of freedom prior to the invasion and overthrow of Saddam. I didn't say he was right - I simply noted what his stated thoughts on the whole process has been.

As for his dancing with "the most backward' Islamic regime there is - your either talking Iran or Pakistan. Since he hasn't done much dancing with Iran - I assume your speaking of Pakistan. The fact is regarding them - no matter who is president they will have to deal with the fact that Pakistan has nukes and that makes dealing with them (and India as well for that matter) rather delicate. Though to call Pakistan more backward than Iran - is to show a lack of knowledge.

Though by all means - blast Bush - but as I said at the outset - don't use the failings of a government run by someone else to somehow intimate that I agreed with that policy. At no time have I stated that I do. But again - its easier for some to try and discredit with fallacy than it is to make your own points.

Finally - for those who want to blast me - how many of you have been to most of the countries in the Middle East? I have. I have been in many of them. To claim I lack an understanding when I have l spent time there, is also untrue. There is a difference between disagreeing with YOUR view and a lack of understanding. No one here - myself included - can claim to "know it all" - and to try and disparage another view as "lacking knowledge or understanding" simply because you disagree is rather immature.
Its easy to type "you don't know squat" - why not throw out specific points that demonstrate your superior knowledge or understanding? Why not offer up idease? Again - its easier to tear down than it is to offer up constructive thought of your own. Well, maybe when someone gives you all the "perfect" answer you will throw it out here - apparently thinking and speaking your own views seems to be to much "work".

And people wonder why nothing gets better... sheesh.

We all seem to see it differently from you.What were the untruths, exactly?

What I explicitely stated was that you don't get it as you keep trying to draw parallels with WWII.

How is that an untruth, exactly?Getting a little desperate, there? I responded, POINT BY POINT, specifically to what you said (a favor your certainly haven't returned).

Now you're whining about "lies"? No lies, here. Did you happen to notice how unpopular your position on the War on Terror is? Why you'd think anyone would need to lie in order to debate it is beyond me.

You don't have to accept my point of view. Doesn't mean I have to shut up about it. Freedom of speech goes both ways.That isn't even remotely ironic. I suggest you look the word up.

I'm not trying to shut you up - I'm merely refutting your points. Obviously that is disturbing to you, and you'd prefer I'd shut up, but oh well.Garbage rhertoric.

The nature of the War on Terror is that it cannot be won.Impossible to attain. Terrorism can breed in basements as well as open encampments. It is completely impossible to prevent terrorism from merely adapting to those circumstances.You can't be serious. "...acts of hatred are held to the light..."?

I know you keep repeating this fantasy of simply informing the world and having them fall into line, but their acts of hatred are already well-illuminated, thank you.

Oh, and the very nature of "hiding" has nothing to do with being "allowed" to do so.And what precedence do you base that conclusion upon? Me thinks its pretty pie-in-the-sky.You have not researched the Muslim world at all, have you? They believe that the Masjid al-Haram, the most sacred place in the Muslim world which is located in Mecca, has been destroyed and rebuilt again and again. If someone were to be so stupid to destroy it in response to extremist terrorist elements, you'd ally the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD in OPEN WAR against us. They call that "jihad".

Good job, Mr. President. The terrorists win. That's their whole damned goal.

I'm not going to go over the rest of your justifications because there is no need. Everyone here seems to get it (conservatives and liberals) - except you.

OK Aramike - I will do you this courtesy - though it is a pain in the arse as it makes my writing more difficult. I also don't know how to do the little boxes - so I will simply quote you directly. Just remember - you asked for this.

************************************************** ************
"We all seem to see it differently from you."

Not true - at least 2 people have voted for me on the little straw poll going (I am abstaining) - so "We all" is untrue. There have been a number of people viewing and reading that havent seemed to be all offended nearly as bad by my views as you have. The mere fact they havent posted means they may agree or disagree - and neither of us would know. Rockstar at least seems to be in agreement. Goldenrivet (post #31) as well. But once again I guess demonstratable facts again don't really matter though do they? Seems you, Mikhayl and August are all in agreement and that probably is all anyone should care about right? Glad we cleared that up.

