# The Way to Silence the Islamofascists



## karpovage (15 Jul 2004)

Okay, here's the solution to attack the enemy both psychologically and physically. Issue an ultimatum with gradual deadlines. If the foreign fighters of Syria, Jordan and Iran do not get out of Iraq, if they fail to hand over Al Queda operatives and if the moderate Muslim governments and leaders in the world do not pressure the extremists to stop their war against the "west" then this is what will happen. Clear and simple. The U.S. will use it's superior precision-guided firepower and start a systematic campaign of destroying the most symbolic Muslim structures in the world with a final target of the mosques in Mecca and Medina, two of the holiest cities to Muslims. Here is the reason why this will work:

The enemy has destroyed and damaged two symbols of America (WTC - capitalism and Pentagon - power) and they seek to destroy other symbols such as the Statue of Liberty - Freedom, Washington Monument, Wall Street - wealth. So, why not give it right back to them. Start with some holy mosques and gradually escalate the targets. Who will be responsible for this damage? The muslim governments who fail to put pressure on the terrorists and the terrorists themselves. How's that for breaking up their coalition of religious freaks! There will be infighting and blame passed between Muslims. I can guarantee results!

Remember this is a war of religion and survival.  Extreme Islamic fundamentalists who want a return to 15th century middle-ages tyranny versus the religion of modern-day freedom of religion, capitalism and democratic voting. So why not play the religious card right back at them? This is where it will hurt the most. 

If the politicians in my government have any balls left over they need to start thinking radical, politically incorrect ways of defeating the enemy. Oops, forget it was an election year. Guess that won't be happening until say, the Sears Tower in Chicago falls. Then the American People will wake up from their Post 9-11 nap and get back in the game.


----------



## Duotone81 (15 Jul 2004)

I think that's an excellent way of turning every Muslim person in the world against the West. Why? Because when you target holy buildings you turn the War on Terror into an holy war (which I don't think it is). The Saudis (and all other oil rich Arab countries) are already doing business with the West. So technically their should be a lot more in fighting in these States than their already is because they are doing business with the West yet that is not the case. Your plan gives them excuses, it just feeds the fire. You have to systematically get rid of any advantage they have, any reason to strike. Granted that they will still fight reagardless however the lines don't get blurred and it is easier to gain international support. 

Well that's hhow I look at it anyway.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2004)

> The U.S. will use it's superior precision-guided firepower and start a systematic campaign of destroying the most symbolic Muslim structures in the world with a final target of the mosques in Mecca and Medina, two of the holiest cities to Muslims.



I don't think this will work at all. I believe the terrorists attacking the US don't give two shits about religion. Their just as happy shooting a baby in the head as they are an american soldier. They would shoot the baby first because it's easier.   They are starting to target their own people now. They hide inside mosques knowing full well americans will destroy them when they shoot back. They don't care.

If americans started doing as you suggested every nutbar, muslem AND long haired hippie american, would go beserk. You'd be attacked by every terrorist in the whorld who hates the US and doesn't give a rats ass about religion. These guys use it as an excuse.

It's hippocritical.   They can do it to us but we can't do it to them.
Were you kidding when you wrote that?


----------



## winchable (15 Jul 2004)

I think if this were to happen you would turn even the most moderate of Muslims (myself included) into very angry individuals. Then you've got ALL the Muslims VERY angry, not just a minority of wayward zealots.
Angry in a way which has never been witnessed.

If we did go through with this, even if we did try and pawn the blame off on the governments of those particular countries, we would suffer the brunt of the agression.


----------



## casing (15 Jul 2004)

I have to agree with the other responders in this thread.  Karpovage's "solution" would make matters far worse.  I won't go into reasons as the other replies have outlined them already.  Targeting places of religious significance would be a grievous error.


----------



## karpovage (15 Jul 2004)

So Muslims would be "angry in a way never witnessed". Well, I've witnessed angry Muslims fly planes into buildings in the name of Allah and burning people jumping to their deaths, I've witnessed beheadings of innocent civilians in the name of Allah, I've witnessed car bombs, assassinations, torture, etc, etc, So, what will happen next - oh, wait, I know. Muslims will use a nuclear bomb on NYC as a result of bombing Mecca. That's never been witnessed yet. Guess what, THEY ARE ALREADY PLANNING ON DOING THAT! So ,what would be worse. Do we wait until this happens and not piss anymore muslims off or do we be proactive and try to stop this from happening by waving a big stick?

Che and Ghost, you're reaction to this strategy is precisely what is holding back an end-game to this war. Don't cross the line into religion because you might make someone mad. Well that is precisely the point. A bombing of this nature will provoke anger. The same anger felt by countries whose citizens are being beheaded or car bombed. It will show the rest of the world that the U.S. is mad as hell and will cross over the same lines that terrorists have in order to protect its nation and national security interests. 

Americans are not here to convert people to other religions. On the other hand a Muslim empire is what AL Quada seeks. Rule by religion. America has no interest in telling you what God to worship. Believe me we want peace. But how do you stop terrorism? There currently is no answer. So, I say step across the line and try something that strikes fear into the hearts of those who consider attacking America. If it works it works, If it doesn't then what has AMerica lost. Respect? Hah. We are now the most hated nation is the world for defending are interests and people.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2004)

You want to make an impact then the US gov't should sever all ties with Suadi Arabi to start.   Right now they have the cake and the icing.   Heavy sanctions against Iran, Syria, and everyone else that harbour terrorists


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2004)

The fundamentialist will never go away.   the best case is to minimize their influence.   Why not just nuke every Islamic run nation then?   Quick and easy.   As big and bad the US is they still need support from other countries.   The last thing you want to do is unite all Muslims towards the destruction of the US because they will win.   The only way to silence them is to wipe Islam off the plant and I can't see that happening.


----------



## casing (15 Jul 2004)

Karpovage, the problem with your plan is that you want to punish all Muslims in the world for the actions of the terrorists.   Including the Muslims in your own armed forces!   That is not the right course to take.   CFL has it right when he said to kill the leaders and their families.   Sure, others will take their place.   Then you kill them and their families too.   Kind of like how the PM (was it the PM?) in Iraq a few months ago was assassinated, then his replace was assassinated shortly after, then _his_ replacement was almost assassinated.   Soon, no one wanted the job!   Now that is a plan I could see working.   Difficult to accomplish, but not impossible and would certainly have less backlash from the Muslim community.

I believe drastic action needs to take place.   But that drastic action should not be waging war on all Muslims, regardless.


