The Iraq thread 3

[quicksand 0]

Denoir:I think you will find more people in the world who would compare the Iraq invasion to the German invasion of France

Avon Lady:That's like saying that had the American's attacked Japan before Pearl Harbor after receiving information on the planned attack, the US then, too, could have been compared to the German invasion of France

You were implying that Saddam was preparing to attack America.

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying a country must risk being potentially bombed by a hostile country with a WMD before it can act?

You just justified the need for Saddam to act against America.

It hurts when it goes both ways,doesn`t it?

[theavonlady 2]

WW2 was a different era besides the US leaders showed restraint as every political leader should do.

To be quite honest I don't see your point.

I like my political leadership to show restraint, think about decisions and use a large list of alternatives before any hostile moves.

I cannot judge whether restraint - or too much or too little of it was or wasn't used in Bush's decision to attack Iraq.

Back to WWII, look what restraint got the world when they fed Hitler Czekeslovakia and let him waltz into Austria.

Quote[/b] ]I don't like leaders who decide to just fire a missile at a guy in a wheelchair for shits and giggles.

Your idea of shits and giggles is killing a man who ran an organization responsible for the deaths and mutilations of hundreds of my country's citizens.

When your mother or brother or best friend is blown up on the bus back home, tell us how you laughed.

Quote[/b] ]Honestly it disturbs me, I see Americans huddling around TVs watching individuals being targeted and killed by laser guided weapons and laughing ....

That sounds pathetic to me. Do you have a laughmeter for the number of Europeans who chuckle away whenever a Coalition soldier is gunned down, blown up or beheaded?

Quote[/b] ]Seeing a Å60,000,000 attack helicopter designed to halt a large tank offensive in a full scale war being flown by two top class human professionals that took years to train to do what? To fire a laser guided anti tank missile at a 90 year old in a wheelchair.......

Why don't you check your statistics to see how successful crippling Hamas has been?

I'm sorry we refuse to sacrifice more men, women and children so that you can laugh your head off.

Quote[/b] ]I would prefer politicians to lead the country as they play a chess game, not as they play rugby.

You just prefer dead Jews to dead terrorists.

[theavonlady 2]

Oh please stop the God Bless America thing. It's doing my head in.

It's so arrogant and un-religous not to mention slightly unfair on the large portion of the 250 million people who don't believe in God

God bless America!

[bn880 5]

Oh boy... + I agree with Jinef entirely.

[theavonlady 2]

Yes, Saddams WMD's were poised and ready to strike in a moments notice. Thats why we have found so many of them.

I'm not arguing about the facts after the event.

[Pathy 0]

Hahaha yes.

@Avon

You are also saying in a round-about way that Germany attacked France based on prior knowledge of a planned French invasion of Germany.......

.....want me to lend you some history text books?

[theavonlady 2]

Oh boy... + I agree with Jinef entirely.

Yep. One and the same.

[theavonlady 2]

You are also saying in a round-about way that Germany attacked France based on prior knowledge of a planned French invasion of Germany.......

No.

[bn880 5]

Plus all sorts of nations have plans to invate 100+ other nations, especially the States. If anything the EU + Asia needs to invade the US because they have PLANS oh my plans, how serious is that.

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]That sounds pathetic to me. Do you have a laughmeter for the number of Europeans who chuckle away whenever a Coalition soldier is gunned down, blown up or beheaded?

I dont know what twisted ideas you have in your head about European attitudes, but they certainly have no base in reality.

[Pathy 0]

You are also saying in a round-about way that Germany attacked France based on prior knowledge of a planned French invasion of Germany.......

No.

YES!

[theavonlady 2]

You were implying that Saddam was preparing to attack America.

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying a country must risk being potentially bombed by a hostile country with a WMD before it can act?

You just justified the need for Saddam to act against America.

It hurts when it goes both ways,doesn`t it?

I am saying that the US government, at least from the Clinton administration through the Bush administration, viewed Iraq as a potential immediate threat.

Read Clinton's own words. These assumptions were only strengethed during Clintons last years in office and Bush's first few in office.

[theavonlady 2]

You are also saying in a round-about way that Germany attacked France based on prior knowledge of a planned French invasion of Germany.......

No.

YES!

<span style='font-size:27pt;line-height:100%'>NO!</span>

[miles teg 1]

How much blood will the American public have to see to realise that war is not a nice thing?

