The Koran Is Burned On A U.S. Airbase in Afghanistan, Death And Mayhem Ensue

Sorry for the typos but I'm typing on my iPad and on the road.

 Karla

I believe we are making a big mistake when it comes to outsourcing everything from banking services to importing food.  Big mistake.  We have farmers who are paid not to produce food.  Other countries do not inspect their exported foods as well as we can inspect our own food.

Twice I had some guy from another country send me a letter to my home stating he wanted to do business. The letters arrived after I signed up with AOL.com.  I purposely missed spelled my name when I had signed up; however, the guy spelled my name exactly the same way I had spelled it.  That incident really bothered me because he or a friend of his could have easily shown up at my home.

 ann4950  Karla The US is a major exporter and importer. We produce vast quantities of food both for ourselves and other nations. Yes, we offshore some banking services, but we are the world's largest exporter of business services to other countries.

Everything that comes into this country is not of low-quality just because it's inexpensive.

 Jamila  

Were you aware that some hospitals have outsourced diagnosing various physician x-rays?   U.S. physicians are no longer able to read an x-ray?  One less job for a U.S. tech.  The U.S. does not export they she used to, ask a longshoreman.  When you are in the fresh foods section check out all of the fruit that have been imported from other countires. There is no way the U.S. can check all of those foods.  Some of our partner countries are not stable; war break out at anytime.

THE U.S. SHOULD NEVER DEPEND ON ANOTHER COUNTRY FOR FOOD, THIS IS A VERY FOOLISH MOVE ON OUR PART.

It is much better to be as independent as possible.  l am very passionate about that idea.   Also, I did not say all food that was imported from other countries were deficient.  We have had issues with products being deficient,  dry wall issue.

To each her own beliefs.

Peace

 Karla

 I think we did go in to nation build to a certain extent.  Winning over the populace with public works projects was part of the plan from the beginning.  The first thing we dropped was food, not bombs.  We also planned on getting rid of the Taliban and placing a subsequent more democratic goverment in place.  That has elements of nation building.  We had a need to go into Afghanistan to weaken or eliminate Al Qaida regardless of whether or not they wanted us there.  Possibly we should have left the military to do what it does best, kill people and break stuff.  But it is tough to know who and where the enemy is without help from the populace.  It was always going to be complicated.  But after 9/11, not responding wasn't a viable option either.  What do you think we should have done?

By the way, I was a squid too.  I was a nuclear officer and was doing a shore tour at USEUCOM during 9/11 and the beginning of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.  I don't have as much training in this area as you, though.

@Brice Cameron Hey, there! Good to see a fellow squid. I'm not sure I would call winning over the populace with infrastructure improvements as "nation building". It's just part of the Clausewitzian triangle. The number one objective was to hunt down Osama bin Laden and, of course, take out the Taliban, who were hiding OBL. I'm not sure we can make a case for trying to put in a "democratic" government. They had a void when the Taliban left and we didn't want a lawless situation with tribal units fighting against themselves. What we can't seem to get is that with Muslim populations, even if they want a democracy, it's got to fit with their Sharia law so, at best, it will be a quasi-democracy. I never said we shouldn't have responded after 9/11. What I said was that our primary objective was only partially met and mission creep (which is not the way to fight a war) began to justify our reason for being there. One of the lessons learned from Viet Nam and Somalia is that mission creep gets us in trouble because we lose sight of our objective and get involved in a protracted situation that, eventually, our public doesn't want. I can only speak for myself and what I would have done is to hunt down OBL with extreme prejudice and put his head on a pike outside the White House. I would have then given the Afghanis the means to take out the Taliban, if, indeed, that's what they wanted to do. We haven't been very successful at going in and fighting wars for people so maybe it's time to let them decide how much freedom they really want rather than giving it to them. But that's just me. War is very complicated, which is why it's necessary to make educated, informed decisions and plan, plan, plan. I apologize, in advance, for any typos. Doing this on an iPad is a bit problematic.

I meant to say "Clausewitzian trinity".

 Brice Cameron 

" I was a squid too.  I was a nuclear officer and was doing a shore tour at USEUCOM during 9/11 and the beginning of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars."

Its a threesome.....

 AJ2011 

It's a foursome!  Any more and we'll be haze grey and underway!!

 Law Wanxi  AJ2011 Finally!  The answer to the question, "How many sailors does it take to sail a ship?"

 AJ2011

 So, many  smart women.  The media should write about you ladies.

 Karla "My personal opinion is that once a nation tells us they don't want us, we need to get out."

That's my opinion too. Once the leaders of the country tell you they want you to go, that should be all she wrote--it's time to go.