************************************************** ************

"What were the untruths, exactly? What I explicitely stated was that you don't get it as you keep trying to draw parallels with WWII. How is that an untruth, exactly?"

Boy - you can't even keep your story straight. Allow me to quote your words regarding me not getting it. This is the quote.

"What you CLEARLY don't understand is the concept of the War on Terror. That fact that you cannot grasp that there are no battle lines and no specific parameters for victory makes you wholly unfit to lead."

What you EXPLICITLY STATED here was that I don't understand there are no clear battle lines - and I had already stated that earlier. To say I didn't understand that fact - is a direct untruth - and now your backtracking trying to say you said something else. Seems like your the one "digging the hole" son. You might wanna stop while your can.

************************************************** ************

"Getting a little desperate, there? I responded, POINT BY POINT, specifically to what you said (a favor your certainly haven't returned). Now you're whining about "lies"? No lies, here. Did you happen to notice how unpopular your position on the War on Terror is? Why you'd think anyone would need to lie in order to debate it is beyond me. You don't have to accept my point of view. Doesn't mean I have to shut up about it. Freedom of speech goes both ways. "

No desperation - on the contrary - I have tried to keep this as civil as possible while discussing something that we obviously both feel strongly about. However - I have pointed out the untruth above - it is what it is. Sorry you don't like being called to account for your statement. I have stood up on mine. Regarding mine being "unpopular" - I am not doing this for a popularity contest. As for you shutting up about it - I have repeatedly encouraged you to share your own ideas. You have chosen not to do so and instead want to simply tear down the ideas you don't agree with. While that is your right - it doesn't really help move things forward does it? Freedom of speech going both ways? Absolutely - just don't think that I will stand by while you disparage and misrepresent me or my statements without calling you on the carpet for it. As for not having to accept your point of view - right you are there - as I said - we will just have to accept that we disagree.

************************************************** ************

"That isn't even remotely ironic. I suggest you look the word up. I'm not trying to shut you up - I'm merely refutting your points. Obviously that is disturbing to you, and you'd prefer I'd shut up, but oh well."

I am not trying to shut you up either. However, when you say something untrue about my stance and understanding - I am not going to let it pass. My take on it is that way to often people are silenced not with death - but by falsehood. I showed above where your statement was not true - and I took at as a direct attempt to discredit me falsely. After you called my views "stalinistic" - I do find it ironic you would try to discredit me thusly.

************************************************** ************
"Garbage rhertoric. The nature of the War on Terror is that it cannot be won."

Again - you disagree with me so my view must be "garbage". Have you noticed I have not called you names or belittled your view? While we may disagree - you put out a statement like this on its own - and call my reasoning "rhetoric"? Yea ok.

************************************************** ***********

"Impossible to attain. Terrorism can breed in basements as well as open encampments. It is completely impossible to prevent terrorism from merely adapting to those circumstances."

While I agree that it is impossible to stop every wacko - and said as much (just so you don't try to say I "don't get it" again) - it is not impossible to make sure that the VAST MAJORITY of basements and hideyholes are off limits to those that would plot and plan terror. After all - right now - there are still alot of terrorists hiding in caves in the hills of Afghanistan - because they can't see the light of day. If they did - they would be captured and held accountable. Thats why they are not hiding in everyone's basements there. Most people would rat them out. So events and situations in today's world PROVES it is not impossible. Very difficult - absolutely. But just because its hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

************************************************** ************

"You can't be serious. "...acts of hatred are held to the light..."? I know you keep repeating this fantasy of simply informing the world and having them fall into line, but their acts of hatred are already well-illuminated, thank you.Oh, and the very nature of "hiding" has nothing to do with being "allowed" to do so."

