Would the US gvt allow an American Muslim to conduct dialogue w. terrorists?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I would personally volunteer for this kind of Ambassadorship. My philosophy is that all people are good, and it is their society and their environment that veers them towards mischief. I personally have never believed in violence unless in extreme cases. I have always felt that when two people of different worlds come together and talk, a lot more good can be accomplished. I feel as an American Muslim I am in a really good position to throw myself in the line of fire and try to shield both sides from this hate.
I honestly feel both sides don't understand each other, and quite frankly the unknown can create fear which ultimately leads to illogical violence.
However, at the same time I feel that if I were to ever volunteer myself for such a thing, my intensions would be misjudged by both sides.
It is a good idea. But even if they let you it probably won't accomplish much unless you have uber persuasive skills. It would be like me going to Pat Robertson and telling him to stop saying that all those who do not believe in the lord and savior will burn in the hellfires. SunofVichBut I am sure him and I could agree that we can leave that up for God to decide. It is not the place of man to judge another, we can only see a single side of a person. We can not look into their heart, see their intentions and such. I mean, the way I look at it is, it all comes down to two people accepting the other person has a different point of view. Even if we don't agree with their point of view, I am sure ultimately there is a way to pinpoint the differences in opinion and come to some kind of understanding of one another. Even sin() and cos() tend to agree, and both coexist quite fine.
I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.Nick11478Risk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government allow such volunteers to go across these boards? Trust us enough to risk our lives? Believe that such a thing might bring us closer to common ground? Would my governement care for my familty if I were to die? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
I am going to be graduating this semester. I still have an oppurtunity to do such a thing. It will be too late if I am married and have a family to take care of.
[QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.rimnet00Risk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.xXBuffJeffXxRisk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt. We are already losing soldiers in Iraq, we are already seeing the casulties on their side; and I am talking about people who would know the risk. Know that they could be dead as soon as they walked into the uncontrolled streets of Iraq. Know that they could die before they are able to utter a word. However, at least an attempt would be made.
[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.rimnet00Risk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt.
Oh, believe me, violence is not the solution. From a military perspective, the Bush Doctrine is a boneheaded approach to combating terrorism. There is no such thing as a victory against terrorists. We will never defeat them, and you are right to assume that if there is a solution to it, it is a political, not a military one. I think we simply have to improve our image internationally and stop being the epitomy of an imperialistic power. Other than that there is nothing we can do. "The War on Terrorism" is such a idiotic concept. The military is being tasked with the impossible, tasked with something it isn't even trained to do. Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely frustrated with this administration for getting 3,000 of my brothers in uniform killed and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well in the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time.
I should probably make it clear, that term negotiation shouldn't be taken out of context. Obviously there is negotiation already on the table: cease fire. Wouldn't that at least be a starting point towards peace? Or have we already set out minds that these people are sub-human and must be wiped off the earth? Surely some of you still believe in the good of humanity that can be found in every man?rimnet00cease fires mean nothing, it just gives the enemy a chance to resupply. Diplomacy doesnt always work this is such a case. terrorists have their minds set on a cause and we have ours set on stopping them. negotiating with terrorists just doesnt work. Frankly i believe there is is no humanity in these creatures, anyone who kills innocent men and women and our troops for the hell of it with out any regard for human life, shouldnt be called human
[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.xXBuffJeffXxRisk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt.
Oh, believe me, violence is not the solution. From a military perspective, the Bush Doctrine is a boneheaded approach to combating terrorism. There is no such thing as a victory against terrorists. We will never defeat them, and you are right to assume that if there is a solution to it, it is a political, not a military one. I think we simply have to improve our image internationally and stop being the epitomy of an imperialistic power. Other than that there is nothing we can do. "The War on Terrorism" is such a idiotic concept. The military is being tasked with the impossible, tasked with something it isn't even trained to do. Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely frustrated with this administration for getting 3,000 of my brothers in uniform killed and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well in the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time.
the military is designed for defense and combat, this may sound cruel but. when you join the military theres a chance of you being killed and you should know that before you sign up, its what their trained to. just like many of you have your jobs the military is doings its job. Deaths happen in war and yes its horrible but its the unfortunate truth, you shouldnt have such a pescimistic view on this war we are making significant progress in Iraq, lets not be ignorant of the situation, they have lossed perhaps 10-15 or more the number of troops we have, they are losing you will see in the upcoming months.
[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.UrbanSpartan125Risk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt.
