Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
Well, here's where I must express extreme concern and caution you that your position may bring us dangerous consequences. Are you willing to consider this?
|
yep
Like I said, I don't think that my solution is
the one, but from what I see now, from what we do now and was we did in the past I don't belive that our current way is a way that could bring us peace and saftey.
Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
The historical lesson when dealing with ruthless enemies, with suicidal intent, is not to appease them in any way. The world had to learn this the hard way in WW2.
|
Hitler was a madman, it is not very easy and mostly not very clever to take him as example for everything. It was also at the beginning of the war, everyone thought the war could be avoided. But in the middle east we are already in the middle of a war. I belive most (with the exeption of some very few) islamists just want to be left alone, they want to live their life in Peace. The middle east never had some sort of peace, it had always some sort of massive western influence, be it by colonial forces or industrial power. There was always someone who told them how to live. In this region there is a "war of cultures" that has not just started with 911, the roots of this conflict are much older.
The Roots of Jihad - Part One
The Roots of Jihad - Part Two
Leaving this region "alone", like I suggested in my first post, would not be a sign of appeasement, it would by a sign of "policy of peace". That we are willing to find a peaceful solution, that we are actually willing to end this conflict and to let them live in a way they want to, without the west bossing them around. To fight on seems to be a sign of blind rage and I think peace would also be much cheaper
Violence just produces more violence and I don't think that bombing that whole area to shreds is a valid solution. That would be a genocide.