The United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam."

[oldguy]

For me, those words describe the liberal mindset in a nutshell. Too many of them believe that, if they won't make war with others, others will not make war with them. I sure hope President Obama's right.

I don't want to come across as bashing the president. The fact is, we all need to be pulling for him.

For the US to have a decent chance of surviving this depression and remain a world power, we're going to need him to be one of the best presidents ever.

But when he says shit like that, it does make me nervous.

 

[Denny Crane]

I never heard that we're at war with Islam. Sounds like he's saying the basic truth.

 

[oldguy]

It's the "will never be" part that bothers me.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why do we want to be at war with Islam?

Seems to me we're all about religious freedom and tolerance. On top of that, war with Islam means war with 1.3B people, a war we don't want or need to fight.

There is a HUGE difference, though, between Islam as a whole and the radical ultrareligious nutbags who are intent on violence and killing or torturing innocent people.

 

[oldguy]

Why do we want to be at war with Islam?

Seems to me we're all about religious freedom and tolerance. On top of that, war with Islam means war with 1.3B people, a war we don't want or need to fight.

Dude! I didn't say I wanted the US to go to war with Islam.

The president said that we will never be at war with Islam. I hope he is right, but I also think it is a huge leap of faith to say that Islam will never go to war against the US.

There is a HUGE difference, though, between Islam as a whole and the radical ultrareligious nutbags who are intent on violence and killing or torturing innocent people.

Where do you classify the Palestinians, nutballs or Islam as a whole?

In the middle east as a whole, would you say that it's only the nutballs that hate Israel, or Islam as a whole?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Islam is the religion of peace.

 

[PapaG]

Islam is the religion of peace.

Exactly.

Why is President Obama even mentioning that we would want to be at war with them?

 

[The Professional Fan]

This is the right move for us right now. And no, we aren't, or ever will be, at war with Islam.

I've been a registered Independent since I was 18. But I've always leaned to the right. But it *is* important that the U.S. gather as many allies as possible right now. The "if you aren't with us you're against us" policy of W was a mistake. As long as Obama has the balls to initiate warfare when it's absolutely needed, I think diplomacy, right now, is the way to go.

And despite what some people think, we weren't, and are not, any safer based on W's or Obama's foreign policies. Bottom line is this - no matter who is in charge, if the terrorists are patient enough, and determined enough, they will strike on our homeland again. Anyone that thinks different, despite who is in the white house, is fooling themselves.

 

[julius]

It'd be pretty stupid to say that we'd ever go to war with a religion, considering there isn't one stance that a religion makes.

We can go to war with people of different religions, but trying to say we could go to war against a religion would be one of the worst things a president (or political leader) could say.

 

[bodyman5001]

What weapon could one use to defeat Islam? Some sort of hypnotic laser memory erasing machine that changes them into Christians?

Good thing Obama said we aren't at war with a religion, I haven't finished building that machine yet.

I was just going to use it to trick hot women into sleeping with me and then erase their memories. Psst, don't tell the FBI.

On another note, I have never and will never want to punch the easter bunny in the cubes.

 

[maxiep]

Bottom line is this - no matter who is in charge, if the terrorists are patient enough, and determined enough, they will strike on our homeland again. Anyone that thinks different, despite who is in the white house, is fooling themselves.

Well, we could hunt and kill them. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Wait, what?

Explain.

 

[maxiep]

Wait, what?

Explain.

Rather than sitting and waiting for terrorists to strike the US, we go out and kill them. How is that so hard to understand?

 

[MARIS61]

Rather than sitting and waiting for terrorists to strike the US, we go out and kill them. How is that so hard to understand?

There are millions of terrorists around the world who don't like us right now.

And that's a conservative estimate, IMO.

You can thank Bush/Cheney's War for Halliburton for the bulk of them.

You can't efficiently kill that many people scattered around the globe.

Bush/Cheney had to massacre nearly an entire nation to get the dozen or so that existed in Iraq back then.

Now half of Iraq hates us for bombing their loved ones into eternity. The other half just wants us to leave.

I like The Golden Rule. That's how people and countries should behave, and someone has to man up and do it first.

 

[Denny Crane]

Where do you classify the Palestinians, nutballs or Islam as a whole?

In the middle east as a whole, would you say that it's only the nutballs that hate Israel, or Islam as a whole?

If it's an NGO and their leadership comes out with some fatwah saying "death to X" where X is a country or large class of people, then I classify them as nutballs.

Islam isn't a nation.

 

[Ed O]

Rather than sitting and waiting for terrorists to strike the US, we go out and kill them. How is that so hard to understand?

Yep, make the battlefield somewhere far away. Reduce infrastructure that can sustain large-scale attempts on our country to rubble.

It's a destructive and self-serving foreign policy, but it might be the best one we've got.

On the original topic: I don't think that anyone in our country (at least anyone who thinks like a Westerner) thinks that we were ever at war with Islam. I think that very, very few think that a religion against an entire religion would ever, ever happen.

But Obama pointing out what so many of us consider common sense and self-evident is almost certainly not going to HURT anything, and it might undercut those who think differently than we do from rabble-rousing by saying the US is now--or soon will be--at war with the entire faith of Islam.

Ed O.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Rather than sitting and waiting for terrorists to strike the US, we go out and kill them. How is that so hard to understand?