Oh, believe me, violence is not the solution. From a military perspective, the Bush Doctrine is a boneheaded approach to combating terrorism. There is no such thing as a victory against terrorists. We will never defeat them, and you are right to assume that if there is a solution to it, it is a political, not a military one. I think we simply have to improve our image internationally and stop being the epitomy of an imperialistic power. Other than that there is nothing we can do. "The War on Terrorism" is such a idiotic concept. The military is being tasked with the impossible, tasked with something it isn't even trained to do. Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely frustrated with this administration for getting 3,000 of my brothers in uniform killed and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well in the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time.
the military is designed for defense and combat, this may sound cruel but. when you join the military theres a chance of you being killed and you should know that before you sign up, its what their trained to. just like many of you have your jobs the military is doings its job. Deaths happen in war and yes its horrible but its the unfortunate truth, you shouldnt have such a pescimistic view on this war we are making significant progress in Iraq, lets not be ignorant of the situation, they have lossed perhaps 10-15 or more the number of troops we have, they are losing you will see in the upcoming months.
You need to brush up on counter-insurgency operations before you go throwing figures like that out. Any military strategist looks for the enemy's "center of gravity." Now, traditional thought (the type that flourished in Vietnam) was that the enemy soldiers were the center of gravity. Therefore, logically, the number of enemy dead signified our progress.
A little post-Vietnam introspection on the part of the Army discovered that the enemy's center of gravity in a counter-insurgency war is NOT THE ENEMY SOLDIERS themselves. It is the people. The solution to an insurgency is a political, not a military one. The number of enemy dead, therefore, is irrelevant.
We have essentially done the complete opposite in this war. From my perspective, we've pretty much done everything we could to create a strong insurgency in Iraq without even trying to.
"In counterinsurgency, the battlespace isn't physical, it's psychological. The battle is for the people.
-Lt. Col. Holshek
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you completely UbranSpartan. This is the kind of mentality I feel both extreme sides of this war have, and it is the exact mentality that needs to be stopped. Call me a tree hugging liberal or whatever. Now, clearly you have your mind set, so it would be foolish of me to try to change your view. If I were to agree with you, wouldn't we have already nuked them? It would have been a lot easier to do that then risk our own lives. I think it is quite clear that our administration at least somewhat believes we can resolve this conflict. I still have some hope even after seeing our actions in that country. rimnet00Nuclear Weapons in my view, should only be used if our country is invaded and/or attacked with a nuclear weapon, otherwise they should not be used. this war is beyond any political actions in my view, from here on its has to be military until the Iraqi government and Iraqi Army are settled in and willing to cooperate. After That it should be political we will have won, in a sense we already have won, when we return home the terrorist activities should settle after a few months and we can further our diplomatic relationship with Iraq.
To those fellow Americans who still believe in peace:
I beg you all to consider such volunteers to be sent over enemy lines. There must be a way to end this war diplomatically. We have already lost too many trying to end the conflict with violence, so what is a few more who volenteer to risk their lives in another manner? I think we all know that war will always exist in this world; it is only our imperfections that seem to draw us to it.
Wouldn't it be worth such an effort even if it would last a year, a month, a week, or even a day?
[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.xXBuffJeffXxRisk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt.
Oh, believe me, violence is not the solution. From a military perspective, the Bush Doctrine is a boneheaded approach to combating terrorism. There is no such thing as a victory against terrorists. We will never defeat them, and you are right to assume that if there is a solution to it, it is a political, not a military one. I think we simply have to improve our image internationally and stop being the epitomy of an imperialistic power. Other than that there is nothing we can do. "The War on Terrorism" is such a idiotic concept. The military is being tasked with the impossible, tasked with something it isn't even trained to do. Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely frustrated with this administration for getting 3,000 of my brothers in uniform killed and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well in the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time.
the military is designed for defense and combat, this may sound cruel but. when you join the military theres a chance of you being killed and you should know that before you sign up, its what their trained to. just like many of you have your jobs the military is doings its job. Deaths happen in war and yes its horrible but its the unfortunate truth, you shouldnt have such a pescimistic view on this war we are making significant progress in Iraq, lets not be ignorant of the situation, they have lossed perhaps 10-15 or more the number of troops we have, they are losing you will see in the upcoming months.
You need to brush up on counter-insurgency operations before you go throwing figures like that out. Any military strategist looks for the enemy's "center of gravity." Now, traditional thought (the type that flourished in Vietnam) was that the enemy soldiers were the center of gravity. Therefore, logically, the number of enemy dead signified our progress.