----------



## karpovage (15 Jul 2004)

Yeah, you know, you're right. I just got all fired up and pissed off about this whole damn war which we did not start. We had war declared against us. I know deep in my heart that to do something like this WOULD unite all Muslims against the U.S. and that is not what our country is all about. We are all about inclusiveness and tolerance and the right to worship Allah as freely as you want to worship Michael Jackson. I just do not see and end-game to this war. There won't be any treaties, any surrenders, any capitulation. Just more and more death and destruction. My thought on the religious bombing campaign was to pound the enemy into submission - which really is the mission of the armed forces. It's my unconventional way of conducting and unconventional war.

Cutting the head off the snake - yes that is a solution - but this snake is Medusa. It will live and live and live. When will it die?


----------



## karpovage (15 Jul 2004)

CFL - I agree with cutting off Saudi Arabia. They are the root and they provide a bulk of the financing for this war. I have no problems with that at all. But here's the lesson again. We go through the U.N., we get the proper world condemnation, we do the economic sanctions, the diplomatic pressure, etc. But that has not worked in the past. Take Iraq for example. The Oil for Food program was a failure and not a detterent. Saddam and the U.N.'s own officials bagged $10 billion. Economic sanctions always have loopholes and smuggling to get around. They are a joke. Look what France and Germany and Russia did. They were providing assistance to Iraq during the UN sanctions. When it comes down to it Man can relate to force to sway his decision-making. Thus the reason we have armed forces. To "force" the adversary to stop what ever he is doing. Did sanctions stop the Rawanda killings, the Sudanese killings and slave trade? No. The rifle in the face stops these activities.

But to totally NOT buy anymore oil or ANYTHING from Saudi Arabia would definitely have a huge impact. But tell that to the oil companies, try selling that to the UN security council. That's about as realistic as the U.S. bombing Mecca.

So here we are again pissin in the wind....


----------



## karpovage (15 Jul 2004)

I'm posting this article from another forum on Ralph Peters (a military author). He poses some of the same questions I'm struggling with on the Muslim religion and the atrocities committed. I have to get back to my day job now. 

Great debate by the way..

Here's the article:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13849


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2004)

That's why I believe that it is important to develop a tangible renewable fuel now.


----------



## Bert (15 Jul 2004)

I think everyone has a sense of events today.  Atrocities have been committed.  Wars are in progress.  Dispite the events in the
middle east and central asia, the situation in Africa now is much worse.  Human history goes back 2.5 million years and look at whats
happened in just the last 6,000 years.  Its goes on and on.  I'm not a religious person or a believer in anything for that matter,
but if everyone read the ten commandments found in the Koran, the Holy Bible, the Torah, and similar writtings found in
other religions, and ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THEM, I'd bet we wouldn't have problems of today.  Until we learn to live together
history gets repeated again and again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jul 2004)

I'm for stopping terrorisim as much as the next guy. I'm also pretty agressive when it comes to punishment. Someone is a serial rapist? Castrate them. Someone is convicted of first degree  murder? Put them to death. If a country , ie saudi arabia, is funding this crap, cut them off. Punish them with whatever means at hand. (I'm not sure WTF the US is doing being buddy buddy with the Saudies).

I'd say most of the world isn't too happy with the US right now for a host of reasons. A good number of the world probably relate the US to ancient Rome or germany in ww2. Thats not my opinion exactly but i have a lot of friends all over the world who i keep in touch with online and 99% of them see the US in a bad light.  Bombing a religious symbol like you mentioned? I couldn't really tell but I think you realised what you were saying wasn't a good idea.

I don't think there is an answer to exctlty what to do and how to stop this. This isn't a country we can just invade, beat the hell out of, install a new government and go home.  Considering the most powerful leaders in the world can't come up with an answer i don't feel bad that I can't either.

If i had to offer a solution it would be way out in left field.
The most powerful nations in the world make a NATO type military force and with it they disarm the world. Period. People obviously can't play nice and get along so tough luck, they get al their guns taken away.
Give people a chance. Tell countries to put a stop to terrorisim themselves OR the NATO like force will move into their country, disarm their military and begin disarming the terrorists one country at a time.  You'll have an easier time starting world war 3 and occupying the world than stoping all these ready mix terrorists.


----------



## Goober (16 Jul 2004)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> ... (I'm not sure WTF the US is doing being buddy buddy with the Saudies)....


"Saudi Arabia 
With one-fourth of the world's proven oil reserves and some of the lowest production costs, Saudi Arabia is likely to remain the world's largest net oil exporter for the foreseeable future. During 2003, Saudi Arabia supplied the United States with 1.7 million barrels per day of crude oil, or 18%, of U.S. crude oil imports during that period."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html



> If i had to offer a solution it would be way out in left field.
> The most powerful nations in the world make a NATO type military force and with it they disarm the world. Period. People obviously can't play nice and get along so tough luck, they get al their guns taken away.
> Give people a chance. Tell countries to put a stop to terrorisim themselves OR the NATO like force will move into their country, disarm their military and begin disarming the terrorists one country at a time.



This in my opinion, is a great idea. Its how I forsee the future. Sooner or later, we'll have to stop thinking in terms of "I'm from this country, your from that one" and start thinking, I'm from Earth. What planet are you from?


----------



## Gunnar (16 Jul 2004)

And who is going to pay for your CoDominium forces, hmm?

Not to mention the hue and cry about invading other countries, suppressing their right to self-defense, etc., etc.  The fact that all of these annoyed countries will start working together to ACTIVELY destroy the US on a governmental level, instead of on the "hey, let's fund a few nutbars to annoy the US level".

The US enters countries militariliy when it is in its own best interest, i.e., in the interest of the people who pay taxes to the US government to protect them.  It doesn't need to be a world policeman to accomplish that.  What the US COULD do however, is simply refuse to trade with such nations.  At all.  Or maybe have a foreign policy, immigration policy and defense policy that were integrated and made sense, instead of handing out weapons to the "lasting friends for the next 2 seconds" who hate the US, but want their technology and money.


----------



## karpovage (16 Jul 2004)

Ghost,

Your solution is the exact same solution the world came up with after WWI - the League of Nations. Was suppose to stop all future wars. It failed! Then came WWII and another great concept to stop future wars - The United Nations, which was set up by (your words exactly) "The most powerful nations in the world." And the U.N. has failed too. Undeniably. So, I've inserted the word United Nations into your NATO proposal because we already have what you are asking for:

Make a "UNITED NATIONS" type military force and with it they disarm the world. Period. People obviously can't play nice and get along so tough luck, they get al their guns taken away. Give people a chance. Tell countries to put a stop to terrorisim themselves OR the "UNITED NATIONS" like force will move into their country, disarm their military and begin disarming the terrorists one country at a time.   