I wonder where your country, the UK, would be today, had the American public you are taunting bought such jibberish from the pacifists and isloationists in the early 1940s.

Michael Berg, Nick's father, a nice man and a realist? Everyone here can decide for themselves.

AL, again you try to make comparisons between this war on terror and WWII.   This war is not even remotely close to WWII.  Unless you are comparing Islam to Nazi Facism.  But last I checked I have not not seen any non-Islamic countries converting to Islam or being conquered by Islamic nations (other then attempts by Arab nations to destroy Israel but that is for another thread that I won't get into here).

But this war with Iraq does nothing for the US.  Its great for Israel as it removes one of Israels main foes in the Middle East, but its disasterous for the United States who now faces a VASTLY more popular terrorist adversary that can not be pinned down to any country and is becoming more powerful and popular the more we use violence against large groups of Arabs  using the notion of "security" as the justification when in fact there has been almost no evidence of any dire security threat that Iraq posed the United States.  Is it a bad thing Saddam is gone?  No.  But ousting him could have been done in a far better manner if more patience was taken and a large pan-Arab force was incorporated into the coalition with broad UN and EU support.  Yes it may have taken many more years to build such a coalition, but there is a strong chance that it could have been done.

You of all people should know how disasterous invasions and occupations can be.  For Israel the threat is right on your borders.  But even so the invasion of Lebanon, while it did stop some of the security problems, created a nighmarish and bloody occupation and war of attrition which forced Israel out abruptly and caused the destruction of Israel's Christian allies in the SLA.  

Israel now is faced with the current bloody occupation of Palistinian territory which is just going nowhere.  The huge security walls DO work because it basically just seperates Palistinians from Israelies...and if you remember, this is why I was arguing for UN peacekeepers in Israel...to SEPERATE THE TWO SIDES.    

Your war there with the Palistinians is in some ways related (Al-Qaeda now uses US support of Israel as a reason for attacking the US...something they never did until the late 90's) but in many ways is not related to the current US war with Al-Qaeda.    Saddam had kept the Al-Qaeda Kuridish groups up in the north near the border with Iran isolated and impotent.

They also failed miserably to start any popular uprisings in Iraq because of the Baath party cell structure with everyone spying on each other for potential rewards. Because of this, Saddam's regime was able to brutally crush any uprisings and Islamist movements.

But now for better or for worse suddenly all of those religious forces are out of the box and right now the United States has helped to forge a powerful new Al-Qaeda movement that is growing rapidly around the world every day with the goal of fighting US aggression in the Middle East using extreme methods of violence in their blind religious self-righteousness and extreme interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadiths.  

The sad thing is that the campaign in Afghanistan has been relatively successful in some areas to drive out Al-Qaeda influence.   You don't see car bombings every day in Kabul.

Without the Iraq mess it could have been eradicated for the most part in Afghanistan and eventually in Pakistan.  The Pakistanis have been doing a good job I think of hunting down alot of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters killing or capturing several of their top leaders.

You can argue all you want that all Muslims are extremists but we didn't have any major problem with Muslims until 9/11.  

At the time of 9/11 Al-Qaeda was still a small terrorist organization.    The United States had VAST public sympathy from even, I would say, most Muslims in the world aside from some of the more extremist groups.  The majority of Arabs were not all out dancing in the streets as shown in the Western press where many journalists were ordered to go out and find people celebrating.  A few refused because they knew it did not accurately reflect what they were seeing and hearing on the streets of major Arab cities.   In Iran they even had prayer vigils for the victims of 9/11, but that recieved almost no media attention.

America had the sympathies of the world and alot of support for our attack on Afghanistan, whichm, aside from a few stupid instances, was carried out brilliantly by assistiing Afghanis to liberate themselves from Taliban oppression.  All in all it was a success.  But the invasion of Iraq obliterated world sympathy and support for the United States and strengthened Al-Qaeda like nothing else.  

I've heard many intelligence experts repeat this fact many times.   There is no denying it, and there is no denying that even pro-Western Muslims are more and more beginning to sympathize with Al-Qaeda especially now that they finally see Muslims beginning to unite against the United States.  

Most are not militants yet, but it only takes a few more acts of stupidity on the part of the United States to push alot of Muslims over the edge.  

My belief is that US forces need to be replaced largely by Arab forces.  Countries like Egypt could provide powerful peacekeeping forces as could Syria and Saudi Arabia.  