A little post-Vietnam introspection on the part of the Army discovered that the enemy's center of gravity in a counter-insurgency war is NOT THE ENEMY SOLDIERS themselves. It is the people. The solution to an insurgency is a political, not a military one. The number of enemy dead, therefore, is irrelevant.
We have essentially done the complete opposite in this war. From my perspective, we've pretty much done everything we could to create a strong insurgency in Iraq without even trying to.
"In counterinsurgency, the battlespace isn't physical, it's psychological. The battle is for the people.
-Lt. Col. Holshek
It is true that Some Iraqi people are the cause of this terrorism, but its a minority compared to those who want freedom. Many of these Iraqis support us, contrary to what you might think. they want this to be over with, they want to return to normal lives and they know if they continue to fight us it wont end. many chose not to fight us, there are certain groups though that are willing to fight us. But overall there is not and endless supply of insurgents because most people dont believe in what the terrorists are fighting for
[QUOTE="rimnet00"]I'm sorry, but I disagree with you completely UbranSpartan. This is the kind of mentality I feel both extreme sides of this war have, and it is the exact mentality that needs to be stopped. Call me a tree hugging liberal or whatever. Now, clearly you have your mind set, so it would be foolish of me to try to change your view. If I were to agree with you, wouldn't we have already nuked them? It would have been a lot easier to do that then risk our own lives. I think it is quite clear that our administration at least somewhat believes we can resolve this conflict. I still have some hope even after seeing our actions in that country. UrbanSpartan125Nuclear Weapons in my view, should only be used if our country is invaded and/or attacked with a nuclear weapon, otherwise they should not be used. this war is beyond any political actions in my view, from here on its has to be military until the Iraqi government and Iraqi Army are settled in and willing to cooperate. After That it should be political we will have won, in a sense we already have won, when we return home the terrorist activities should settle after a few months and we can further our diplomatic relationship with Iraq.
You're delusional.
Regardless of what happened in the past. I think most of this country wants to get back to its regular lives. It is actually quite frustrating that peace seems to be completely thrown off the table by some people. Both sides have lost family in this war, and I think both sides would like to stop losing even more over such an illogical conflict.im sorry but people who chop off the heads of our troops and journalists should not be negotiated with. it would not be smart to volunter to go over there likely it will happen to you, you dont know how these people think it is simply inhumane
To those fellow Americans who still believe in peace:
I beg you all to consider such volunteers to be sent over enemy lines. There must be a way to end this war diplomatically. We have already lost too many trying to end the conflict with violence, so what is a few more who volenteer to risk their lives in another manner? I think we all know that war will always exist in this world; it is only our imperfections that seem to draw us to it.
Wouldn't it be worth such an effort even if it would last a year, a month, a week, or even a day?
rimnet00
[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]I'm sorry, but I disagree with you completely UbranSpartan. This is the kind of mentality I feel both extreme sides of this war have, and it is the exact mentality that needs to be stopped. Call me a tree hugging liberal or whatever. Now, clearly you have your mind set, so it would be foolish of me to try to change your view. If I were to agree with you, wouldn't we have already nuked them? It would have been a lot easier to do that then risk our own lives. I think it is quite clear that our administration at least somewhat believes we can resolve this conflict. I still have some hope even after seeing our actions in that country. TheOT_KingNuclear Weapons in my view, should only be used if our country is invaded and/or attacked with a nuclear weapon, otherwise they should not be used. this war is beyond any political actions in my view, from here on its has to be military until the Iraqi government and Iraqi Army are settled in and willing to cooperate. After That it should be political we will have won, in a sense we already have won, when we return home the terrorist activities should settle after a few months and we can further our diplomatic relationship with Iraq.
You're delusional.
id like to see how you think we are losing
[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.UrbanSpartan125Risk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt.
Oh, believe me, violence is not the solution. From a military perspective, the Bush Doctrine is a boneheaded approach to combating terrorism. There is no such thing as a victory against terrorists. We will never defeat them, and you are right to assume that if there is a solution to it, it is a political, not a military one. I think we simply have to improve our image internationally and stop being the epitomy of an imperialistic power. Other than that there is nothing we can do. "The War on Terrorism" is such a idiotic concept. The military is being tasked with the impossible, tasked with something it isn't even trained to do. Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely frustrated with this administration for getting 3,000 of my brothers in uniform killed and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well in the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time.
the military is designed for defense and combat, this may sound cruel but. when you join the military theres a chance of you being killed and you should know that before you sign up, its what their trained to. just like many of you have your jobs the military is doings its job. Deaths happen in war and yes its horrible but its the unfortunate truth, you shouldnt have such a pescimistic view on this war we are making significant progress in Iraq, lets not be ignorant of the situation, they have lossed perhaps 10-15 or more the number of troops we have, they are losing you will see in the upcoming months.