So, why use NATO when we have the U.N. to take care of all of our problems? Oh, wait. The bulk of the money and the bulk of the fighting forces for the U.N. comes from , guess who, the U.S.! So, should we just drop out of the U.N. membership and let the rest of the world deal with all the problems? Afterall we suck. We are the bad people in the world. right?

The thing is President Bush recognized the U.N. failure to do exactly what you are proposing and he put the U.N.'s entire relevance for existence on notice. Well, it failed to act once again. So, we acted on our own. And now we suck because of it.
If John Kerry gets in office he will hug the U.N., hug the world and once again we'll be buddy buddy with everyone but the underlying problem of terrorism will not have disappeared.


----------



## RCA (16 Jul 2004)

Just a few points regarding the UN:

1.  It was placed in New York so the US could keep an eye on it.

2.  Some correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is in arrears of its dues because Congress doesn't agree with the UN policies. This may have changed.

3.  The US contributes no military forces to the UN becuse forgeins can not command US troops.

The US is just as guilty as the other security council nations by emasculating the UN by gong unilaterally when national interests suit it.

I'm glad you re-thought the bombing  proposal. I hear your frustration but all that would happen would the start of the modern day crusaders. The last one lasted, what 200-300 years.

As well the connection is being made between Bin Laden and Sadden Hussein. They are two separate issues. Bin Laden is the terrorist who is hitting back the US for having its troops in Islamic Saudi Arabia (from the aftermath of Gulf War I). All his acts have occurred after 1991. 

As for Saddam Hussein, the US probably thinks of themselves as liberators, but I suspect that many Iraqis relate to them as occupiers. Think of when the Germans invaded France, and the French resistance (and no, I am not equating the US to Nazis, just the resistance to a foein invasion). The hostage taking is taking place mostly in Iraq, and what are there demands, Not conversion to Islam, but get out of Iraq.


----------



## karpovage (16 Jul 2004)

U.S. was holding back it's dues a few years back because Congress was concerned with the corruption and lack of a housecleaning to correct that problem. I think it was Senator Jesse Helms that led that fight. I believe then that Ted Turner, owner of CNN and Atlanta sports teams ponied up $1 billion to cover those dues at that time. It was incredible that he parted with that kind of cash in belief of the UN mandate. I think the U.S. is now on track - simply because I haven't heard otherwise.

"THe U.S. contributes no military forces to the U.N?" You need to clarify that statement.

Yes, that is what I've read on Bin Laden's cause for war - that infidel troops are on holy land - correct. (not a very religious reasons huh?) and we struck back and the world didn't have a problem with that. But as soon as the U.S. fulfills 13 years of UN Security Council Resolutions and takes the Iraq government dictatorship down and replaces it with a democratic government - then we are considered the scum of the earth. 

Am I missing something, wasn't world opinion supposed to happen in reverse? That the U.S. *should * have been *condemned * for attacking a defenseless country in Afghanistan, whose Taliban government never did anything to us rather than house a Bin Laden guest? And that the U.S. *should * have been *praised * for acting in the U.N.'s interest against a cruel dictator? So what do we do wrong? 

I still believe this IS a holy war. Not in a Bible vs. Koran sense so much from our side. But in what we in the west consider holy. And that is individual rights, freedom or expression and religion, free trade, capitalism, etc. Those are the holy things that we as civilized nations cherish. Islamofascists consider this a holy war because they do NOT believe in those things, they believe in their interpretation of the Koran as being something completely 180 degrees from this and they claim it in the name of Allah and the muslim religion and thus killing infidels to their religion. They employ terrorist tactics as a means to an end to fight this holy war because they do not have the conventional fire power to conduct their persuasion on a battlefield. So stop fooling yourselves. If they got a hold of WMDs then they would just use that as another tool to further their holy war. This is not so much a War on terrorism (because that is a technique) but a war on whose form of government and whose freedom of rights will prevail.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2004)

Your comment about a foreigner commanding US troops is not entirely correct as there is a Canadian General that runs NORAD half the year among other incidents.

The UN is toothless because they can't do anything without input from a plethra of countries some of which don't agree with the west or US.  Hell they have terrorist countries that are a part of the U.N.

The Taliban worked out of Afganistan and that is why there was no real problem for them to be invaded.  Iraq on the other hand seemed to be an excuse.


----------



## RCA (16 Jul 2004)

The only US troops deployed are under auspices of NATO not the UN, such as Kosovo. In actual fact the UN shies away from using Security Council member's forces for any of it missions, due the perception of bias.
Actually, I am wrong, the US did supply forces under the UN (in name anyway) for the Korean War. I think this was the one and only time, but I stand to be corrected.

I can't disagree that the UN has been ineffective in a lot of areas, but can anyone say that we would have been better off if it had never existed. At least antagonists can face each other. Think the Cuban missile crises for one.

   Was the invasion of Iraq because of disregard of UN resolutions, or a regime change? The UN resolutions dealt with WMD. I do not think the world thinks of the US as the scum of the earth because of the invasion. I think that's a little melodramatic. The problem was that the US unilaterally decided it would enforce its will, and the perceived arrogance that goes with that (you're either with us or against us attitude). Canada put forth a resolution that set a firm deadline (end of Feb or Mar, can't remember which one) and would have given UN inspectors more time to complete their inspections. It was ignored by the US in favour of its own timetable. (Conspiracy theorists could say that the gov't knew there were no WMD, and therefore no reason to invade). 

Muslims nations will always condemn the US, not some much on religious issues, but as much as its continuing blind faith and support of Israel, instead of brokering a workable solution that both sides can/will have to live with. It is this perception of taking sides that is causing the US grief.

Again the issue is getting confused, as the UN can do something about Iraq (and has been asked by the US to take a role) and nothing about Bin Laden, as he is a private person. 

The world did not condemn the US for Afghanistan becase this was a direct result of 9/11 and understandable. The reason for invading Iraq was/is less clear, defiance of UN resolutions, self defense, nation self interest, immemint danger, war on terror, regime change, oil, all the above, none of the above. And if the US can unilatunilateralye a nation for a pretext of any of the above, can it it do it to any other nation, being the biggest kid on the block. It makes people nervous.


