BF2S Forums Democrat, the party of Al Qaeda

lol, nice.  cuz yeah, if I were democrat, I know i'd be rooting for al qaeda.

but honestly, if there was a chance that the democrats in congress and potentially a democrat president would negotiate with osama bin laden and al zawahri and make a peace treaty...would you have a problem with that?  How bout with them, hizbollah, hamas, islamic jihad, and the other USA haters out there we've pissed off?

Or would you prefer the non-diplomatic approach of continual warfare between our country's finest and them?  Continue to keep national progress on hold because all funds are going towards warfare that has no end...only escalation to the point of nukes in US cities, political assassinations, suicide attacks in OUR malls.  Is swallowing a little pride and accepting a little defeat for a good cause worth it?

Not that dems would have such negotiations (despite republicans unyielding belief that they would and they'd be wimps or something), but would it be so bad?  Or is being a macho cowboy warmonger the way for you?  Is killing and requiring deaths of your countrymen more important?

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-12-22 14:52:16)

IRONCHEF wrote:

lol, nice.  cuz yeah, if I were democrat, I know i'd be rooting for al qaeda.

but honestly, if there was a chance that the democrats in congress and potentially a democrat president would negotiate with osama bin laden and al zawahri and make a peace treaty...would you have a problem with that?  How bout with them, hizbollah, hamas, islamic jihad, and the other USA haters out there we've pissed off?

Or would you prefer the non-diplomatic approach of continual warfare between our country's finest and them?  Continue to keep national progress on hold because all funds are going towards warfare that has no end...only escalation to the point of nukes in US cities, political assassinations, suicide attacks in OUR malls.  Is swallowing a little pride and accepting a little defeat for a good cause worth it?

Not that dems would have such negotiations (despite republicans unyielding belief that they would and they'd be wimps or something), but would it be so bad?  Or is being a macho cowboy warmonger the way for you?  Is killing and requiring deaths of your countrymen more important?

Can't do that. You can't appease a dictator or a terrorist. Rule 1 of International Politics.

IRONCHEF wrote:

lol, nice.  cuz yeah, if I were democrat, I know i'd be rooting for al qaeda.

but honestly, if there was a chance that the democrats in congress and potentially a democrat president would negotiate with osama bin laden and al zawahri and make a peace treaty...would you have a problem with that?  How bout with them, hizbollah, hamas, islamic jihad, and the other USA haters out there we've pissed off?

Or would you prefer the non-diplomatic approach of continual warfare between our country's finest and them?  Continue to keep national progress on hold because all funds are going towards warfare that has no end...only escalation to the point of nukes in US cities, political assassinations, suicide attacks in OUR malls.  Is swallowing a little pride and accepting a little defeat for a good cause worth it?

Not that dems would have such negotiations (despite republicans unyielding belief that they would and they'd be wimps or something), but would it be so bad?  Or is being a macho cowboy warmonger the way for you?  Is killing and requiring deaths of your countrymen more important?

Uh....  You can't be serious here man....

I'm against this continual warfare myself, but I'm certainly not in favor of negotiating with extremists.

Negotiating with GOVERNMENTS is what we should be doing.  That's quite a different policy.

Case in point, we have worked very effectively with the Saudi Arabian government in rooting out terrorists in that country.  They still have terror cells there, but we've kept the conflicts very limited.  The country is still stable, and few people have died.  That's what we should do with the majority of the Middle East.

You negotiate with a government to make it in their best interests to help you eliminate extremists.  So far, this has worked ok with Pakistan, but it's going to take a lot of time and effort to keep things smooth over there.  We probably can't do the negotiation thing with Iran, but we might be able to do that with Syria.

One of the few things I agree with neo-cons on is that you can't negotiate with or trust extremists in the slightest bit.  That's just a horrible mistake, but we've done similar things before....

Turquoise wrote:

One of the few things I agree with neo-cons on is that you can't negotiate with or trust extremists in the slightest bit.  That's just a horrible mistake, but we've done similar things before....

If presented with a precedent, I'd be inclined to agree.   Take Muqtada al Sadr for example.  From the limited info I have on him, I'd say he was a potential ally if we treated him like a statesman..but no, we go and make him an enemy and the dude decides to party with the other "terrorists" (aka. Iraqis defending their country from invaders) and now he has the biggest army in iraq..and he's probably well supplied from Iran.  Now call me crazy, but imagine if we befriended him some...got him put into government in exchange for him to govern considerably more moderately than he has (he's a hardcore fundamentalist of sharia law)..imagine the potential with Iran through him if we did that.  But as usual...war prevails over discourse..as does pride.

Anyway, I'm dreaming here.  In short,  I know that Osama didn't just attack us to be a mean guy.  It was years, and even decades of abuse to his people that made him act up and do a horrible, disgusting and undeserving act on our people.  naturally we react with weapons and try to hurt him or anyone around him back so we "look good" to other countries.  what could have happened if we actually chose a different course.  Give ourselves a year to find and bring him to justice, and if failed, make an agreement with him.  Because continually giving him and others fuel for the fire...we only do ourselves a disjustice and put ourselves in harms way.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One of the few things I agree with neo-cons on is that you can't negotiate with or trust extremists in the slightest bit.  That's just a horrible mistake, but we've done similar things before....

If presented with a precedent, I'd be inclined to agree.   Take Muqtada al Sadr for example.  From the limited info I have on him, I'd say he was a potential ally if we treated him like a statesman..but no, we go and make him an enemy and the dude decides to party with the other "terrorists" (aka. Iraqis defending their country from invaders) and now he has the biggest army in iraq..and he's probably well supplied from Iran.  Now call me crazy, but imagine if we befriended him some...got him put into government in exchange for him to govern considerably more moderately than he has (he's a hardcore fundamentalist of sharia law)..imagine the potential with Iran through him if we did that.  But as usual...war prevails over discourse..as does pride.