You need to brush up on counter-insurgency operations before you go throwing figures like that out. Any military strategist looks for the enemy's "center of gravity." Now, traditional thought (the type that flourished in Vietnam) was that the enemy soldiers were the center of gravity. Therefore, logically, the number of enemy dead signified our progress.
A little post-Vietnam introspection on the part of the Army discovered that the enemy's center of gravity in a counter-insurgency war is NOT THE ENEMY SOLDIERS themselves. It is the people. The solution to an insurgency is a political, not a military one. The number of enemy dead, therefore, is irrelevant.
We have essentially done the complete opposite in this war. From my perspective, we've pretty much done everything we could to create a strong insurgency in Iraq without even trying to.
"In counterinsurgency, the battlespace isn't physical, it's psychological. The battle is for the people.
-Lt. Col. Holshek
It is true that Some Iraqi people are the cause of this terrorism, but its a minority compared to those who want freedom. Many of these Iraqis support us, contrary to what you might think. they want this to be over with, they want to return to normal lives and they know if they continue to fight us it wont end. many chose not to fight us, there are certain groups though that are willing to fight us. But overall there is not and endless supply of insurgents because most people dont believe in what the terrorists are fighting for
Then tell me why there are more terrorists now than there were when we first went in. Think outside the box. We are fighting this war the wrong way. The way we are fighting it is creating more enemies. As long as we continue to fight like this there is an endless supply of insurgents because the insurgents are the Iraqi people. They have an unlimited recruiting pool in the Iraqi population.
[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.xXBuffJeffXxRisk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt.
Oh, believe me, violence is not the solution. From a military perspective, the Bush Doctrine is a boneheaded approach to combating terrorism. There is no such thing as a victory against terrorists. We will never defeat them, and you are right to assume that if there is a solution to it, it is a political, not a military one. I think we simply have to improve our image internationally and stop being the epitomy of an imperialistic power. Other than that there is nothing we can do. "The War on Terrorism" is such a idiotic concept. The military is being tasked with the impossible, tasked with something it isn't even trained to do. Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely frustrated with this administration for getting 3,000 of my brothers in uniform killed and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well in the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time.
the military is designed for defense and combat, this may sound cruel but. when you join the military theres a chance of you being killed and you should know that before you sign up, its what their trained to. just like many of you have your jobs the military is doings its job. Deaths happen in war and yes its horrible but its the unfortunate truth, you shouldnt have such a pescimistic view on this war we are making significant progress in Iraq, lets not be ignorant of the situation, they have lossed perhaps 10-15 or more the number of troops we have, they are losing you will see in the upcoming months.
You need to brush up on counter-insurgency operations before you go throwing figures like that out. Any military strategist looks for the enemy's "center of gravity." Now, traditional thought (the type that flourished in Vietnam) was that the enemy soldiers were the center of gravity. Therefore, logically, the number of enemy dead signified our progress.
A little post-Vietnam introspection on the part of the Army discovered that the enemy's center of gravity in a counter-insurgency war is NOT THE ENEMY SOLDIERS themselves. It is the people. The solution to an insurgency is a political, not a military one. The number of enemy dead, therefore, is irrelevant.
We have essentially done the complete opposite in this war. From my perspective, we've pretty much done everything we could to create a strong insurgency in Iraq without even trying to.
"In counterinsurgency, the battlespace isn't physical, it's psychological. The battle is for the people.
-Lt. Col. Holshek
It is true that Some Iraqi people are the cause of this terrorism, but its a minority compared to those who want freedom. Many of these Iraqis support us, contrary to what you might think. they want this to be over with, they want to return to normal lives and they know if they continue to fight us it wont end. many chose not to fight us, there are certain groups though that are willing to fight us. But overall there is not and endless supply of insurgents because most people dont believe in what the terrorists are fighting for
Then tell me why there are more terrorists now than there were when we first went in. Think outside the box. We are fighting this war the wrong way. The way we are fighting it is creating more enemies. As long as we continue to fight like this there is an endless supply of insurgents because the insurgents are the Iraqi people. They have an unlimited recruiting pool in the Iraqi population.
because they realized they couldnt beat us in conventional warfare when we made it to their capital in 2 weeks, If we pull out it will cause many more insurgents and terrorists, there is a limit to the insurgency as i said before, many people want to continue with normal lives not ruin them
[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.UrbanSpartan125Risk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt.