Again - in this case - we are talking about the condition BEING met - not how to get there. Kindly keep your arguments in the same time and situation as what is being discussed. The point being discussed is that once this is done - then the terrorists wont have a place to hide. I was DEFINING victory conditions at that point. Again I guess trying to confuse the issue is the best way of keeping from actually discussing the answers.

Regarding people hiding in basements - well someone has to know they are hiding in the basement - and allowing it - or in the case of #2 being met - not allowing it and instead making sure the basement dwelling wacko gets outed and taken care of. Wow - one less terror attack and a holy city still safe. Horrible ideas huh?

************************************************** ************

"And what precedence do you base that conclusion upon? "

Gee - lets see - its not precendence - its called logic. Basement dwelling wacko above has no place to go to hide and plot his dastardly deeds. He has no government or support group providing him with intel, explosives or even a friendly ear for his religious rants against all things heathen. No rockets for Hamas or Hezbollah to launch, no arms shipments from Iran or Syria - no bullets to be had. Said wacko and all his buddies have a VERY limited ability to now carry out terror attacks with no resources. I call it a better world.

************************************************** ************

"You have not researched the Muslim world at all, have you? They believe that the Masjid al-Haram, the most sacred place in the Muslim world which is located in Mecca, has been destroyed and rebuilt again and again. If someone were to be so stupid to destroy it in response to extremist terrorist elements, you'd ally the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD in OPEN WAR against us. They call that "jihad". Good job, Mr. President. The terrorists win. That's their whole damned goal."

Yes I have. Your statement however appears to be designed to be DELIBERATELY MISLEADING - big suprise there at this point given your record on being forthright. The Masjid al-Haram HAS been destroyed and rebuilt - but your wording makes it sound as if that had been done by external forces hostile to islam. Such is not the case. There has not ever been a documented case of a foreign national armed force striking the Sacred Mosque - much less destroying it. It has been destroyed by fire and flood, as well as partially deconstructed and rebuilt and expanded many times - BY MUSLIMS. The closest there has been to an armed attack on the Sacred Mosque was its seizure by dissidents in 1979. That was not a NATION attacking or destroying it. While they were armed - it hardly is comparable. Not to mention that seizure - though short lived - shook the entire Muslim world to its foundation. Thus precedence shows that the Sacred Mosque would be a HIGHLY effective target, as would the other holy cities.

As far as your view that it would unite all of Islam against us in Jihad - where is YOUR precedent for that statement? Seems to me that they might just go "Oh sh*t, Medina is a hole in the ground - maybe we NEED to act to preserve our most holy place!" And before you bring up the crusade/jihad history lesson - remember - we are not TAKING it from them - they can have whatever is left there. We are not OCCUPYING the land (why would we want a big crater?) which the Jihads to Jerusalem were designed to do, just as the Crusades were.

************************************************** ************
"I'm not going to go over the rest of your justifications because there is no need."

Guess not - after all - you have continually shown you have little desire to debate or offer ideas, since your view is "if you dont agree with me your opinion is garbage". You have shown you are unwilling to offer options, instead talking about some nebulous "high ground" of morals all the while speaking with a forked tongue.

************************************************** ************
Yes - here is your POINT BY POINT response Aramike - and I am sure you won't like it one bit. Oh well. One thing the American people deserve is a leader who calls it like he sees it - right or wrong. I have done so here - as I have throughout this discussion. I have made a point to be civil - and ask for ideas. I applaud folks like Undersea - who though I disagree with him so far on this issue - has been willing to offer up his views to be looked at. My views could be improved I am sure - and I hope that others will be willing to bring their ideas - on all issues - to the table to help do so. BaggyGreen did so - and I agreed with him - he had some ideas that should already be put into place. While you call me egotistical, stalinistic and whatever else - I am willing to have a mature and HONEST discussion even with those that I may not see eye to eye on. Guess I am horrible for that. Should I just adopt your view and say anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant and has a view that is worth nothing more than garbage? I don't think so. I'll let you keep that path.

