I don't see that happening, barring a major change in the religion itself. When the rocks stop saying "There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!", perhaps there's a chance. But do you really expect such a foundational change to their mindset?

That's the problem, it's Islam, not this silly little talking point about radicals,it's the whole sorry religion, of lies, murder, and terror, as it's foundations and true and only way of being faithful to it's god.

When some one prays to a god that commands him to be evil for his faith it's a bad thing and should not be encouraged, the thought that if we would have killed a couple of the very very bad ones would have saved us sum trouble and made the rest hate us less is as stupid as thinking that allowing people to murder their babies is good because it's some kind right or a choice.

I'm definitely not contending this. Merely pointing out that with some policy changes, perhaps we can dial down their hatred just enough so that they don't go through all the hassle of flying planes into our major buildings

Sorry for the delay, just notiuced this.

I don't see that happening, barring a major change in the religion itself. When the rocks stop saying "There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!", perhaps there's a chance. But do you really expect such a foundational change to their mindset?

Yet, there is complete confidence by the current administration that this current group of Muslims in the Iraqi government, are capable of forming, or have already formed a pro-western democracy ready to act as our ally

True, but the word 'incompatible' does not of itself imply a permanancy, though it often can.

That said, please understand my seeming wavering on this point; While I don't see such hard lines as an end state, I consider that to deal with such as radical Islam one needs to take on the role of strongman, at least for a while. Sorry, that's the nature of the beast... and it's one concept a lot of Americans, leftists screaming about the rights of those at Gitmo, as an example, can't seem to get their arms around; there isn't much that is less brutal than that which can deal with it.

The problem with Saddam was, he never planned for or made moves for any other state than with him being a strongman.

Yet, there is complete confidence by the current administration that this current group of Muslims in the Iraqi government, are capable of forming, or have already formed a pro-western democracy ready to act as our ally.

As I go through the milblogs and Arab news sites, it looks to me as though we are just developing another strongman government. Maliki does not appear to be liked or respected. He is feared. A kinder, gentler Saddam with a more humane and better equipped Republican Guard, our U.S. troops.

Steve

Nothing in our lifetimes will end religious intolerance and persecution. My goals are a little more immediate and achievable- OBL is a criminal. He is in fact the most wanted criminal in the world (by us at least). Let's try to remember that.

Stopping the attacks against western interests should hold a higher priority, though, don't you think?

This "conflict" of civilizations is largely imaginary on the part of those who find an external boogeyman a convenient political ally. So quite frankly I don't give a damn about it.

Then you ignore the real root cause. I guess it's just easier to blame the US for it all.

Uh, bit... that's *exactly* how Saddam did it. He used government power to displace and harrass those who were his political enemies. Remember how "ethnic cleansing" was one of the things we blamed hime for?

Well, not exactly, though I'll admit there are enough similarities, there seems a major difference with how the populations split out.

So you're saying that the entire population of Iraq is composed of "Radical Islam"?

Bartender, I'll have what Alex is having. How you got that, Alex out of what I said seems a question for which the answer will take all day.

As for the radicals, there is no way we're going to make them like us.

I'm definitely not contending this. Merely pointing out that with some policy changes, perhaps we can dial down their hatred just enough so that they don't go through all the hassle of flying planes into our major buildings.

It's time to consider the idea that there are cultures which are incompatable with freedom, and Radicalized Islam appears to be one of these.

So you're saying that the entire population of Iraq is composed of "Radical Islam"?

Wow.

I'm not sure if that betrays a larger lack of knowledge of Islam in general, or merely Iraq in particular. You are aware that Iraq was not controlled by any religious political parties until AFTER the U.S. invasion, right?

Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we only need to capture or kill Obama bin Laden to end world wide Jihad on the west

Nothing in our lifetimes will end religious intolerance and persecution. My goals are a little more immediate and achievable- OBL is a criminal. He is in fact the most wanted criminal in the world (by us at least). Let's try to remember that.

If you're sayng that would end the conflict, you're worse off than I figured.

This "conflict" of civilizations is largely imaginary on the part of those who find an external boogeyman a convenient political ally. So quite frankly I don't give a damn about it.

But in reality, the only functional way of doing it, save for the way Saddam did it, which isn't exactly admirable, either.

Uh, bit... that's *exactly* how Saddam did it. He used government power to displace and harrass those who were his political enemies. Remember how "ethnic cleansing" was one of the things we blamed hime for?

Oh yeah...

Any point? Did I wake up in bizarro world where conservatives want to let murders (or at least people who conspire to murder) go without punishment?

Hardly, but at the same time, BinLaden is just a small part of this. Keep your eye on that larger conflict. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we only need to capture or kill Obama bin Laden to end world wide Jihad on the west, which I hasten to add is currently being waged in more than 70 countries, including our own, by more than 100 million Islamic Jihadists. If you're sayng that would end the conflict, you're worse off than I figured.

You need to read more news reporting on the war, and less cheerleading. The past five years have seen the virtual ethnic/cultural/religious cleansing of Baghdad, and neighborhoods which previously contained Sunnis, Shi'ites and Christians on the same block are now just composed of one group alone. Thousands of people have been violently chased from their homes while more "appropriate" people moved in. Petraeus decided that the best way to stop the violence was to simply erect walls and checkpoints between neighborhoods--walls and checkpoints which did not exist before. Between virtually curtailing freedom of movement and ethnic cleansing, violence has decreased. Not exactly admirable.

But in reality, the only functional way of doing it, save for the way Saddam did it, which isn't exactly admirable, either. It's time to consider the idea that there are cultures which are incompatable with freedom, and Radicalized Islam appears to be one of these.

At what point in the last 50 years has it been otherwise?

You need to read more news reporting on the war, and less cheerleading. The past five years have seen the virtual ethnic/cultural/religious cleansing of Baghdad, and neighborhoods which previously contained Sunnis, Shi'ites and Christians on the same block are now just composed of one group alone. Thousands of people have been violently chased from their homes while more "appropriate" people moved in. Petraeus decided that the best way to stop the violence was to simply erect walls and checkpoints between neighborhoods--walls and checkpoints which did not exist before. Between virtually curtailing freedom of movement and ethnic cleansing, violence has decreased. Not exactly admirable.

The real enemy? To whom do you refer? BinLaden?

The guy who took credit for 9/11? Yeah he just might be worth actually doing something about.

Are you suggesting that killing that one man will solve all this? That it would have at ANY point?

Any point? Did I wake up in bizarro world where conservatives want to let murders (or at least people who conspire to murder) go without punishment?