Oh, believe me, violence is not the solution. From a military perspective, the Bush Doctrine is a boneheaded approach to combating terrorism. There is no such thing as a victory against terrorists. We will never defeat them, and you are right to assume that if there is a solution to it, it is a political, not a military one. I think we simply have to improve our image internationally and stop being the epitomy of an imperialistic power. Other than that there is nothing we can do. "The War on Terrorism" is such a idiotic concept. The military is being tasked with the impossible, tasked with something it isn't even trained to do. Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely frustrated with this administration for getting 3,000 of my brothers in uniform killed and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well in the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time.
the military is designed for defense and combat, this may sound cruel but. when you join the military theres a chance of you being killed and you should know that before you sign up, its what their trained to. just like many of you have your jobs the military is doings its job. Deaths happen in war and yes its horrible but its the unfortunate truth, you shouldnt have such a pescimistic view on this war we are making significant progress in Iraq, lets not be ignorant of the situation, they have lossed perhaps 10-15 or more the number of troops we have, they are losing you will see in the upcoming months.
You need to brush up on counter-insurgency operations before you go throwing figures like that out. Any military strategist looks for the enemy's "center of gravity." Now, traditional thought (the type that flourished in Vietnam) was that the enemy soldiers were the center of gravity. Therefore, logically, the number of enemy dead signified our progress.
A little post-Vietnam introspection on the part of the Army discovered that the enemy's center of gravity in a counter-insurgency war is NOT THE ENEMY SOLDIERS themselves. It is the people. The solution to an insurgency is a political, not a military one. The number of enemy dead, therefore, is irrelevant.
We have essentially done the complete opposite in this war. From my perspective, we've pretty much done everything we could to create a strong insurgency in Iraq without even trying to.
"In counterinsurgency, the battlespace isn't physical, it's psychological. The battle is for the people.
-Lt. Col. Holshek
It is true that Some Iraqi people are the cause of this terrorism, but its a minority compared to those who want freedom. Many of these Iraqis support us, contrary to what you might think. they want this to be over with, they want to return to normal lives and they know if they continue to fight us it wont end. many chose not to fight us, there are certain groups though that are willing to fight us. But overall there is not and endless supply of insurgents because most people dont believe in what the terrorists are fighting for
Then tell me why there are more terrorists now than there were when we first went in. Think outside the box. We are fighting this war the wrong way. The way we are fighting it is creating more enemies. As long as we continue to fight like this there is an endless supply of insurgents because the insurgents are the Iraqi people. They have an unlimited recruiting pool in the Iraqi population.
because they realized they couldnt beat us in conventional warfare when we made it to their capital in 2 weeks, If we pull out it will cause many more insurgents and terrorists, there is a limit to the insurgency as i said before, many people want to continue with normal lives not ruin them
I'm not saying pull out. We owe the Iraqis that much for ruining their country. I'm saying we have to start fighting this war differently because it has become glaringly obvious that we aren't doing very well right about now.
[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="Nick11478"]I think that would be a little too risky. But a great idea.xXBuffJeffXxRisk wouldn't play a factor into my ultimate decision, if such an opportunity was given to me. I mean, my life for possible peace? Its quite a small price, I would say. I rather do that then risk my life with a gun in hand, firing on God knows who... charlie?
However, the question is still posed. Would our government such volunteers do such a thing? These thoughts have recently entered my mind, and I am seriously considering such a formal proposal.
It wouldn't work. Read my post above. The government's official policy is to not negotiate with terrorists anyway. No offense, but I think you're being way too optimistic about this. If the solution to terrorism was this simple than somebody would have tried it by now.
Yet how can we be so optimistic about violence being our solution. The way I see it we have more terrorists today then we did a few years back. I will be honest, I don't know for sure if it would work. However, I also think there wouldn't be much to lose with such an attempt.
Oh, believe me, violence is not the solution. From a military perspective, the Bush Doctrine is a boneheaded approach to combating terrorism. There is no such thing as a victory against terrorists. We will never defeat them, and you are right to assume that if there is a solution to it, it is a political, not a military one. I think we simply have to improve our image internationally and stop being the epitomy of an imperialistic power. Other than that there is nothing we can do. "The War on Terrorism" is such a idiotic concept. The military is being tasked with the impossible, tasked with something it isn't even trained to do. Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely frustrated with this administration for getting 3,000 of my brothers in uniform killed and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians as well in the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time.
the military is designed for defense and combat, this may sound cruel but. when you join the military theres a chance of you being killed and you should know that before you sign up, its what their trained to. just like many of you have your jobs the military is doings its job. Deaths happen in war and yes its horrible but its the unfortunate truth, you shouldnt have such a pescimistic view on this war we are making significant progress in Iraq, lets not be ignorant of the situation, they have lossed perhaps 10-15 or more the number of troops we have, they are losing you will see in the upcoming months.