With the replacement of US troops by a pan-Arab force, Al-Qaueda would lose much of its thunder.  It would not be destroyed, but at the very least recruitment efforts would be undermined as Muslims generally do not like seeing fellow Muslims blown up by terrorists.  

Iraqis eventually would see Al-Qaeda for what they are if the US was no longer there and they continued to kill Muslim peacekeepers with a clear UN mandate and with support from many influential Islamic scholars and Imams.

But the idea has not even been brought up.   Part of the reason is the fear some of these forces would decide to stay in Iraq.   But I think those fears can be ruled out by proper placement of these Arab peacekeepers such as placing them in areas of Iraq opposite to the borders of their own countries and/or mixing the forces together in a way to prevent any one force carving up a section of Iraq for themselves.

But sadly nobody seems interested in this idea.

The longer America is in Iraq, the more we fuel Al-Qaeda and hatred against the United States to levels FAR greater then anything before the invasion of Iraq.

I can also go into the military options as well, but that'll make the post far longer and its probably already long enough.

Oh..by the way...a quick note about berg... yes he and his father were nice people and it was a sick and savage murder that those militants commited. But to judge an entire religion and an entire people by the acts of one group is like me looking at blacks in the United States in gangs who kill alot of people (often brutally) and deciding that all poor black people who share the same culture, neighborhoods, and values as gang members are evil and most be destroyed or jailed.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]That sounds pathetic to me. Do you have a laughmeter for the number of Europeans who chuckle away whenever a Coalition soldier is gunned down, blown up or beheaded?

I dont know what twisted ideas you have in your head about European attitudes, but they certainly have no base in reality.

The same twisted ideas Jinef has in his heads about American attitudes.

I did not bring up this matter. Jinef did.

[denoir 0]

I wonder where your country, the UK, would be today, had the American public you are taunting bought such jibberish from the pacifists and isloationists in the early 1940s.

I think you will find more people in the world who would compare the Iraq invasion to the German invasion of France, rather than the Allied invasion of Europe.

Iraq had not attacked America, it was not threatening to attack America.

So as far as war goes, the Iraq war was a war of agression.

That's like saying that had the American's attacked Japan before Pearl Harbor after receiving information on the planned attack, the US then, too, could have been compared to the German invasion of France.

No, because Iraq was not planning to attack the US.

[Pathy 0]

I did not bring up this matter. Jinef did.

Really, thats strange, because you were the one who just posted about Europeans laughing at deaths of coalition soldiers......

Oh and: yes!

[Veovis 0]

It's funny, after reading this last page I found out that I was scared, bloodthirsty, misinformed, funded, and that I enjoyed watching elderly men get blown apart. Amazing revelations! More amazing is the fact that people that do not live in the US are explaining how I feel and act.

I am not afraid of Iraq. I don't, quote, 'thirst for blood and action', in Iraq. I'm certainly not funded by my government, and I don't enjoy watching old men explode. The worst part is that you're refering to something carried out by Israel, and then saying that Americans rejoiced. Even Mr. Bush denounced Israel's actions.

If you wish to have blind hatred for Mr. Bush, really, I do understand. He's a douchebag, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean you should start assuming that the rest of America is a bunch of bloodthirsty, ignorant hicks who follow the goverment like infinately willing slaves, swallowing their every word. If I focused on just one or two people from these forums, I could start announcing that all of Europe was full of bitter, narrowminded, hotheaded jerks who would rather flame others than look at any facts. I won't, however, because besides one or two people in these forums, they aren't.

This is not aimed at everybody. Most people here are capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion. Some are not.

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Because the Iraq war was a pre-emptive strike before Saddam began using his WMD arsenal against America as he maticulously planned.

If you have evidence for this, please inform my government. If not, prepare to be blown apart in this thread.  

I think he was being sarcastic :P

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you have evidence for this, please inform my government. If not, prepare to be blown apart in this thread.  

Read my post properly,it was sarcsm,I quoted her fictional reference to a pre-eptive attack that was suggesting that Saddam was poised to attack America in the same manner the Japanese prepared the Pearl Harbor attack.

I advice you to read the on-going discussion properly the next time you want to blast someone for being ignorant.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Because the Iraq war was a pre-emptive strike before Saddam began using his WMD arsenal against America as he maticulously planned.

If you have evidence for this, please inform my government. If not, prepare to be blown apart in this thread.  