 Karla 

"Having been a Naval officer for 22 years, a legal officer, obtained two Masters degrees from military institutions (one in Political Science with an emphasis on Terrorism and one in warfighting) and a Joint services specialist"

I love it when you talk dirty.............

 AJ2011 LOL!

....bit more. I knew there had been retaliatory murders, but did not know that actual persons responsible for the burnings had been the one's killed. Honestly that second the burning occurred the persons in question should have been on a c1-30 home for their safety and the safety of everyone else. I also would have promptly discharged them to assuage afghani government officials. Now that violence has erupted the US only has two options (I hope Obama is smarter than me, likely, and has other ideas): swift response. Targeted Murders of soldiers on bases CANNOT happen....it is too dangerous a precedent. However any retribution violence or lawful sets the murderers up for martyrdom. There are also bound to be a lot of angry American service men who want "playback". These same servicemen still have to patrol and interact with people in the community. At the same time the US can no longer make an example of the men in question so all we can really do is try and "make up ground" and politically I'm not sure how one foster's pro American sentiment after a clusterf#*k like this one. However, it should be noted that the proper way to dispose of an American flag is to burn it....and yet every time an American does is protest they are lambasted and unpatriotic. So much so that Supreme Court had to declare that flag burning laws violate the constitution. As building our own nation all it takes is a sound byte on CNN or FOX to have people in the streets in masks and tri-point hats burning flags or books or ranting about a supposed war on contraception/religion. They're not the only one's who are reactive. Everybody needs to calm down.

Sorry y'all a few typos and improperly auto corrected articles....on my iPad at break. No time to really proof read. Apologies.

 Brice Cameron The problem with Muslims is that although they demand total respect for their religious beliefs and all Muslims writings, they refused to reciprocate to any other religion.  It's difficult to respect a one-way religion, especially when they are so willing to murder in the name of Allah.  

 FriendsofJay  Not to get off topic but that's a gross generalisation about a large, diverse group of people and about a religion in which the interpretation varies from sect to sect and even country to country. One could say the same thing about any religion, including Christianity. Whether or not the way in which a person practices religion is one way really depends on the person. Very unfair to characterise a religion as a whole based on such a generalisation.

 ABCiE But in this case the generalization fits. Islam--all sects, all denominations, all groups--considers the Koran to be the literal word of God and to be inviolable. Just as all Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God. 

I recognized that all Muslims don't follow what the Koran says to a 't' just as all Christians don't follow the Bible. 

@Jamila @ABCiE To be fair I think ABCiE was responding the implication that Islam has the market cormered on religious intolerance. Whereas your point was about the degree of deference given to the "printed word". I would add that in last 10-15yrs there has been a consist global response to anything that could be potentially viewed as anti-islamic. There was political cartoon in a Danish newspaper that sparked so much anger among extremist that there were retributive suicide bombings. In the interest of security western government are more cautious than they ever have been in this area (despite what one might hear). This may just be because of the current conflict and may taper off as we leave these conflict zones. Or it may be new status quo. No one quite knows, but not being in Iraq has helped to limit scale of the incidents.

 Jamila I don't believe that it is a fair generalization. Nor do I think it is fair to make generalizations about people of ANY religion.  (I'm a Christian, by the way.)

Also, Jamila, could you clarify your position? First you said that "Islam--all sects, all denominations, all groups--considers the Koran to be the literal word of God and to be inviolable."

However in the next paragraph, you said "I recognized that all Muslims don't follow what the Koran says to a 't'..."  

 claireshegoes What I'm saying is  that everyone doesn't follow their faith to a "t". There are people who call themselves Muslims but don't pray, or attend Mosque, and they eat pork. There are people who call themselves Catholics who are having sex outside of marriage and may have had an abortion (or two).

There is a difference between what the faith actually says and how closely people actually follow the tenets of their faith.

If the word "Christian" can mean anything, there there is no such thing as a Christian.

 Jamila I see, and I believe we're on the same page. :)

I disagreed with you primarily because when you said "in this case the generalization fits", I thought that you were *agreeing* with FriendsofJay, who said "The problem with Muslims is that although they demand total respect for their religious beliefs and all Muslims writings, they refused to reciprocate to any other religion.  It's difficult to respect a one-way religion, especially when they are so willing to murder in the name of Allah."  In my mind, he (she?) made Muslims sound like a monolithic people--an assertion that I feel is entirely false.

Furthermore, when you said that you believe "everyone doesn't follow their faith to a "t"..." I was relieved. Earlier, when you said that "all sects, all denominations, all groups" of Islam view the Koran in a certain way, I believed that you thought that all Muslims have the same view of their faith.

Trust me--I do not believe for a minute that all Muslims are the same. :) Yet I was concerned. FriendsofJay made a statement that I disagree with very strongly, and I thought you were agreeing with him.