Anyway, I'm dreaming here.  In short,  I know that Osama didn't just attack us to be a mean guy.  It was years, and even decades of abuse to his people that made him act up and do a horrible, disgusting and undeserving act on our people.  naturally we react with weapons and try to hurt him or anyone around him back so we "look good" to other countries.  what could have happened if we actually chose a different course.  Give ourselves a year to find and bring him to justice, and if failed, make an agreement with him.  Because continually giving him and others fuel for the fire...we only do ourselves a disjustice and put ourselves in harms way.

Muqtada is an interesting case.  He's never called for the destruction of the U.S. unconditionally.  He is very fierce in his opposition to our presence in Iraq, but I don't really put him on the same level as Osama and Zarqawi.  He's not as nihilistic as either of them, but he's definitely willing to kill anyone that gets in his way.

It would be nice if we could rationalize with Muqtada and employ him in helping us maintain order in Iraq, but that's not really possible.  The Mahdi Army has proven to be a very fractious group.  There are people in that militia that make Muqtada look like a moderate by comparison, and these ultra-extremists attack our forces even when Muqtada tries to call a ceasefire.

Simply put, Muqtada isn't really in total control of his own militia, and he's not particularly cooperative to begin with.  If we stay in Iraq for much longer, I don't think we'll have any other choice but to kill him and all of his followers.  Besides, we can't really negotiate with someone who's been responsible for the death of so many of our soldiers.  That would be rather cowardly in my opinion.

Either we kill him, or we withdraw and let his enemies kill him.  I know some of you here would call withdrawal cowardly, but to me, only appeasement is cowardly.

I honestly believe that, if Muqtada survives through the entirety of our time in Iraq, Iran will likely position him into becoming the next ruler of Iraq.  He's forceful enough to demand respect, and plenty of the Shia support him.  He's kind of like a less evil version of Saddam, which is essentially what Iraq would seem to need in regaining order.  Of course, assuming this role will require some serious intervention on the part of Iran.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-12-22 15:27:25)

CyrusTheVirus wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

Read it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 … ends_.html

Proud Liberals.

Fucking democrats. They're the scourge of everything America truly stands for.

Someone deserves his "I didn't read the whole thread!" button.

Elamdri wrote:

Jesus, people are gullible. The purpose of Terrorism is to cause regime instability in the enemy country and cause a regime change in that country. Of course they're purporting this as a victory. If ANY party took over the government, Al Qaeda would have claimed it as a victory. SO LONG AS THE REPUBLICANS LOOSE OFFICE, IT IS A VICTORY. That is how terrorism works...Christ help us and people wonder why the people we put in charge can't figure shit out.

They don't support Democrats, they support anyone who may change the current regime in America. It could be the damn Nazi party for all they care.

One of the few posts in this thread that has any truth in it.

Elamdri wrote:

It will be interesting to see what happens. Obviously, the democrats can't appease Al Qaeda, but neither can they continue the war as it is currently going... Must be fun to be elected into a box you can't get out of that is slowly closing in on you.

I would never underestimate the power of the LIBERAL appeasement powers. I think I have been saying liberals are the appeasing, apologist, terrorist labdogs for quite some time now. Good to see I have back up now.

Don´t worry about negotiations, the terrorists will never negotiate with the christian extremenists from US.

IRONCHEF wrote:

You sure about that?  If we treated Osama bin Laden as an equal for a minute.  Granted temporary immunity for a meeting and a negotiation to end conflicts, that wouldn't work?  Even the israeli/palestinian warfare stops for a few days when they make token cease fires. 

If we don't try, we'll never know..we'll just see more and more good americans becoming the blood thirsty vengful palestians/jews that we call animals when we watch them at war on TV.  Look at this message board..it's already full of people who would chose continual warfare!  We have Bill Kristol's right here among us! lol

*addition* 
Assuming Osama bin Laden actually has a cause in all this, and is not just randomly terrorizing Americans (as many Americans obviously think), then it makes sense to negotiate against his cause.  He felt threatened that Saudi was being desecrated by the presense of US troops, and some other things most of us don't even know.  If those were on the table, if we stopped making Israel the #1 terrorist threat in the middle east...would Osama bin laden just say "PSych!!"  then launch suicide raids all over washington?  I doubt it.  He's an old man wanting something for his people.  I"m gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm sure he'd like it if he didn't have to hide and duck bullets the rest of his life.  He'd probably like to be a fundamentalist sheik somewhere and teach some followers and tell old war stories of defeating the soviets and the americans.  I could handle that I think..if it meant his organization wouldn't mess with our country anymore.

Do you still beleive in Santa Clause ?

No they use a more refined tactics...such as bunkerbusters and stealthbombers.

In spain the terrorits doesn´t hold any govermentpower at all, in many muslim nations the entire goverment are soo called terrorists.

lowing wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

It will be interesting to see what happens. Obviously, the democrats can't appease Al Qaeda, but neither can they continue the war as it is currently going... Must be fun to be elected into a box you can't get out of that is slowly closing in on you.

I would never underestimate the power of the LIBERAL appeasement powers. I think I have been saying liberals are the appeasing, apologist, terrorist labdogs for quite some time now. Good to see I have back up now.

Appeasement just isn't a strategy that anyone can really take and expect to make any progress with. Just look at the Munich Agreement! Case study for appeasement.

I personally feel that things have been screwed up ever since Bush decided not to go into Afghanistan with the coalition forces, like his dad. Way to snub the UN.