Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan

[jb_1430]

Not at all. Just out of my/our society. And the people of the Middle east are our oldest enemies.

"That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John
Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador
Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money
and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary
of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws
of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations
who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it
was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be
found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and
that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to
Paradise."
http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/fr/rss/

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Same way you win against Fascism, Communism, Imperialism etc. They still exist. The ideology will never surrender or sign a treaty. Best we can hope for is for it to whither and fade.
I would rather wage war against it, as opposed to accepting it, allowing it to achieve its goals and encouraging its use. Even if it can never be eliminated.
MARK

Exactly what I've been saying. You just need to marginalize it to insignificance. A perfect example would be the Nazi ideology. Sure there are still neo-Nazis around, but they are, for all intents and purposes, insignificant on a large scale.

 

[top gun]

I'm saying that's how I think the Government really looks at these people and don't really care about them at all. They really are dirty stinking muslims but I'm beginning to believe we are there only for Business interest which is what the Neocon Agenda in theory is all about.

WOW!

 

[top gun]

Not at all. Just out of my/our society. And the people of the Middle east are our oldest enemies.

DOUBLE WOW!

 

[ArmChair General]

DOUBLE WOW!

The people of the Middle East are Americas oldest enemys?

holy **** what do they teach kids these days.

 

[Vitiate]

"That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John
Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador
Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money
and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary
of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws
of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations
who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it
was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be
found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and
that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to
Paradise."
http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/fr/rss/

I remember Chris Hitchens using this exact same statement (perhaps it was from his book about Jefferson), however, it doesn't detract from the fact that the United States carried their very own slave trades of Africans and Asians on both the East and West coasts of the United States. Furthermore, these humans were treated in the worst conditions. So tell me, how can that statement be used if we ourselves violated the same principles that Jefferson failed to acknowledge. To add, what about Belgium's King Leopold who enslaved and murdered an African population?

 

[jb_1430]

I remember Chris Hitchens using this exact same statement (perhaps it was from his book about Jefferson), however, it doesn't detract from the fact that the United States carried their very own slave trades of Africans and Asians on both the East and West coasts of the United States. Furthermore, these humans were treated in the worst conditions. So tell me, how can that statement be used if we ourselves violated the same principles that Jefferson failed to acknowledge. To add, what about Belgium's King Leopold who enslaved and murdered an African population?

The significance seems to have escaped you. The statement can be used because it demonstrates the point that it was offered to support. Specifically,
they, are "our oldest enemies". Has nothing to do with slavery. MARK

 

[Castle]

Exactly what I've been saying. You just need to marginalize it to insignificance. A perfect example would be the Nazi ideology. Sure there are still neo-Nazis around, but they are, for all intents and purposes, insignificant on a large scale.

I agree to the extent that marginalizing their cause (i.e. our demise) to the point where they are no longer a threat of any significance is key. However, the Nazi ideology was rightfully pounded into dust over 60 years ago. That is how they became marginalized. This time around, western leaders are not willing to risk their political necks to achieve the same goals. We are in what I call the "Chamberlain mode" and I'm quite confident that history will do what it does best. Repeat itself again. Unfortunately, I am not so confident that we will come to our senses as we did on 1941. We've already had our second Pearl Harbor and we're still not really committed yet.

-Castle

 

[Vitiate]

The significance seems to have escaped you. The statement can be used because it demonstrates the point that it was offered to support. Specifically,
they, are "our oldest enemies". Has nothing to do with slavery. MARK

I fail to see how this supports your quotation regarding 'our oldest enemies.' Furthermore, I'm not saying that it's about slavery, just merely pointing out the relativity between the actions done by the Muslims and those done by us at that time.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Exactly what I've been saying. You just need to marginalize it to insignificance. A perfect example would be the Nazi ideology. Sure there are still neo-Nazis around, but they are, for all intents and purposes, insignificant on a large scale.

I'm no fan of John Kerry but he made a similar statement concerning muslim extremists and terrorism, and promptly caught hell from many Republicans/conservatives for even suggesting such a thing.

 

[jb_1430]

I fail to see how this supports your quotation regarding 'our oldest enemies.' Furthermore, I'm not saying that it's about slavery, just merely pointing out the relativity between the actions done by the Muslims and those done by us at that time.

So, can you think of an older enemy? MARK

 

[vyo476]

So, can you think of an older enemy? MARK

France?

Or perhaps the Native Americans our government spent so much time and money fighting.

 

[jb_1430]

France?

Or perhaps the Native Americans our government spent so much time and money fighting.

The French can be a pain in the A S S , but I wouldnt consider them enemies. And didnt we sign a treaty or something with the indians. MARK

 

[vyo476]

The French can be a pain in the A S S , but I wouldnt consider them enemies.

Around about 1798 most Americans did.

And didnt we sign a treaty or something with the indians. MARK

Several. All of which we later unilaterally revised or eventually outright broke. That's not the point, though.

The point is that both were considered enemies before the Muslims. I'm not sure why it matters, really, but there it is.

 

[Vitiate]

I'd also like to add that North Koreans are descendants of the Mongols. Mongols as you know, were united by Chingis Khan, who threatened the European empire. Therefore, North Koreans could really be the oldest enemies.

As stated though, I don't see how this is relevant to any conversation. We choose who we want as enemies.