Quicksand was being sarcastic.

Quote[/b] ]More amazing is the fact that people that do not live in the US are explaining how I feel and act.

Although there is some stereotyping in both directions, I'd say that at some point it is justified. Most criticism here is directed at Bush and his administration, and very little at the people who elected him and supported him. Something like 80% of the Americans supported the war. In a country supposedly by the people of the people and for the people, shouldn't the people take at least partial responsibility

Of course it sucks for the 20% that were against it, but that's the nature of majority rule.

[Pathy 0]

Good point Denoir, i love it

[Jinef 2]

http://www.life.com/Life/eisies/eisies2000/hockenberry.html

2nd Paragraph - laughing as a bomb hits a bridge with people on. Good paradoxical meaning to the General's words as well.

The Israeli thing was seperate to laughing, it was just about reckless politicians who instead of deciding to take this 90 year old into custody they prefer to launch an anti tank missile at him....

Oh wait, that is funny...

ha ha ha ....

Oh sorry no it's not, my bad.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Although there is some stereotyping in both directions, I'd say that at some point it is justified. Most criticism here is directed at Bush and his administration, and very little at the people who elected him and supported him. Something like 80% of the Americans supported the war. In a country supposedly by the people of the people and for the people, shouldn't the people take at least partial responsibility

We can`t simplify this to who suported the war.First I would like to point out that a study revealed that prior to the war 78% of the guests on American television were government officials while 1% were anti-war(If you would like I will find the link).

Second the average American citizen doesn`t have acces to satallite pictures or polls of the mood in Iraq so you are thought to trust your government that would normally be uncabable of telling blunt lies  on such a serious topic as WMD,and the Iraqis who will welcome US forces with flowers grateful of their eliberation.

edit:on second thought I will quote myself,sorry for the lenght

"The problem of the American public is not their ignorance but the fact that The Bush Administration has an excelent manipulation skill.They know exactly what they have to do to seed suport from the population:

1.Terrorists

-use it,abuse it,never tie more then two sentences together without mentioning it 5 times.This coupled with their dodgy statements resulted to 40% of American population beliving Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 plot and beliving the resistance in Iraq is controled by Zarqawi-who has gotten most of the media attention all though it has been failed to be said that he is viewed responsable for mostly low level attacks.

1b.Foreign fighters,thugs and bandits

Subtile propaganda or laughable atempt to undermine the real resistance against the occupation?Either way the strategy worked.

Fallujah siege In what was the most extensive military operation since the war has officially ended a per say siege against an entire city the enemy has been absurdly described as "A band of foreign fighters that are keeping the Fallujah citizens as hostages".Even though the siege ended with an

unexpected defeat (US military failed in all of their objectives but managed to hide this fact by using subtle describtions such as "relocation of Marines";"A Fallujah brigade has taken control of the city") the entire city was seen celebrating after suffering a stagering 1.000 deaths and afterwords interviews painted an unseen before picture of solidarity among Iraqis in Fallujah in their common goal.

Al Sadr rebellion In one of the most unexpected developing,the Shi`ites who were the most patient side of the population weary and frustrated of the continous occupation started fighting.Once again undermining the fact that the fighters were among the same people that welcomed US forces as liberators and had most to suffer under Saddam they were gracefully described as "bandits" and "thugs".

2.Censorship

-Never show the real face of war,10.000 Iraqi civillian deaths are purely a statistical reference, nobody will start thinking Berg`s death repeated 10.000 times to fully understand the mass carnage suffered by the Iraqi population

-Block acces to polls that do not show favorable results(already done by the CPA when they ordered a poll that ended up showing 92% Iraqis wanted US military forces out imidiatly;a clear majority suported Al-Sadr rebellion and found attacks on coallition acceptable-this was never discussed as the poll in February that showed a slim majority of Iraqis who felt their life improved from "one year" ago)

-Banning the filming of caskets;not attending US serviceman funerals

(the result is obvious)

3.Never admit wrong This is the part where I consider TBA masterful,more then one year after the Iraq invasion basicly all their asumptions were prooven wrong.

WMD-all though reality has blasted what TBA presented as Saddam`s WMD agenda(3 years standing between him and nuclear capability,a system capable of performing immidiate chemical attacks as per his order,45 minutes threat etc.).