----------



## Bert (17 Jul 2004)

Not to nudge the conversation to the side, but this article yet again from Stratfor is interesting.  
The last paragraph touches on something different.  Russian troops?

If true, it places another SC member in the heat of things, a target like the Philipines, and the
shows the cautiousness of the US.  Interesting if the Russians go into Iraq, will they be a target for 
terrorism?  Why would they go in?  Are the terrorists and guerillas accumulating more enemies?

As Samarra: A Haven for Iraqi Insurgents?
www.stratfor.com

Summary

Islam Online claims nearly 40 percent of the population of the Iraqi city of
As Samarra has evacuated ahead of a possible U.S. offensive. The city has
been relatively calm since the end of fighting during Muqtada al-Sadr's
uprising of March and April. The calm was created by the return of Iraqi
insurgents to power and the lack of U.S. troop presence. Stratfor has reason
to suspect the city could begin exporting violence to the surrounding area --
something that could force pre-emptive U.S. military action.

Analysis

In the time since the March and April uprising by supporters of Muqtada
al-Sadr, the city of As Samarra, a mixed Sunni/Shiite city in the Sunni
Triangle, has been relatively quiet. Stratfor believes this calm is due in no
small part to the return of Iraqi insurgents to power. An attack on U.S.
forces July 7 that killed at least five U.S. soldiers followed the first
deployment by the U.S. Army into the city in more than two weeks; it was met
with stiff resistance by Iraqi guerrillas who had taken over the streets.

Like Al Fallujah, As Samarra became a haven for Iraqi insurgents following
disengagement by U.S. troops. Iraqi police have proven unable and/or
unwilling to interfere with the operations of the guerrillas. This has
created a situation in which Iraqi insurgents can recoup, rearm and plan
operations outside of their As Samarra sanctuary. The United States is forced
to decide whether to allow this to continue.

Sunni tribal sources told Stratfor that the guerrillas -- inspired by the
perceived success of the insurgents in Al Fallujah -- are preparing to defend
As Samarra against a possible U.S. offensive. Iraqi police have been largely
ineffective in stopping the guerrillas because the insurgents in As Samarra
are mostly tribal warriors motivated by nationalism. It appears that the
guerrillas in As Samarra have crossed religious lines and that the Shia and
the Sunnis -- many of them former members of the Iraqi army -- have joined
forces against the U.S. military.

Additionally, Stratfor has been told similar situations are developing in
other Iraqi cities, including Tikrit, Balad, Al Khalis and smaller towns
throughout the Salah al-Din province. Tikrit is reportedly the least
vulnerable to guerrilla control because its leaders have remained largely
neutral. As Samarra is the heart of the resistance in the province, but the
insurgents are actively exporting equipment and fighters throughout the
province in an effort to drive the U.S. military farther and farther away
from Iraqi cities -- and eventually out of Iraq.

The U.S. military command is all too aware of the current situation in As
Samarra. A U.S. Army lieutenant colonel said July 15 that no one is "sure who
controls the city," a sentiment echoed by more than one source within the
U.S. military.

The United States is keen to reduce the number of casualties being taken by
U.S. forces throughout Iraq, but particularly in the Sunni Triangle. It is
the desire to reduce the U.S. military's profile and vulnerability that has
driven the military disengagement from cities like Al Fallujah and As
Samarra. Although the disengagement has left U.S. troops far less exposed to
the kind of fighting that engulfed Iraq in March and April, the United States
is forced to rely on largely untested and often unreliable Iraqi forces to
maintain security in the abandoned areas. The consequent failure by the Iraqi
police and military is forcing the United States to re-evaluate its policy of
disengagement, at least in the short term.

U.S. military commanders are loathe to return to offensive urban operations
-- the kind that resulted in the deaths of more than 70 U.S. Marines in Al
Fallujah in April -- but are also increasingly wary of the possibility of
safe havens within Iraq that are being used by insurgents to launch attacks
throughout the region. The return to a full-scale offensive assault against
insurgents holed up in the city is unlikely, but the possibility of U.S.
checkpoints and a blockade of sorts are possible.

Stratfor sources in Kuwait said the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit -- that
arrived in Kuwait on July 7 -- could be headed north for just such a mission
and have been instructed not to shy away from combat.

It is doubtful that checkpoints and blockades will return Iraqi security
forces to power in As Samarra, and it is doubtful that it will have any
substantive effect on limiting the Iraqi insurgency. The United States is
prepared to try anything to avoid engaging in costly urban conflict again,
including the possibility of importing Russian troops to the Sunni Triangle.


----------



## Bert (19 Jul 2004)

For the sake of a follow-up article, Stratfor describes a possible Russian deployment in Iraq.
I definitely think Russia would be in for more trouble if it moves into the Sunni triangle
and risk attacks from Sunni militia and other militant groups.  I feel Russia is more interested 
in the development of Iraqi oil industry than in American good will.  But you need one for 
the other.  Attacks on Russian troops in Iraqi or on Russian interests abroad will only make 
another enemy for Islamofascists.  


Russia: Putin Considers Sending Troops to Iraq 
July 16, 2004 
www.stratfor.com

Summary


Moscow is considering a request by the Bush administration to send 
Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall, just before the U.S. 
presidential election. The move would be of enormous benefit to 
U.S. President George W. Bush and a risky venture for Russian President 
Vladimir Putin, who faces his own Islamist insurgency in Chechnya and 
public opposition to U.S. policy in Iraq. Torn between his desire to 
support Bush and his need to address domestic concerns, Putin will d
elay his final decision to the eleventh hour.


Analysis


Moscow and Washington are quietly negotiating a request by 
the Bush administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or 
Afghanistan this fall, Russian government sources tell Stratfor. 
The talks are intense, our contacts close to the U.S. State 
Department say, and the timing is not insignificant. A Russian troop 
lift to either country before the U.S. presidential election would give 
U.S. President George W. Bush a powerful boost in the campaign. 


Sources close to Russia's Security Council tell Stratfor that Russian 
President Vladimir Putin has agreed to the request "in principle" 
and has directed the Russian General Staff to work up a plan by the 
end of the month. Before making a decision, however, Putin wants 
to make sure all logistical and international legal questions are 
resolved -- perhaps with United Nations involvement -- and he will not 
move without a formal U.S. request. It is a tough decision for Putin, 
who will carefully weigh the risks and rewards and likely make his decision at the last possible moment.


