The problem with that, as I'm sure you are well aware, is that the terrorist at least to some extent consider us the "badies" and them the "goodies" so it's quite supjective. Targeting of civilians/innocents (in this context government officials especially leaderhip and security types don't qualify as "civilians" and certainly not as innocents) on the other hand is not subjective.
But as oiur media is better...subjective...and bigger than theirs, we'll constantly be the goodies...we know who we are so there is no problem...we'd never be badies anyway would we......? As that famous officer in Totenkopf division in ww2 was heard to say in discussion with his commanding officer...this death head skull Fritz.....We are the goodies are we not? Of course we are Jacob...now just shoot straight...
We are the goodies. There is nothing subjective about it. Some of the baddies may be less bad than others, but there are no good guys in the middle east. That's the best reason to stay out of it, and just buy oil from whatever regime comes out on top.
I believe Grant (a president who doesn't have the highest of rateings) had someting to say in that regard in respect to our little set too with Mexico in which he was involved several decades before his presidency. Some of the US's dealings with the Native Americans dont' show us in all that favoreable a light either. Of course there is. If you have the belief set of the typical Islamic fanatic then they are the good guys and any that oppose them or even don't support them are the bad guys. Most of the world's popluation doesn't agree with them but that doesn't mean it's not subjective. I find that to be an incredibly naive, parochial, and simplistic opinion. Of course there are good guys there. They may not be as numerous as we would like but that doesn't mean they don't exist. That doesn't follow logically either. If you assume that there are no "good guys" there then it may well be that the best plan is to apply a reasonable effort to making sure that ones we can deal with are on top.
Most of the nations in flames right now don't even have oil. Those nations that do have oil, and do openly support terrorism - Iran is a good example - sell their oil on the world market where we buy it. We don't need to be their friends to buy their oil.
I agree with most of your points, but would like to add even more support to this one. Most of the people in the middle east are not so different from us. They want to earn a living, worship as they wish, raise their children, etc. etc The "bad" guys force them to support the "bad guys" or at the very least not aid westerners or they or their families will be beaten, tortured, raped, murdered and any number of things that they can think up to intimidate them. That's why I stated earlier they're more synonymous with mobsters/gangsters. By and large they wish to be left alone by both sides. Some fight us because we invaded their homeland, from their perspective an invader is an invader, even if they describe themselves as liberators. Many do appreciate the chance we are giving them but just fear we'll go off and leave them on their own and fear the eventual retribution. We do have a history of this. Some simply fight for money. They have no idealistic motivation, it's just the only way they can make a living. Then there are the radical Islamists, they are the ones that attacked us on September 11th. I have no doubt that we would not be involved as extensively in the region if that event had not occurred. I also have no doubt that by fighting them there we have to a large extent avoided additional attacks here. Since day one, money and radicalized Islamic fighters have flowed in from all over the region to attempt to expell us. That is where their focus has been, yet they continually plan and prepare for another big attack on our homelands so they can retake the initiative. We continually find intel on hard drives, documents and from the interogation of prisoners seized during combat operations in the countries we are engaged in. This information has revealed hundreds of schemes and plans which allows us to intercede before they can be brought to fruition. I don't know how we will defeat this ideological based threat in the long term, but in the short term I'd be damned if I'd give them support (as we're looking at doing in Syria) in the hopes that they decide to become our friends. It won't happen. Initially, supporting the rebels might be justified. Now that the radical Islamic element from the region has poured in and is attempting to gain control of the movement, support cannot be justified. Our best option IMHO, is to stop meddling in their affairs, period. It can also be argued that meddling by the various western administrations and their intelligence agencies in the middle east for decades is what led to the situation we now find ourselves in.
That's just not true. The link below the graphic is to a variety of polls (including the one shown) that details opinions across the Islamic world. With the exception of Turkey, the majority opinions verge on the savage - stoning adulterers, cutting off of hands and feet, etc. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Shariah
Believe what you want. I'm basing my comments on hundreds of published accounts by soldiers and Marines who have interacted with these people on the ground. I am also relating what I've been personally told by scores of returning soldiers, Marines and Special Operations personnel that I've spoken to about the situation on the ground. I'm not talking about some Air Force flightline mechanic or US Army clerk/typist whose only interaction with these people is buying some thing at the Hadji Mart on some huge base, but actual combat troops, advisors and trainers. I am also basing it on published intelligence analyses on the makeup of the opposition. These tend to strongly support the anecdotal accounts previously mentioned. Finally, I base it upon a great deal of time spent in the region, in several of the countries mentioned, both as a young Marine during the early Beruit intervention and later in my career when I was a Special Operation soldier and I lived and trained with these people for extended periods. Wiki Islam is not the best source to cite. It is notoriously anti-Islamic. I have no desire to debate the beliefs of various religions, all of which over the course of their histories have been responsible for terrible crimes against humanity or have had terrible things done in their names.
The source is not Wiki Islam. Wiki Islam is sourcing polls conducted by a number of organizations, including the UN. It isn't anecdotal.
That's one of the more classic fallacies to use in a debate. If we are talking "good guys" then we are talking individuals. In any case from what I've read the the non Moslum Brotherhood / non fanatic Egyptian insurgents didn't commit any mass murders that I know of. There's pretty good odds that many of the non fanatic insurgents in Syria are also in the clear in this regard. That doesn't mean that we want to see the whole region in flames either though does it? Or that we want fanatics using oil as a weapon against us. As far as I'm aware by the way we buy very llittle or no Iranian oil although what does make it to the market helps decrease the price of the oil we do buy.
I'm not so sure of that. In part because there is now fighting between the radical elements and the others if we can support the non radical ones it could very much be to our benefit and that of the region long term. The question is can we reliably determine who is who and make sure the support reaches the right people.
Of course there is. Now whether are actions effectivly toss water or gasoline on the flames is an open question. Indeed the answer might be "yes". There's also the question of how much effort we are willing to put into it and what it will cost us in all the various coin that needs to be spent on such things. Should we do something? IMO almost assuredly. What? That's the open question. Must they? Why? Even if they do they may not be reported or may be reported incorrectly. Of if reported correctly I may simply not have run across them. However again from what I've read many of these "groups" are hardly cohesive enough to have names. And as I pointed out moving the discussion to "groups" is a bit of sleight of hand or bait and switch if you prefer, as we were talking about people, i.e. individuals.
Question USMCP: if there is intel found on computers yonder, why couldn't the NSA /Google/ Sony/Xbox etc etc track the user and sites/people that were accessed/received? If the NSA has its nose up our arse, why don't they use their powers for good, rather than tracking folk who do no harm?...Send a letter bomb/anthrax/ missile etc etc to those who were associated with that computer? Get the word out that: you wish us harm- then die. Bring misery to those who want to do us harm in the name of religion. Let them be pacified by a non existant gods' dogma that says they will be rewarded in death. ..We can't reason with crazy. ..And Saudi Arabia? They are our friends? Would rather choose Israel.
My understanding is that a lot of that has taken place. Indeed the success in that area is what lead to the current situation in a way. Each little step and the success associated with it justifiying the next and no one looking closely at the costs. The purpose of the "tracking" was to identify the "bad guys". If you collect massive amounts of data then look for trends you it's amazing what you can turn up. IMO the real problem wasn't with the NSA it was with the courts that were suppose to be overseeing them. Although the NSA IG office deserves a share of the blame as well. I think that was indeed the idea. Although anthrax can be too indescriminat. The preferred method also involved a visit by the spec ops people although perhaps preceeded by Excaliber, Hellfire, or someting similar.
Of course not. You made a very sweeping generalization. I.e. there were no "good guys" in the region. Depending on what questions the poll asks and how you define "good guy" it may give you an estimate or a bound on what percentage fit your defintion but a poll cannot possibly confirm that no one in a region fits in a particular group.