Even though this were blunt lies they managed to change their No.1 objective of disarming Iraq of WMD to something more tabu as the unprooven ties of Saddam with Al-Queda,bringing "freedom" to the Iraqi population coupled with unusable leftovers from the Iraq-Iran war resulting to a more calm response from the American public

"We shall be welcomed by the Iraqis with flowers"-this speaks for itself.

"

[theavonlady 2]

How much blood will the American public have to see to realise that war is not a nice thing?

I wonder where your country, the UK, would be today, had the American public you are taunting bought such jibberish from the pacifists and isloationists in the early 1940s.

Michael Berg, Nick's father, a nice man and a realist? Everyone here can decide for themselves.

AL, again you try to make comparisons between this war on terror and WWII.   This war is not even remotely close to WWII.

But certain points have similarities. To say that nothing at all is similar is just as invalid. If you've got a counterpoint against my specific example, please state so.

Quote[/b] ]Unless you are comparing Islam to Nazi Facism. But last I checked I have not not seen any non-Islamic countries converting to Islam or being conquered by Islamic nations (other then attempts by Arab nations to destroy Israel but that is for another thread that I won't get into here).

Do you really want me to start compiling a list of global Jihad announcements, posted on the WEB by Islamic terrorists? You can do that as easily as I can.

While Islam and Nazism are not related, one wonders why mein Kampf still is a best seller in Arab countries around here. And they were most definitely connected when it was still fashionable to be a Nazi. We could always go much deeper than that and tell the children the truth, as the site is called.

Quote[/b] ]But this war with Iraq does nothing for the US.

I wouldn't say nothing. And if Iraq succeeds in building a freer society than what it never historically had, it will be of consequential benefit.

Quote[/b] ]Its great for Israel as it removes one of Israels main foes in the Middle East, but its disasterous for the United States who now faces a VASTLY more popular terrorist adversary that can not be pinned down to any country and is becoming more powerful and popular the more we use violence against large groups of Arabs using the notion of "security" as the justification when in fact there has been almost no evidence of any dire security threat that Iraq posed the United States.

I've stated a long time ago that US intelligence stinks. It holds true no less today.

Quote[/b] ]Is it a bad thing Saddam is gone? No. But ousting him could have been done in a far better manner if more patience was taken and a large pan-Arab force was incorporated into the coalition with broad UN and EU support. Yes it may have taken many more years to build such a coalition, but there is a strong chance that it could have been done.

With the false assumptions the US had, there was no time for years.

Quote[/b] ]You of all people should know how disasterous invasions and occupations can be. For Israel the threat is right on your borders. But even so the invasion of Lebanon, while it did stop some of the security problems, created a nighmarish and bloody occupation and war of attrition which forced Israel out abruptly and caused the destruction of Israel's Christian allies in the SLA.

The invasion was not the error. The inertia that followed was, IMO.

Quote[/b] ]Israel now is faced with the current bloody occupation of Palistinian territory which is just going nowhere.

Yes and no. But I agree that Israel's indecisiveness is not benefiting anyone here in the short or long term.

Quote[/b] ]The huge security walls DO work because it basically just seperates Palistinians from Israelies...and if you remember, this is why I was arguing for UN peacekeepers in Israel...to SEPERATE THE TWO SIDES.

I don't believe the fence will work should Israel withdraw behind it but we gaze into different crystal balls, perhaps.

Quote[/b] ]Your war there with the Palistinians is in some ways related (Al-Qaeda now uses US support of Israel as a reason for attacking the US...something they never did until the late 90's) but in many ways is not related to the current US war with Al-Qaeda. Saddam had kept the Al-Qaeda Kuridish groups up in the north near the border with Iran isolated and impotent.

They also failed miserably to start any popular uprisings in Iraq because of the Baath party cell structure with everyone spying on each other for potential rewards. Because of this, Saddam's regime was able to brutally crush any uprisings and Islamist movements.

But now for better or for worse suddenly all of those religious forces are out of the box and right now the United States has helped to forge a powerful new Al-Qaeda movement that is growing rapidly around the world every day with the goal of fighting US aggression in the Middle East using extreme methods of violence in their blind religious self-righteousness and extreme interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadiths.

The sad thing is that the campaign in Afghanistan has been relatively successful in some areas to drive out Al-Qaeda influence. You don't see car bombings every day in Kabul.