You need to brush up on counter-insurgency operations before you go throwing figures like that out. Any military strategist looks for the enemy's "center of gravity." Now, traditional thought (the type that flourished in Vietnam) was that the enemy soldiers were the center of gravity. Therefore, logically, the number of enemy dead signified our progress.
A little post-Vietnam introspection on the part of the Army discovered that the enemy's center of gravity in a counter-insurgency war is NOT THE ENEMY SOLDIERS themselves. It is the people. The solution to an insurgency is a political, not a military one. The number of enemy dead, therefore, is irrelevant.
We have essentially done the complete opposite in this war. From my perspective, we've pretty much done everything we could to create a strong insurgency in Iraq without even trying to.
"In counterinsurgency, the battlespace isn't physical, it's psychological. The battle is for the people.
-Lt. Col. Holshek
It is true that Some Iraqi people are the cause of this terrorism, but its a minority compared to those who want freedom. Many of these Iraqis support us, contrary to what you might think. they want this to be over with, they want to return to normal lives and they know if they continue to fight us it wont end. many chose not to fight us, there are certain groups though that are willing to fight us. But overall there is not and endless supply of insurgents because most people dont believe in what the terrorists are fighting for
Then tell me why there are more terrorists now than there were when we first went in. Think outside the box. We are fighting this war the wrong way. The way we are fighting it is creating more enemies. As long as we continue to fight like this there is an endless supply of insurgents because the insurgents are the Iraqi people. They have an unlimited recruiting pool in the Iraqi population.
because they realized they couldnt beat us in conventional warfare when we made it to their capital in 2 weeks, If we pull out it will cause many more insurgents and terrorists, there is a limit to the insurgency as i said before, many people want to continue with normal lives not ruin them
I'm not saying pull out. We owe the Iraqis that much for ruining their country. I'm saying we have to start fighting this war differently because it has become glaringly obvious that we aren't doing very well right about now.
well so far operation Law and Order has worked very well, arresting 17 terrorists with no losses of our own, many more have been made in the past days and weeks and many more will come. This is the beggining of the end for the terrorists, watch the news over the months ahead and you ll see why.
UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have no yet attempted. If it is something that will have both sides put down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. rimnet00more power to you, you do what you want im not going to stop you, just giving advice
[QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] we are making significant progress in Iraq
MattUD1
Is that right? :lol:
Just because you don't hear about it on The Communist News Network (why do I keep calling it that) and FacismOX doesn't mean it doesn't happen. No, dude, we're totally winning the war and are just about to finally win it all together. I heard Bush is going to fly into Baghdad Airport as a secret to the troops (not because it isn't safe in that war torn sect driven bloodbath streets) but because he wants to raise a banner with a Mission Accomplished next to Saddam's former palace. This will make up for that little snafu on that airforce carrier.
[QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] we are making significant progress in Iraq
MattUD1
Is that right? :lol:
Just because you don't hear about it on The Communist News Network (why do I keep calling it that) and FacismOX doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It isn't happening.
[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] we are making significant progress in Iraq
videogamer456
Is that right? :lol:
Just because you don't hear about it on The Communist News Network (why do I keep calling it that) and FacismOX doesn't mean it doesn't happen. No, dude, we're totally winning the war and are just about to finally win it all together. I heard Bush is going to fly into Baghdad Airport as a secret to the troops (not because it isn't safe in that war torn sect driven bloodbath streets) but because he wants to raise a banner with a Mission Accomplished next to Saddam's former palace. This will make up for that little snafu on that airforce carrier.
:lol: Now that was a good one.