CH

I'd like to take some time to defend my alternative to your strategy, and point out a few other things as well.


Now, you've mentioned that you don't consider it feasible that the Middle East, and the Islamic extremists thereof, would not be content to fight amongst themselves should the U.S. pusue an isolationist policy. No doubt you are correct to some extent. However, I will point to a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that suggests that the very first thing they will do is begin fighting amongst themselves, or at least fighting Israel.

A cursory glance at the history of the Middle East reveals that it has spent most of its' time fighting either (a) itself or (b) Europe. And don't forget the Iran-Iraq war, the ashes of which still smolder. If the U.S. were to withdraw from Iraq in the manner I prescribed, what makes you think they would do anything differently?
I mentioned splitting Iraq into 3 parts, one for each major demographic. Why wouldn't the Muslims pursue a war against the Kurds if U.S. intervention was not a threat? Why would the Shiites not engage the Sunnis? Why would Iran not invade Iraq? Why would the Islamic Middle East not make war upon Israel?
History indicates that they would.

Even then, there is a significant possibility of European intervention in the case of an Islamic invasion of Israel. Britian is certainly a champion of Israel, they created the state to begin with. And there are many Eastern European nations that have a very real reason to fear an Islamic hegemony. In all probability, they would rise to defend Israel. And let us not forget about Russia, which might play a part as well. I suspect that the memory of the Afghan war remains fresh in the minds of her leaders and people. Perhaps she will choose to abstain from conflict in Afghanistan should a militant Islamic government rise again. Or perhaps she will elect to "nip the probelm in the bud" so to speak.
In any case, there is little reason to believe that the jihadists would not have a more pressing problem than the U.S. in the event that they decide to become militaristic against Israel or any other nation. I hardly think that we are going to invoke their wrath by abandoning Israel, and certainly not by withdrawing from Iraq.

Now, assuming that you believe even a fraction of what I just said, our policies would diverge here, I'd prefer to remain Isolationist. I believe that Islam will not act out against a state that does not interfere in their affairs significantly, and I believe that our remote location affords us some protection from their misguided intentions. History would agree (minus a couple of incidents, certainly on a much smaller scale than 98/11), and I think we should follow what history has taught us.

However, instead of advocating a zero-tolerance policy against terrorism that involves the destruction of two Saudi Arabian cities (which has been mentioned)
perhaps you would consider allowing the extremists to massacre the Kurds or invade Israel or whatever they end up doing. Surely we stand to lose nothing by their infighting, and we gain supreme justification for war, perhaps even in the form the measures you have advocated.

I also believe that is highly unlikely that the U.S. will be the victim of another major strike, should you choose to endorse my policy. Jihadists have failed to strike another devestating blow (or any blow, really, despite a few pathetic attempts) against the U.S. in the past 7 years, despite the fact that millions of tons of illegal drugs arrive here every year. Either they lack the means, or they lack the intelligence, but they certainly aren't going to fare any better if they are fighting with themselves, Israel, or Europe.

To be completely honest with you I, myself, have a distrust of Islam. I've met a lot of nice Muslims, who seem to be tired of their oppressive theocrats, but I've also read most of the Koran, and I didn't like what I saw. Perhaps it is inevitable that the West will again go to war with the East, as it has for millenia, but I do not think that yours is the proper method. Not only will it fail to garner popular support, but it will make the U.S. an imperialist agressor nation in the eyes of everyone, not just Islam. And in the end, that could destroy us. Take a lesson from the British Empire, or the Holy Roman Empire, or Imperial Rome, or the Persian Empire, or any empire that has ever exsisted. All were destroyed from within before being destroyed from without. Your policy is the worst of both worlds. Just look at the anti-war sentiment that exsists today, and the prevailing view of the U.S. in international politics. Not only are we seen as belligerent, we are also seen as incompetent. And you would risk exacerbating this state of affairs on the hope that destroying the most holy cities of Islam will end the war on terror? Remember that Jerusalem is a holy city in the Islamic faith as well.

You will not bring about some kind of Pax Americana by these actions, you will destroy the country. Evidently, you have never read the Koran or studied its' principles. The destruction of Mecca and Medina will do nothing but guarantee a worldwide Jihad against the U.S. These are people who are fighting in the belief that that their actions will reserve them a place in paradise. And worse, they are usually uneducated people who actually believe that.
Also, in case you have forgotten, we can't even afford our own domestic policies at this juncture, let alone a war, let alone an anti-terrorist war against every willing Islamic nation in the world. How will you pay for it? You'll destroy the currency through inflation alone. Not to mention the depletion of oil supplies, which this nation is in no shape to whether at the moment.

Why not let history repeat itself? Withdraw America as gracefully as possible. Let Islam do what it has always done. Then you can either take advantage of the situation or remain isolationist until the situation warrants intervention. That way, you would have a justification for your policy. Or, depending on how it turns out, you could remain isolationist. In my ideal scenario, the Middle East ends up under Europe's thumb once again, which, historically, is the only time it will not cause trouble.

You've already voiced concerns about "appeasement". This is not appeasement. We'd just be wating for a fovourable situation to develop. Maybe it works out, and maybe ot doesn't, but in either case we get some economic recovery from your other policies and don't waste money or incur the wrath of the rest of the world while we wait.

The U.S. has always prospered by staying out of foreign wars (or showing up late, at least). Would you refute Jefferson's advice to stay out of entangling alliances and foreign wars, whilst concentrating on trade? In our first century and-a-half, the U.S. followed this policy, and it made us a superpower. When we did not, it devestated us. Even our own Constitution was written to keep us out of wars, requiring the approval of Congress before hostilities could be declared.

So I ask you, in the event that you should ever be elected to public office, remember what lessons history has taught us, and remember the advice of our greatest founders. The U.S. is supposed to be a land of opportunity, not one of imperialist aggression. Do not make us a target for the ire of other nations, and if you have to do so, at least make sure that we dominate them economically.

Talk about totally missing the point. Ask yourself just how few people there might actually be in your "silent majority" if people such as us, with disparate backgrounds and viewpoints have the same opinion of your foreign policy flaws.

As for providing better alternatives to your proposals, that is a cop out. We're not the ones running here,it's you. We're the people you have to convince to support you if you want to be elected, and as my straw poll shows you are just not doing it.

There's about 8 days left of the poll. Change some minds and do better on the next one or declare an end to your candidacy.

UnderSea - I am not going to respond directly to that yet - mainly because I think there are alot of good points in there that I really need to spend some thought on before I try to answer. I have to admit - there are some views and reasonings that - at least at first glance - seem very reasonable. Let me chew on it for a day or so and I will give you some feedback.

This is the stuff I had hoped for - things that make me - and hopefully everyone else - sit back and THINK. Thanks! :yeah:

By my count August, seems I have 2 people at least that are in agreement. 2 plus myself seems to be 3 - same as you, Mikhayl and Aramike make 3. Sorry but I don't see your little "click" being somehow much more numerous than those that agree with me. At least - last time I checked 3 was equal to 3.

"There's about 8 days left of the poll. Change some minds and do better on the next one or declare an end to your candidacy."

You will forgive me if I don't put much stock in YOUR poll. Then again - maybe you won't - but I won't lose sleep either way. As for "declaring an end to my candidacy" - exactly who do you think you are to make such a demand? Fact is - 17% for a candidate without major backing and a D or an R beside his name is - in a political sense - a major victory. In most states - that amount is enough to guarantee him a place on the ballot. Hmm... maybe I should consider your poll after all? :har:

*Cracking knuckles*I do remember that I asked for you to do this. You say that as though you think you're bringing down some hammer - having read your replies, I believe your evaluation to be wrong.I was making a generalization. I'm willing to bet you're the only one who couldn't figure that out, which seems to lead to the conclusion that you're grasping at straws in an absurd attempt to discredit me.

Made me chuckle, thanks.KNOWING that there are no clear battle lines and UNDERSTANDING that there are no clear battle lines are two different things.

The majority of your rhetoric (especially your innane attempts to morally equate your "Terrorist Option" with WWII) supports the assertion that you do not understand.

Oh, and "stop while I can"? What an ARROGANT statement! What exactly does that mean?

As for you, I'd say "quit while you're ahead" but we passed that point a long time ago...

PS: I'm not your son. *sarcasm*But it's clear that you have the demeanor to be president. *sarcasm off*Your (failed) attempts at picking apart my verbiage says otherwise. If you weren't desperate, you'd be able to stick to the point rather than making an attempt to make me out to be some liar.

Definitely desperation.And yet there was no untruth... heh.This is the kind of statement that makes people perceive you as "arrogant". You didn't call me to account for anything except the ghosts you've made up to make yourself feel better. But, more importantly, how would you know my attitude in response to being "called to account" if I hadn't even responded yet?

Extremely arrogant...

Here, let me explain it to you in different terms. If I were, say, planning a war (we'll stay on theme here) and said that I knew the enemy had massive air and ground forces, but focused my planning solely upon the ground forces, one could draw the conclusion that I don't understand the air threat.

It would be a silly defense for me to say "but I said that I know the enemy has airforces".

Yet, that's the very logic you're using in an attempt to discredit me. Ultimately you only further discredit yourself.This made me laugh. Loudly.

What, exactly, do you think an election is? One cannot expect to successfully campaign for POTUS on the "Unpopular Candidate" platform... :doh: I'm not the one saying I want to be President, or that I would be even qualified for the job.

However, I do have many ideas and a plan - trust me, it's a lot more complicated and difficult than "Destroy Mecca". But that plan doesn't mitigate the outrage that most of us (I'd better not generalize or you'll throw a fit) have over your plan, and you're the one that matters here.

As far as my plan goes, it's irrelevent to yours so why bring it up?Well, we've seen how well your calling me to the carpet has worked, haven't we? :know:

I haven't misrepresented a thing.I'm fine with that. Yet you're the one stating you wish to run for president, and your policy on terrorism is revolting to me. As such, you'd better get used to people not simply shrugging things off as a disagreement.*YAWN*. This is the fourth time you've made this very inaccurate statement.No, you showed me what you perceived to be an untrue statement. And I've showed you in this very reply how my words were 100% accurate from my perspective which is drawn from your supporting statements.

But what I find peculiar here is how much you're focusing on this "untrue" statement when it is merely a minor part of my point. Could it be that the rest of the argument hit home and you would rather divert attention to something so minute? Hmm.Actually, that's kind of what you're doing. I'm not attempting to discredit you - I'm attempting to illustrate the extreme flaws in your view on terror.

You, on the other hand, have turned this into a "you lied" type of thread. No, I didn't. You just didn't think hard enough about my statement.I didn't say your view was "garbage". I said that your statement that I wouldn't recognize victory was garbage. That's why I use the "Quote" feature - to make sure it's easy to keep my replies in context. Obviously context isn't important to you.

Either that, or you fell of your high horse and are deliberately attempting to use untruths to discredit me. In any case, here's a good time for the term "ironic".Perhaps, but I have noticed that you have a very arrogant tone.

I'm not calling you names either, btw. So what's your point?I'm starting to worry that your grasp of the English language is somewhat lacking. Every post you've made in this thread has been composed mostly of rhetoric.

Look the word "rhetoric" up. There are plenty of online dictionaries.

Oh, and to put things back into context - what I referred to as "garbage rhetoric" was your assertion that I wouldn't recognize victory. It was and still is garbage rhetoric.

Next.This is where I believe you do NOT understand terrorism. "Vast majority" doesn't matter. Did Timothy McVeigh have the "vast majority" of basements open to him?

A terrorist doesn't need the "vast majority" - he only needs one.

But in any case, should you destroy Mecca or any other city, people who sympathize will be coming out of the woodwork. You'd be making terrorism EASIER.

What you propose ultimately makes being a mainstream Muslim more difficult and being a terrorist a lot easier.Are you serious? That doesn't prove anything.

Terrorists in a cave does NOT prove that terrorists are NOT in basements. That's preposterous. And then to extrapolate that somehow it is somehow proof that your tactic would work is even more absurd.

As usual you're passing off your assumptions as proof.Yes, you were defining "victory conditions". And I was pointing out how your "condition" was impossible (my point all along). Therefore, it was irrelevent.

I didn't confuse the issue - I was specifically addressing your "victory conditions". You, on the other hand, chose to confuse it. Hmm...Entirely based upon the assumptions that:

1. Someone would know.
2. That someone would understand what they are seeing.
3. That someone would be aware of the threat posed by not reporting it.
4. That someone would care about that threat.
5. The terrorists are unable to hide their intentions.

I could go on and on, but there's no point. Your entire plan is based upon assumptions.Your logic is flawed as it is based upon assumptions.

That's why good leaders use logic AND precedence.It's a big world. REAL logic would assume that people would be able to find a place to hide.

As for your resource argument - did Timothy McVeigh have HAMAS funding him?

Did he need it?

You do NOT understand the nature of terrorism. Period.My wording? Excuse me?

My wording was precise and accurate. YOU chose to make it mean something else.A "shaken" Muslim world does not indicate the target would be effective at all. That's an assumption you're making, suspiciously absent a definition for "effective".The Six Day War - for starters.Let's just say I'd rather have president who doesn't arbitrarily throw away human lives based upon how things "seem" to him...Not at all. Yet another example of your contextual struggles...How Presidential. :salute:

In any case, why do you need my alternatives? They are irrelevent to the debate on YOUR plan.Won't like it? HAH!

Just wondering how long it took, after you wrote it, before you were done being supremely satisfied with yourself... :har: That's silly. The American people need a leader who knows HOW to see it but knows how to control his response to how he sees it. The job of the President isn't to "call it like he sees it", it's to make policy decisions on how he sees it.Again, more contextual flaws.

:yawn:

Maybe you should check your count.

People who said or clearly implied they disagree with Haplo:

1. Aramike
2. August
3. Mikhayl
4. UnderseaLcpl
5. AngusJS
6. baggygreen
7. Kapt Z
8. joegrundman
9. XabbaRus

It's odd that you say you have 3 people in agreement and PICK three people from the other side to equate it to...

Oh, and 17% here sure doesn't represent your "silent majority". I'm betting the 83% is more likely to do so. And, if you know anything about how political polling works (which you should, considering), your 17% is probably equal to about .1%.

You know, if you were actually as willing to listen to other people as you claim, the outrage at your idea would have forced you to back off the plan by now. Personally, I'm starting to think it's all just grandstanding - no serious candidate for president would feel out a campaign on a bulletin board.

I'm glad that it made you think, and please understand that it may not be the perfect policy to pursue. Even if you choose to endorse it, please remember that you can't come right out and say that it is your policy. It needs to be presented in politically correct steps, as I outlined before.
There are probably better policies out there, devised by minds much greater than my own (which really doesn't fall into the category of "great"), but allow me a little poetic license) , but my only goal here was to get you to step back and think about the ramifications of your actions.

Perhaps you will decide in favor of my plan, or perhaps not, but more than anything, I would urge you to think along the same lines that our founding fathers did. They were not perfect men, but they had great foresight, and they wrote a Constitution upon which this nation could stand. Should you ever obtain the office of President, I would hope that you would weigh their advice and ideals heavily before commiting to a policy. Admittedly, some of their writings leave some room for interpretation, but outright belligerence is not among those.

There is a lot of potential in your policies and platforms, and they may well see you into office someday, assuming you can deliver your intentions to the people and the special interests in a suitable manner. And I would hope that should you do so, you would keep faith with Constitutional law.

Of course, everything I have said thus far has been my opinion. But I am glad that it has given you pause to think. Even if you do not agree that my policy is the wisest, or even if you retain the assertion that yours is best, the important thing is that you have really spent some time considering other options.

Dammit, Undersea, why must you be so much more diplomatic than I am??? :haha:

Aramike and Mikhayl - I said in the first post of this thread - "I fully expect to learn quite a bit as I hope you all do as well." By that I made it obvious I was looking for other views to also consider. I have invited each person - you two specifically - to put out some of your own ideas. When I have done so, your response has been basically "well our ideas don't matter - your the one considering running for office.". I was under the impression that we follow the US Constitution, and thus have a representative form of government. I cannot know every idea. Once again your statements to the effect of "you are running - you should know it all" show your simply sitting back and waiting for someone to just come and make it all better for you. Sorry - life - and government - just doesn't work that way.

So far the both of you have either called me, or intimated that I am, arrogant. If I had the attitude that I had all the perfect answers, then I would be as arrogant as you charge me with. Rather I have come to a very small segment of people that I may one day choose to explore representing, to get feedback and discussion on various issues. There have been a couple of people that have thrown out ideas that - while not "in line" with my own - are worthy of great exploration and consideration. Apparently because I disagree with YOU - I am somehow arrogant. Because I am willing to put the security of this country above the views of other segments of the world - I am arrogant. Its one thing to disagree with the policy - and obviously you do. But the accusations and rebuttals are a waste of time - mine at least.

If you want to bring a fresh option for discussion - please do so. I will be more than happy to discuss them after I have a chance to consider them. If you want to simply repeat incessantly why you think my view is wrong - then understand that I accept you see it differently, but am no longer going to waste my time on responding to repetative posts. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so it is better to simply agree to disagree.

Having read Undersea's ideas - I have to say there are some things in there that may alter my position - at least slightly. This is what a good debate and communication does - it refines existing ideas, and incorporates new ones to make them more workable and acceptable to all. You have asked about my ability to work with Congress. Gentleman - this is a perfect example of how you accomplish things - you listen to the IDEAS of others and weigh them in regards to the intended outcome. You avoid repetative - and non-constructive - "discussions" with those that refuse to help move the process forward.

Maybe that is arrogant. Simply is the way I go about things. I have tried to get you to see it the way I do. You don't. I respect that. I still don't really know how YOU see the way the future would go - because neither of you is willing to share those thoughts. That is your right as well. But gentleman - if your waiting till someone has the "perfect" answer for you - without helping to shape it (as it seems you are refusing to do here) - just be prepared for a long wait.

I have no ill will toward either of you, and hope that you choose to help smooth all the rough edges of the policies I may promote. That choice is yours. If so, I will look forward to considering additional ideas and views. If not, I simply wish you both well, and God bless you both.

The arrogance remark was in response to specific comments you made:Those are just a couple of examples. It's clearly not just because you disagree with us, as you claim.

In any case, I have demonstrated, point-by-point, how your position is made up almost purely of assumptions. Your position is repulsive to many of us because you would throw away millions of lives based nothing more on your "logic" driven by your assumptions and complete misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism. What you don't get is that it only takes one guy to blow up a building - to hold an entire religion responsible for every practicioner in the very least invites totalitarianism - more realistically it is unfeesible.

A complete plan for controlling terrorism would be based upon the fact that the war cannot be won due to its nature. Therefore it would include economic, military, diplomatic, and legal components - far more complicated than a threat to blow up Mecca and hope the Muslim world falls in line.