Without the Iraq mess it could have been eradicated for the most part in Afghanistan and eventually in Pakistan. The Pakistanis have been doing a good job I think of hunting down alot of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters killing or capturing several of their top leaders.

I'm generally in agreement with this.

Quote[/b] ]You can argue all you want that all Muslims are extremists but we didn't have any major problem with Muslims until 9/11.

Bin Laden started planning the 9/11 attack back in 1996.

Quote[/b] ]At the time of 9/11 Al-Qaeda was still a small terrorist organization. The United States had VAST public sympathy from even, I would say, most Muslims in the world aside from some of the more extremist groups.

A false lull.

Quote[/b] ]The majority of Arabs were not all out dancing in the streets as shown in the Western press where many journalists were ordered to go out and find people celebrating.

Are you referring to this and now you've come up with a new gimmick that journalists were "ordered out", whatever that means?

Quote[/b] ]A few refused because they knew it did not accurately reflect what they were seeing and hearing on the streets of major Arab cities. In Iran they even had prayer vigils for the victims of 9/11, but that recieved almost no media attention.

No wonder they prayed in Iran:

Quote[/b] ]Official Iranian TV Channel Claims Jews Were Involved in September 11th

MEMRI's TV Monitor Project (www.memritv.org) includes monitoring Iranian television stations such as Jaam-E-Jam 1, the Iranian government TV channel directed at Europe. On June 1, 2004, the station broadcasted a series about the September 11 terror attacks. The show included video clips of the O.J. Simpson murder case. The following an excerpt of the broadcast: [5]

"Ever since the establishment of the Zionist regime, the American strategy has been under the Zionist lobby's influence. Zionism, as expressed in the Jewish Protocols, nurtures in its mind the dream of taking over the world. With Bush's rise to power, it controls the White House with greater force.

"A short while before the blasts of September 11, Mercury, a local Pennsylvanian newspaper, reported that two Jews were arrested while filming the Twin Towers. At that time, Ha'aretz reported the arrest of five Israelis who had photographed the World Trade Center, a few hours before the blasts. Also, an editor in chief of an American newspaper who brought up Israel's involvement in the Twin Towers' affair was fired. Some hours after the Twin Towers were blasted, the FBI had arrested five Israelis who had planned to blow up the New York Bridge in the Manhattan and New Jersey area. Also, the absence of 4,000 Jews [working] in the Twin Towers strengthened the claim that they took a vacation on that day.

"A while afterwards, a source in American military intelligence raised details pertaining to an intelligence memo regarding Israel's espionage organization, the Mossad, and its role in the events of September 11. In fact, the claim that Israel was involved in the blasts of September 11 and used it as a basis of America's new strategy for fighting the world of Islam, disappeared in the media coverage, but world public opinion still believes this possibility."

- MEMRI

Quote[/b] ]America had the sympathies of the world and alot of support for our attack on Afghanistan, whichm, aside from a few stupid instances, was carried out brilliantly by assistiing Afghanis to liberate themselves from Taliban oppression. All in all it was a success. But the invasion of Iraq obliterated world sympathy and support for the United States and strengthened Al-Qaeda like nothing else.

We'll never know what Al-Qaeda would have accomplished had they not been devoting resources and manpower to Iraq as they're doing now.

Do you really think that they wouldn't have attempted more international disasters or cause havoc even nearby in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Quote[/b] ]I've heard many intelligence experts repeat this fact many times. There is no denying it, and there is no denying that even pro-Western Muslims are more and more beginning to sympathize with Al-Qaeda especially now that they finally see Muslims beginning to unite against the United States.

I would rather not discuss at this my opinions of why this is happening.

Quote[/b] ]Most are not militants yet, but it only takes a few more acts of stupidity on the part of the United States to push alot of Muslims over the edge.

Same as above.

Quote[/b] ]My belief is that US forces need to be replaced largely by Arab forces. Countries like Egypt could provide powerful peacekeeping forces as could Syria and Saudi Arabia.

With the replacement of US troops by a pan-Arab force, Al-Qaueda would lose much of its thunder. It would not be destroyed, but at the very least recruitment efforts would be undermined as Muslims generally do not like seeing fellow Muslims blown up by terrorists.

Sounds like all the US has to do is leave and Al Qaeda will stop blowing up fellow Muslims.

As for a Pan Arab peacekeeping force, I believe that will lead to a return of a Baathist or Iranian Ayatolah equivalent in no time.

Yikes! Supper. Bye!