[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] we are making significant progress in Iraq
videogamer456
Is that right? :lol:
Just because you don't hear about it on The Communist News Network (why do I keep calling it that) and FacismOX doesn't mean it doesn't happen. No, dude, we're totally winning the war and are just about to finally win it all together. I heard Bush is going to fly into Baghdad Airport as a secret to the troops (not because it isn't safe in that war torn sect driven bloodbath streets) but because he wants to raise a banner with a Mission Accomplished next to Saddam's former palace. This will make up for that little snafu on that airforce carrier.
first of all its not an airforce carrier its an Aircraft Carrier, secondly the mission accomplished speech was taking way out of context, he never said the war was over just that the capital was secure and the Major operations were done
[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] we are making significant progress in Iraq
towel_
Is that right? :lol:
Just because you don't hear about it on The Communist News Network (why do I keep calling it that) and FacismOX doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It isn't happening.
ignorance, you have no knowledege of the situation
UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have not yet attempted. If it is something that will result in both sides putting down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. rimnet00
I'm sure you understand the nature of the enemy, why do you think they would want peace? .
[QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] we are making significant progress in Iraq
UrbanSpartan125
Is that right? :lol:
Just because you don't hear about it on The Communist News Network (why do I keep calling it that) and FacismOX doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It isn't happening.
ignorance, you have no knowledege of the situation
I don't? Okay, believe what you want. Judging from past threads in which you've posted, you obviously want to join the Marines no matter what. This means you're below 18, since you haven't joined yet. This means that, logically, you have no more access to intel than I do, only the media. So how can you say that I have no knowledge but you do just because you possess a different opinion?
[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="towel_"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"] we are making significant progress in Iraq
towel_
Is that right? :lol:
Just because you don't hear about it on The Communist News Network (why do I keep calling it that) and FacismOX doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It isn't happening.
ignorance, you have no knowledege of the situation
I don't? Okay, believe what you want. Judging from past threads in which you've posted, you obviously want to join the Marines no matter what. This means you're below 18, since you haven't joined yet. This means that, logically, you have no more access to intel than I do, only the media. So how can you say that I have no knowledge but you do just because you possess a different opinion?
I think he's an active-duty Marine.
first of all its not an airforce carrier its an Aircraft CarrierUrbanSpartan125
Thank you for correcting his mistake. Before you translated his incoherent post I was completely baffled as to what he meant.
secondly the mission accomplished speech was taking way out of context, he never said the war was over just that the capital was secure and the Major operations were done
UrbanSpartan125
He gave that speech on May 1st, 2003. On November 7, 2004 (more than a year later, in case you couldn't tell), the second assault on Fallujah commenced codenamed Operation Phantom Fury. The assaulting forces consisted of 4 Marine Light Infantry battalions, and 2 Army Mechanized Cavalry Battalions in support. One Iraqi Commando Battalion and one U.S. Marine Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion served as a diversion.
A battalion consists of a total of 300 to 1,200 soldiers or Marines. There were 8 battalions in this operation. If you don't consider this a major operation, I don't know what to say.
[QUOTE="rimnet00"]UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have not yet attempted. If it is something that will result in both sides putting down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. dicpunch
I'm sure you understand the nature of the enemy, why do you think they would want peace? .
Ah, long time no see. I don't want to deviate this topic from it's original purpose. Opening up discussion to question whether the insurgents want peace would drive this discussion in a totally different direction. The fact of the matter is, such a discussion has been seen on these boards for quite some time, and I still stand by my stance that both sides ultimately want peace. Whether you agree or not is another matter. Now, I am sure that such a plan I am suggesting would however answer that question; if it were to be put in affect.[QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have not yet attempted. If it is something that will result in both sides putting down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. rimnet00
I'm sure you understand the nature of the enemy, why do you think they would want peace? .
Ah, long time no see. I don't want to deviate this topic from it's original purpose. Opening up discussion to question whether the insurgents want peace would drive this discussion in a totally different direction. The fact of the matter is, such a discussion has been seen on these boards for quite some time, and I still stand by my stance that both sides ultimately want peace. Whether you agree or not is another matter. Now, I am sure that such a plan I am suggesting would however answer that question; if it were to be put in affect.Are we talking about peace in Iraq, with the insurgency, or peace with those who we are fighting with in the War on Terror? Just for clarification....Â
[QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have not yet attempted. If it is something that will result in both sides putting down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. rimnet00
I'm sure you understand the nature of the enemy, why do you think they would want peace? .
Ah, long time no see. I don't want to deviate this topic from it's original purpose. Opening up discussion to question whether the insurgents want peace would drive this discussion in a totally different direction. The fact of the matter is, such a discussion has been seen on these boards for quite some time, and I still stand by my stance that both sides ultimately want peace. Whether you agree or not is another matter. Now, I am sure that such a plan I am suggesting would however answer that question; if it were to be put in affect. while i realize your will to do good, i must disagree that these people want peace. they want revenge for things we have done in the past, and the worst of them are surely beyond reasoning. you cannot reason with someone whose motives are religiously based because religion requires blind faith and therefore no proof. how could you hope to convince someone their path is wrong when they believe it without any proof and despite any other evidence. they have no reason to listen to you in their mind. even if you meant well you could not convince these people to take peace as an option[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have not yet attempted. If it is something that will result in both sides putting down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. dicpunch
I'm sure you understand the nature of the enemy, why do you think they would want peace? .