I was actually responding to the original poster, but I've always got something for you too

I know you're not going to take this notion seriously, but "going out and killing" terrorists is a treatment, not a cure. We will never ever ever ever stop terrorism with violence. Never. It won't happen. Sorry.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Obama has a two-fold agenda here:

1) Appeasement. Like the Clinton strategy that directly led to 911, if we say we love you, do things for you to show we love you, then it follows you will love us too. I'm not a big fan of this approach and never have been.

2) Mutual respect- There are two ways to deal with foreign governments and peoples- stand up and be a leader, or, seek a path of mutual respect. I think both can be very effective, so here it comes down to what Obama feels most comfortable with. Take Iran, for example. He knows the president is a liar. He knows they are plotting to do what they can to be an irritant to us. He knows that they laugh at us as infidels. However, some people think the closer you keep to your enemies the more you will know what they are up to. Sometimes enemies can help each other once in a while. I have no problem with this approach so long as he keeps the right perspective that we aren't door mats.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Obama has a two-fold agenda here:

1) Appeasement. Like the Clinton strategy that directly led to 911, if we say we love you, do things for you to show we love you, then it follows you will love us too.

Please explain how Clinton's "we love you" strategy led directly to 911. This should be good.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Please explain how Clinton's "we love you" strategy led directly to 911. This should be good.

Clinton had aggreements in place with Al Queida (spelling?) that gave us assurances we were safe from them in exchange for some certain liberties they would enjoy from our government.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Clinton had aggreements in place with Al Queida (spelling?) that gave us assurances we were safe from them in exchange for some certain liberties they would enjoy from our government.

link, please.

 

[¹²³]

 

[oldguy]

It'd be pretty stupid to say that we'd ever go to war with a religion, considering there isn't one stance that a religion makes.

We can go to war with people of different religions, but trying to say we could go to war against a religion would be one of the worst things a president (or political leader) could say.

Once again, I didn't say we should, or would, ever go to war with Islam. Clearly, the president is saying that we will not.

It does amaze me that nobody, including President Obama thinks that it is even a possibility that the collective Nation of Islam would ever go to war with the US.

 

[oldguy]

If it's an NGO and their leadership comes out with some fatwah saying "death to X" where X is a country or large class of people, then I classify them as nutballs.

Islam isn't a nation.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't see how that answered the two questions I asked.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

It does amaze me that nobody, including President Obama thinks that it is even a possibility that the collective Nation of Islam would ever go to war with the US.

So... you're afraid of Louis Farrakhan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_islam

If you're are talking about Islam as in the religion, as in over a billion people, well, they're not going to go to war with the US. Aside from every other reason, the most logistical one I can think of is that there is no central leader of Islam to command the troops.

The only way that what you're suggesting ever happens is if we fully invade Saudi Arabia and rename Mecca as Jew Land USA.

 

[maxiep]

There are millions of terrorists around the world who don't like us right now.

And that's a conservative estimate, IMO.

You can thank Bush/Cheney's War for Halliburton for the bulk of them.

You can't efficiently kill that many people scattered around the globe.

Bush/Cheney had to massacre nearly an entire nation to get the dozen or so that existed in Iraq back then.

Now half of Iraq hates us for bombing their loved ones into eternity. The other half just wants us to leave.

I like The Golden Rule. That's how people and countries should behave, and someone has to man up and do it first.

Your mind is an interesting place.

 

[maxiep]

I was actually responding to the original poster, but I've always got something for you too

I know you're not going to take this notion seriously, but "going out and killing" terrorists is a treatment, not a cure. We will never ever ever ever stop terrorism with violence. Never. It won't happen. Sorry.

The idea that we can just sit around a campfire, making S'mores and singing kumbaya with these folks and they'll suddenly decide they were wrong is naive.

Sometimes people just need to be killed.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The idea that we can just sit around a campfire, making S'mores and singing kumbaya with these folks and they'll suddenly decide they were wrong is naive.

Sometimes people just need to be killed.

Your mind is an interesting place.

also: take a class in conflict resolution, for fucks sake!

 

[maxiep]

Your mind is an interesting place.

also: take a class in conflict resolution, for fucks sake!

Aren't you in grad school? If so, you should know that plagiarism is among the most serious of offenses.

Implied in your second sentence is the idea that the terrorists can be negotiated with. That view is not just naive, but dangerous. As for taking classes in "conflict resolution", I don't watch Oprah or Dr. Phil. I have studied negotiation, and I can tell you there's no Zone of Agreement available between our two sides. Therefore the BATNA is to hunt them down and kill them where they live.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't see how that answered the two questions I asked.

1) Where do you classify the Palestinians, nutballs or Islam as a whole?

2) In the middle east as a whole, would you say that it's only the nutballs that hate Israel, or Islam as a whole?

#1 - it depends on the person, eh? The civilians or those who are members of NGO terrorist groups who bomb buses and pizza parlors are nutballs. There's plenty of Palestinians who are muslims and who would love to thrive in peace in their own nation alongside israel. They're not nutballs, right?

#2 - Islam as a whole clearly doesn't hate Israel. Given certain concessions, Israel has found peace with Egypt and many other Arab/Islamic nations have offered recognition and trade.

I simply don't see any scenario where any significant portion of the whole of Islam goes to war against us. For certain, several of Qatar, UAE, Turkey, Iraq, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab states are our allies, and not anywhere near hating us.