Stratfor sources in the Russian Energy and Industry Ministry also say the 
Prime Minister's office has issued a directive to the ministry to prepare 
a Russian "wish list" for Washington seeking some level of quid pro 
quo, including steps to return Russian oil companies to Iraq and a
pproval of Russia's joining the World Trade Organization.


If a troop agreement is reached, the Bush administration would 
enjoy not only a timely spike in the polls during the campaign s
eason, but also the strategic, long-term benefit of having a sizable 
contingent -- as many as 40,000, Stratfor sources say -- of 
Russian troops relieve beleaguered American forces and free 
them up for regional purposes beyond Iraq. Getting a major 
troop contribution from any country, particularly one that was 
originally opposed to the war in Iraq, would be a boon for 
Washington, which is starting to recognize the limits of its unilateral 
approach. A Russian troop commitment could not only stifle the 
development of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance against U.S. policy 
in the Middle East but also could prevent -- over the long term -- the 
formation of a troika among Russia, China and India to counter U.S.
 dominance. 


And the Russian Army, although certainly not as formidable as it was 
at the height of Soviet power, is a skillful and resolute ground force 
seasoned by 10 years of fighting Chechen guerrillas (superb fighters 
and mentors to Islamist insurgents worldwide). Formations considered 
for the Russian deployment include three mechanized infantry divisions 
and one airborne brigade, Russian military sources say. The current 
general staff scenario has Russian troops spread across Iraq, but 
Washington would likely want them concentrated in the Sunni Triangle 
where the insurgency continues to grow. It is not even necessary for 
the Russian troops to win militarily in Iraq; Washington would not 
expect that. Tough street fighters, they could effectively tie down 
and distract Iraqi insurgents while the Americans regroup for strategic 
missions in the region.


Nevertheless, for Russian President Vladimir Putin, sending Russian 
troops to Iraq poses far more risk than reward. For one thing, fighting 
Islamist militants in Iraq would raise Russia's profile as a target for al 
Qaeda and other jihadists far beyond the scale of Chechen guerrilla 
activity. A flood of volunteers from a 25-million-strong Islamic 
community in Russia and foreign Islamic nations-- angry with Russia's 
major contribution to an Iraq war on Washington's behalf -- could turn 
all the Russian North Caucasus, predominantly Muslim, into one vast 
combat zone. 


The move could also disrupt Russian society, which has opposed the 
Iraqi war from the outset, and generate a meaningful challenge to 
Putin's power. And while the Russian general staff believes it is possible 
to deploy 40,000 Russian troops, it would definitely put a strain on 
the Russian army, particularly given its ongoing commitment in Chechnya. 
Stratfor sources also suggest that some Russian officers would be 
unhappy with the deployment and might even refuse to go. 


Given a move that would be serious high-stakes poker for Putin, why 
would he do it? Betting on a Bush victory in November, Putin wants
 Bush to maintain a positive attitude toward Russia in general and Putin 
in particular during a second term, when Bush would be free to conduct 
whatever foreign policy he wants to. Also, Putin's mission in life seems to
 be to irrevocably link post-Communist Russia with the United 
States -- economically, politically, militarily.


Meanwhile, as long as the Russian people -- who have been grudgingly 
tolerant of Putin's pro-Western stratagem so far -- can remain patient 
and relatively undisturbed, the risks in Putin's mind could be worth taking. 
Someday, if he is slow and prudent with his policies, Putin envisions a 
tipping point for Russia, when rising consumerism and ties to the West 
will forever link Moscow's fate with Washington's. His hope may be that 
sending Russian troops to Iraq would help forge that link. 


However, Putin is aware that if he miscalculates the degree to which he 
can test Russia's patience, having troops in Iraq could cause a huge 
domestic backlash, cost him his power and return the nation to its 
anti-American past.


----------



## dutchie (20 Jul 2004)

Just a few thoughts:

1-Do we really want a 'Tit-for-Tat' mentality when it comes to deciding a response to Terror? Should the US troops in Iraq start behaeding it's POW's? Obviously not. You lose the moral authority when you respond to brutality with brutality. That's what happened at the Iraqi prison, and is still happening in Cuba.

2-There is a huge difference between the 'War on Terror', Afghanistan, and Iraq.
The US was attacjed by Bin Laden, not Saddam. Bin Laden's troopies were based largely in Afghanistan (Saudis I know, but the camps were in Afghanistan), so that war was justified. You'll remember that Canada supported/participated in that. Iraq, however, is another story. The justification for war was crap. No WMD=no basis for war=invaders not liberators. They should finish it now that they're there. You can't crash a party, sh*t on the floor, and then say, "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that....see ya". They should pacify/quell the rebellion, hand over power, rebuild the basic infastructure, and pull pin.

3-In WW2, France was liberated, Germany was not. Liberation is the ousting of an occupying force, not the ousting of a dictator BY an occupying force. 

4-The US should finish the war in Iraq, and get out while they can. They are in for a world of hurt if they stay. As patriotic as the US is, and as determined as the average Yank is, it pales in comparison to a people who feel their way of life, their culture, and their religion are being exterminated. If the US continues, the WTC/Pentagon attacks will be minor compared to the carnage that these savages will bring. 

5-Some see this war as a war of Christians vs. Muslims. Think of this. According to both religions, everyone who dies in Iraq is a child of god. All are equal to god. The 17 yr old Iraqi with the RPG who gets cut down deserves to live in peace just as much as the 17 yr old American with the M60...or the 17 yr old with textbooks for that matter.

6-Muslims are not the enemy, Iraqis are not the enemy, the savages who murder innocents, regardless of national stripe or religion, are the real enemy. Whether they be Iraqi, Afghan, Yank, Palestinian, Israeli, whatever.

By the way, I love Americans (most of them), I just don't care for their Govt, so please, don't paint me with the 'Anti-American, left wing crack head' label.

Cheers


----------



## Gunnerlove (21 Jul 2004)

Hey Ignorant Yank. Have you ever heard of El Salvador? Panama? Chile? Guatemala? Peru? Columbia? Afghanistan? Iran? Ecuador? Vietnam? And Iraq? What do all these countries have in common? The United States of America trained terrorists and support(ed) terrorists in all of these countries. Have you ever heard of "The School of The Americas" or the  "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperationâ ? Your country has created and trained more terrorists than any other, yet as a nation you have no idea why the world hates you. Death squads killing children and assassinations of elected political leaders, way to go guys. 

Now you are bogged down in a country that you bombed every day for over a decade. You invaded it for no real reason other than oil and holy s**t the people have attacked are pissed at you. So you keep stomping around pissing more people off by killing their relativesYup go figure. Sounds allot like Vietnam, you invade and install your puppet dictator but for some reason no one is happy and they keep fighting you. Stop handing out weapons like halloween candy. I feel sorry for all the combatants. I mean they are fighting for their countries and /or freedom and the originator of this thread is sitting at home wasting carbon. Until you can open a book without pictures and look at your nations history for what it is you should stay in your little nest of ignorance. Or we could give you an ultimatum you know like a history quiz do you know why Texas an Hawaii are part of the US now? Invading and overthrowing governments come to mind.
If the Chileans waged a terror war against your country would they be in the wrong? I mean you started it. What about mexico and a ten step plan to giving them back their water?

You piss me off


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Jul 2004)

When are we going to start seeing all of this oil that they invaded for?


----------



## Gunnerlove (21 Jul 2004)

You are already seeing this oil. It is in the system but it will not affect the price on the world market right now due to the lack of security in the region. Apparently all of the Iraqi oil platforms in the Gulf are running at full capacity and the rest of the country is coming back on line very quickly. This is very good for all oil producers as would you rather sell your oil at $10 or $40 a barrel?
Remember overproduction and the depression of the price of oil caused the invasion of Kuwait.


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Jul 2004)

Oh, I see - I understood you to mean that the US invaded Iraq to *steal* the oil....

 :


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Jul 2004)

Yet another point of view:


Debunking The War For Oil Theory
by John Hawkins
As I read the latest & greatest piece of diarrhea to be penned by one of the 'war for oil" crowd, I was struck by how shallow and ill-thought out this theory it is. 

In fact, when I called it the "war for oil theory" in the title of this editorial, I probably gave the whole idea more credit that it's due. That's because there's really nothing more to the whole "theory" than, 

A) The United States uses oil
B) Iraq has a lot of oil
C) Bush & Cheney are former oilmen 

We're actually lucky that Cheney never owned a Major League baseball team and that Iraq doesn't have any talented, young players or we'd probably be treated to the "war for baseball" theory by the anti-war left. 

But "war for baseball" makes about as much sense as "war for oil" when you think about it. Just ponder the OBVIOUS question that the proponents of the 'war for oil' theory never ask. That question is, "What are we accomplishing with a war for oil that we couldn't achieve more easily via peaceful means?" 

-- We can't be going to war to get Saddam to sell us oil because he already does. 

-- Do we want him to sell us MORE oil? Well then all we'd have to do is ask. Iraq is desperate to acquire more revenue. 

-- Do we want to increase the price of oil to make the oil companies more profitable? Again, that's easy to do. We could simply destroy the Iraqi oil fields in retaliation for their attacks on our planes in the "no fly" zone. That would cause a large temporary spike in the price of oil. 

-- Do we want to get more oil on the world market so we can buy cheaper oil? We could easily convince the UN to remove the sanctions and Iraq would quickly double their oil production. They're currently producing way under capacity. 

-- Do we want to get the oil field contracts that the French and Russians have? Behind the scenes, Bush could have offered to have the sanctions lifted if Hussein would have torn up the contracts he had with the French and Russians. If we didn't want the sanctions in place they'd be gone and the contracts Saddam made with the French and the Russians? They don't mean anything when you're dealing with a dictator like Hussein -- unless you've got a military capable of enforcing the deal. Also, just as a side note, the war, the occupation, and aid we'll give Iraq will end up costing us much more than those oil fields are worth even if we would have gotten them all (which we won't). 

-- Do we want to control the country that has the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world so we'll still have a source of oil after much of the rest of the planet has gone dry? Well, this makes no sense at all in world where relationships between nations change regularly. Think about how our relationships with Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, & Germany have changed just since 9/11. The only way we could insure that we would still have access to Iraq's oil decades from now would be to make them into a US colony with a puppet ruler who actually takes orders from us. Is there anyone out there who actually thinks this is going to happen despite the fact that we're not doing it anywhere else in the world today? 

The reason I've had to toss out all these different options in the first place is because there is no consistent, rational theory coming from the 'war for oil' people. They themselves don't even understand what they mean by "war for oil". 

If you want to expose how little thought these people have put into this, just use the Socratic Method on them. I'm sure your conversation will sound something like this... 

Anti-War Protestor: This is a war for oil! That's what this all about! 

You: Why do you say that? 

Anti-War Protestor: Because Iraq has oil and we want it! Bush and Cheney, they're oilmen! 

You: So how does invading Iraq help us get their oil? 

Anti-War Protestor: After we invade, we can just take it! 

You: So you're saying we're going to invade Iraq and just take over their oil fields? Then we're never going to pay Iraq for their oil? That doesn't sound very likely.... 

Anti-War Protestor: I'm not saying that...we will pay for the oil but... 

You: But, we already pay for the oil. How is that different from what we're doing now? 

Anti-War Protestor: We'll have all that oil under our control! 

You: How will it be under our control? 

Anti-War Protestor: Iraq's leader will be a puppet of the United States! They'll have to sell us oil! 

You: But they already sell us oil. So why should we... 

Anti-War Protestor: He tried to kill Bush's daddy! That's what this really about! 

The 'war for oil theory' isn't a serious theory for people who pay attention to foreign policy. It's really nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan that through parrot-like repetition has managed to impress liberal partisans, people who don't like Bush, and those who don't really understand foreign policy.


----------



## nULL (21 Jul 2004)

The author of this thread reminds me alot of this f_cking idiot

http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=208&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0


----------



## K. Ash (21 Jul 2004)

I would never agree with an act such as the one discussed here. But I can understand how others would. 

Meanwhile I think this guy Bill O'Reilly is a little off the deep end.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jul 2004)

Great post about who started the terrorists off int he first place Gunnerlove.


----------



## karpovage (22 Jul 2004)

Come in Gunnerlove. Come in. This is the Evil Empire calling. Do you read me? We are trying to reach your country of Utopia but we can't seem to find it on any map. We understand you may have oil there. Do you think we can send one of our terrorists in to smoke some of your crack peace pipe and discuss some terms for free trade?


----------



## Gunnerlove (25 Jul 2004)

Who started the terrorists? Which ones? There are allot of them. 
As far as my location it is in Canada another Nation where the US controls 90 percent of the oil production.
Now look back to the time before the US invaded Iraq and look at oil exports from the county. Wow next to nothing. Is it because of the trade embargo imposed on Iraq. So why would the price of oil go up if Iraq was not providing any to the world market. Well thats simple uncertainty increases commodity prices. Now oil is flowing and big money is being spent by the US government and made by US companies like Haliburtan. So there is more oil on the market but the middle east is more of a mess than it was before the invasion so prices are staying high. Oil companies do not work for the consumer, or on the consumers behalf they work for the shareholder, live with it.

Free trade? sure lets talk softwood tarifs. 

Then we could go into town and look at some books in a library. And we could get you some BC Hydro.
Or you could meet some of my friends, you know the nice girl I work with who lost her mother and father in El Salvador, or my buddy who lost his grandparents in Chile, or........

"Your" government is "Your" biggest problem. I should state that I do not hate Americans or wish them any harm, but I hate your current government and most of your past governments. You as a population are being taken for a ride and are to patriotic to look past the flag at your nation and your nations place in the world. The current cuts to education are making it less likely that this will ever happen.

Ignorance is bliss and happy people don't rock the boat.

Lets just say I am not in Utopia but it is a good book.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Jul 2004)

> Come in Gunnerlove. Come in. This is the Evil Empire calling. Do you read me? We are trying to reach your country of Utopia but we can't seem to find it on any map. We understand you may have oil there. Do you think we can send one of our terrorists in to smoke some of your crack peace pipe and discuss some terms for free trade?



Man... you're killing me!!! YOU are the stereotype that America bashers in Canada love to hate!! You made no attempt to argue the "School of the Americas" comment with anything more then an accusation that Gunnerlove is smoking crack. You might as well just have said "I'm right and you're wrong because thats just the way it is." Give me something that I can take a look at and say "well you know, he does have a point there".   muskrat89's post was exactly what you _should_ be bringing to the table (good post muskrat!).

I don't really have an opinion either way about right and wrong in regards to the US and its beef with the Mid-East. I'm just getting tired of Americans trying to tell me they're right because thats just how it is. It's not the fact that you're at war thats pissing most people off - heck, I'd be pretty pissed too if someone crashed a plane into the Air Canada Centre. But you need to take on this problem with a different attitude and accept some responsibility. Accept that fact that you're cleaning up your own damn mess and the world will be a heck of alot more sympathetic to your cause.


----------



## Gunnerlove (25 Jul 2004)

I would like to say I am always right and have all the answers but I would be lying, no one has all the answers and is always right. I would strongly suggest that anyone who comes across a piece of information (in this forum or elsewhere )that is new to them research it before slashing it to bits, dismissing it or accepting it as a truth. 


Forums such as this are a great place to "think out loud" with a very limited liability, and that is both the best and worst aspect of this medium. Often times in these forums you run into two people on different sides of the fence who just end up insulting each other, and that is not constructive.  


If you limit your sources of information you will never be informed.


----------



## karpovage (25 Jul 2004)

Ghostwalk and Gunnerlove, sorry for not going more in depth on my "Utopia" reply but I was literally out the door on Thursday and I was so stunned at GunnerLove's blame game and blind hatred of Americans that the only thing I could think of was that this person was living in a country that doesn't exist. Or Gunnerlove's mind must be so warped that he/she must be smoking crack. So I thought my reply pretty much summed up my feeling at the time. Just got back into town and read your replies and yes, I do love a good arguement because I certainly have major problems with my own government as well, and indeed in some of the areas that Gunnerlove brings up, however, I cannot argue something that Gunnerlove simply gives a blanket blame to. In other words, giving an all-encompassing statement that Americans have caused all the evil in the world. How do you talk rational to someone with that type of reasoning? A statement like that has no intelligence value for me to argue. So, why waste my time now? 

I would cordially invite you to jump posts and move on over to the "Shoe Bomber" post. Where Gunnerlove has introduced his outlandish statements there and pretty much has been taken to task. I would group my opinions with the majority of the posters there who are convincing "Caesar" that his comments are just AS off the wall as GunnerLove.


----------



## BDTyre (25 Jul 2004)

The other day, I had a mentally handicapped person I volunteer with come up to me and tell me he thinks George Bush started the war in Iraq.  He also told me that Saddam didn't do anything, and didn't hurt anybody.

And there are highly educated, intelligent people who think Saddam started this war and that all muslims are evil.


----------



## karpovage (25 Jul 2004)

Did you tell him that Saddam killed 300,000 of his own people over his 30 years of rule? And how many of his own citizens did President Bush kill during his 4 years of rule?


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Jul 2004)

Karpo, and others - my ONLY problem in the war in Iraq (which I supported), was the "change of spin" over the last few months. We went in there, primarily, because of the threat of WMD. Faulty intelligence or not, I think all of the coalition leaders believed that threat was genuine. Actually, a lot of evidence of WMDs have been found, albeit piecemeal - and none of the vast stockpiles that were claimed. That being said, the anti-war types seem to dismiss ANY evidence of WMDs, saying instead that there is none - which is simply not true.

The Coalition, and especially the Bush Government, should have stuck to their guns in that respect. Trying now to pitch it as "we needed regime change" costs them credibility. It is a nice side effect  (regime change) but if that was their goal, they should have stated that. 

Gunnerlove - as Slim mentioned - as scholarly as you like to seem, your profile is blank - doesn't add much "ooomph" to such a learned conspiracy theorist.


----------



## BDTyre (25 Jul 2004)

Karpovage, my post was meant to illustrate a point.   I am sorry you missed it.  (No offense intended  )


----------



## Linc (25 Jul 2004)

5 July 2004

It's Not Always About You

By Gwynne Dyer

        You can never say this without hurting the feelings of at least
some Americans, but it needs to be said.  At the stone-laying ceremony of
July 4th on the site where the World Trade Center towers formerly stood,
New York state governor George Pataki dedicated the building that is to
replace them with the rhetoric that is standard in the United States on
such occasions: "Let this great Freedom Tower show the world that what our
enemies sought to destroy -- our democracy, our freedom, our way of life --
stands taller than ever."  But 9/11 wasn't really about any of that.

        Imagine the scene: it's 1999, and a group of wild-eyed and
bushy-bearded Islamist fanatics are pacing a cave somewhere in Afghanistan
planning 9/11.  "We must destroy American democracy," says one.  "An
America run by a dictator would be a much better place."

        "Yes," says the second, "and we must also curtail their freedom.
Americans have too many television channels, too many breakfast cereals,
and far too many kinds of make-up to choose from."  Then the third chimes
in: "While we're at it, let's destroy their whole way of life. I've always
hated American football, Oprah Winfrey sucks, and I can't stand Coca-Cola."

        No? This scene doesn't ring true?  Then why does almost all public
discussion in the United States about the goals of the Islamist terrorists
assume that they are driven by hatred for the domestic political and social
arrangements of Americans?  Because most Americans cannot imagine
foreigners NOT being interested in the way they do things, let alone using
the United States as a tool to pursue other goals entirely.

        Public debate in the United States generally assumes that America
is the only true home of democracy and freedom, and that other people and
countries are 'pro-American' or 'anti-American' because they support or
reject those ideals.  Practically nobody on the rest of the planet would
recognise this picture, but it is the only one most Americans are shown --
and it has major foreign policy implications.

        This is what enables President George W. Bush to explain away why
the United States was attacked with the simple phrase "They hate our
freedoms," and to avoid any discussion that delves into the impact of
American foreign policy in the Middle East on Arab and Muslim attitudes
towards the United States. It also blinds most Americans to the nature of
the strategic game that their country has been tricked into playing a role
in.

        So once more, with feeling: the 9/11 attacks were not aimed at
American values, which are of no interest to the Islamists one way or
another. They were an operation that was broadly intended to raise the
profile of the Islamists in the Muslim world, but they had the further
quite specific goal of luring the United States into invading Muslim
countries.

        The true goal of the Islamists is to come to power in Muslim
countries, and their problem until recently was that they could not win
over enough local people to make their revolutions happen.  Getting the
United States to march into the Muslim world in pursuit of the terrorists
was a potentially promising stratagem, since an invasion should produce
endless images of American soldiers killing and humiliating Muslims.  That
might finally push enough people into the arms of the Islamists to get
their long-stalled revolutions off the ground.

        Specifically, the al-Qaeda planners expected the US to invade
Afghanistan and get bogged down in the same long counter-guerrilla war that
the Russians had experienced there, providing along the way years of
horrifying images of American firepower killing innocent Muslims.  Osama
bin Laden and his colleagues were simply trying to relive their past
success against the Russians and get some more mileage out of the Afghan
scenario.  In fact, their plan failed: the United States conquered
Afghanistan quickly and at a very low cost in lives, and even now, despite
huge American neglect, Afghanistan has not produced a major anti-American
resistance movement.

        The reason al-Qaeda is still in business in a big way is that the
Bush admnistration then invaded Iraq.  The Islamists were astonished, no
doubt, but they knew how to exploit an opportunity when one was handed to
them.  And so the real game continues, while the public debate in the
United States is conducted in terms that have only the most tangential
contact with strategic reality.

        Perhaps it's unfair to ask Governor Pataki to get into any of that
at an emotional ceremony that was in part a commemoration of the lives that
were lost on 9/11, but when will it be addressed, and by whom?  What major
American public figure will stand up and say that the United States and its
values are not really under attack; that the country and its troops are
actually just being used as pawns in somebody else's strategy?  Many senior
American politicians and military officers understand what is going on, but
it's more than their career is worth to say so out loud.
______________________________

  Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles
are published in 45 countries.


----------



## Gunnerlove (25 Jul 2004)

Karpovage I have never said that the US has caused all of the evil in the world. I just said your nation has done allot of bad things. My blind hatred of Americans? I think not.   

I will try to reduce my rants to comments and feel free to take me to task.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jul 2004)

Gwynne Dyer - Now that IS funny. He's right, and everyone else is wrong....           A LONDON based journalist? I guess he didn't like Canada? Pity - and after such a highly acclaimed TV series   :   I can see why you like him, though Gunnerlove....


----------



## Linc (26 Jul 2004)

That's not really much of rebuttal....

Pardon while I throw my 2 cents in, let me add some of my own words to it:

The Iraq invasion was not about oil, and al-Qaeda's reason for being is not to curtail the freedoms of Americans. I don't think bin Laden cares for one second whether you our I or anyone in the West becomes a Muslim. He just wants us to stay the heck away and keep our 'sins' in our own country and away from the Muslim world.   Al-Qaeda believes the problems and poverty of the Muslim world are caused by corrupt and heretical Middle Eastern regimes and that are financed and armed by the even more corrupt and heretical West, especially the US.  Al-Qaeda's goal is overthrow these regimes, expell all foreigners and unite the Muslim world under one large Muslim 'superstate' ruled by a hard-line Islamic regime like the former Taliban govt in Afghanistan.  They believe this state, with its massive population, geography and resources (especially oil) will be a superpower with the economic and military strength to defend itself from an 'evil' west which they think will attempt to destroy them. It is true that some Islamists talk of 'purifying' the world of non-Muslims as the next logical step after forming the Muslim superstate, as a pre-emptive strike against an inevitable evil western attempt to annihilate Muslims,  but other Islamists are not so dedicated to this idea and see it as unnecessary as long as the 'infidels' keep to their own turf and do not interfere with the interests of the Muslim world.  Really, I don't think Osama was intimidated at all by the invasion of Iraq, in fact I bet he creamed his jeans when it happened.  He's been saying for years that America wanted to conquer the Middle East, kill Muslims and steal the oil.  The US didn't exactly prove him wrong by invading and occupying Iraq, killing 20,000 civilians and sending Haliburton to start up the oil wells.  In fact, to many Muslims who doubted Osama, it probably looks to them like he was right all along.  Especially to those who live in Iraq.  Now al-Qaeda is more popular that ever.

The US is in Iraq because the hawks in the White House believe the US has an opportunity to rid the world of regimes that are unfriendly and undemocratic.  The policy, as written by former Regan and Bush Sr aides (and close friends of the Bush Jr staff) is called "Benevolent Hegemony".  Basically the policy states that the US should assume the role of protector and enforcer of democracy worldwide, ridding the world of unfriendly dictatorships and installing friendly, *pro-US* democracies.  In order to accomplish this task, the US must ensure that it is so economically and military powerful that no nation or group of nations can challenge or interfere with its ability to carry out these tasks, even friendly countries or regional powers like Australia, Japan, or Europe.  Thus the US must continue to extend its power and influence while ensuring that no other country does so.  Don't get this wrong:  the US is not out to 'rule the world'.  It doesn't want to decide the speed limit in Australia or the tax rates in Venezuela, the democratically elected, US-backed governments can do that.  All the US wants is for these governments to follow instructions if/when they come so that the US can marginalize any economic/political competitors, and extend its own power which it -overcourse- will only use for the purposes of good.  Iraq is step one of gaining a foothold in the Middle East.


----------