Ah, long time no see. I don't want to deviate this topic from it's original purpose. Opening up discussion to question whether the insurgents want peace would drive this discussion in a totally different direction. The fact of the matter is, such a discussion has been seen on these boards for quite some time, and I still stand by my stance that both sides ultimately want peace. Whether you agree or not is another matter. Now, I am sure that such a plan I am suggesting would however answer that question; if it were to be put in affect.Are we talking about peace in Iraq, with the insurgency, or peace with those who we are fighting with in the War on Terror? Just for clarification....
We are talking about every area of Muslim vs The West conflict. Ranging from current talks with Iran to the war in Iraq. If we were to focus specifically on Iraq however, the insurgency would be the first place to start with since that is where I think that particular conflict roots itself.[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have not yet attempted. If it is something that will result in both sides putting down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. cliff122316
I'm sure you understand the nature of the enemy, why do you think they would want peace? .
Ah, long time no see. I don't want to deviate this topic from it's original purpose. Opening up discussion to question whether the insurgents want peace would drive this discussion in a totally different direction. The fact of the matter is, such a discussion has been seen on these boards for quite some time, and I still stand by my stance that both sides ultimately want peace. Whether you agree or not is another matter. Now, I am sure that such a plan I am suggesting would however answer that question; if it were to be put in affect. while i realize your will to do good, i must disagree that these people want peace. they want revenge for things we have done in the past, and the worst of them are surely beyond reasoning. you cannot reason with someone whose motives are religiously based because religion requires blind faith and therefore no proof. how could you hope to convince someone their path is wrong when they believe it without any proof and despite any other evidence. they have no reason to listen to you in their mind. even if you meant well you could not convince these people to take peace as an optionI don't think they are doing this out of revenge.
[QUOTE="cliff122316"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have not yet attempted. If it is something that will result in both sides putting down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. dicpunch
I'm sure you understand the nature of the enemy, why do you think they would want peace? .
Ah, long time no see. I don't want to deviate this topic from it's original purpose. Opening up discussion to question whether the insurgents want peace would drive this discussion in a totally different direction. The fact of the matter is, such a discussion has been seen on these boards for quite some time, and I still stand by my stance that both sides ultimately want peace. Whether you agree or not is another matter. Now, I am sure that such a plan I am suggesting would however answer that question; if it were to be put in affect. while i realize your will to do good, i must disagree that these people want peace. they want revenge for things we have done in the past, and the worst of them are surely beyond reasoning. you cannot reason with someone whose motives are religiously based because religion requires blind faith and therefore no proof. how could you hope to convince someone their path is wrong when they believe it without any proof and despite any other evidence. they have no reason to listen to you in their mind. even if you meant well you could not convince these people to take peace as an optionI don't think they are doing this out of revenge.
why else do they hate us[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="dicpunch"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]UrbanSpartan, clearly I have already stated that my life is not the issue here. I have also stated that I disagree with your perspective on the human psyche. This is a proposal that we have not yet attempted. If it is something that will result in both sides putting down their guns, and come to a resolution, I am all for it. cliff122316
I'm sure you understand the nature of the enemy, why do you think they would want peace? .
Ah, long time no see. I don't want to deviate this topic from it's original purpose. Opening up discussion to question whether the insurgents want peace would drive this discussion in a totally different direction. The fact of the matter is, such a discussion has been seen on these boards for quite some time, and I still stand by my stance that both sides ultimately want peace. Whether you agree or not is another matter. Now, I am sure that such a plan I am suggesting would however answer that question; if it were to be put in affect. while i realize your will to do good, i must disagree that these people want peace. they want revenge for things we have done in the past, and the worst of them are surely beyond reasoning. you cannot reason with someone whose motives are religiously based because religion requires blind faith and therefore no proof. how could you hope to convince someone their path is wrong when they believe it without any proof and despite any other evidence. they have no reason to listen to you in their mind. even if you meant well you could not convince these people to take peace as an option That is the very reason one of their own, a Muslim must be the one placing himself in the middle of the dialog, an American Muslim at that. Someone who can relate to both sides on a different level.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment