|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6072 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.8 |
When someone thinks of 'invasion,' does it not invoke hostile actions? Of course it does. Sending missles into a country is a hostile action, whether it be retaliatory or otherwise, is a hostile action. Stop trying to derail the argument with the hair splitting.
This seems to be a classic logic fallacy. From "invasion implies hostile action", you are fallaciously concluding "hostile action implies invasion." Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
From "invasion implies hostile action", you are fallaciously concluding "hostile action implies invasion." I'm not the one splitting hairs here. The Democrats were all for the invasion of Iraq, as you can clearly read by their own words. Jar praises Clinton for Somalia but condemns Bush for Iraq. Clinton, and his wife, among other high ranking officials in the Democrat party supported what Jar rejects. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It was more than that. The quote supplied specifically talked about air or missle strikes against specified sites. Here is the quote once again:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry, among others, Oct. 9, 1998. There is absolutely nothing in there that even remotely implies that invasion is called for. The fact that "take necessary actions" was then qualified by adding "(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)" shows that invasion was not included. The question is though, "Where do we go from here?" We are in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do we get out without it becoming even worse than it is? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.8 |
The Democrats were all for the invasion of Iraq, as you can clearly read by their own words.
If you are talking about support for the Bush invasion of Iraq, then some did support it and some didn't. But this was after had deliberately misrepresented the situation in Iraq. If you are referring to the Clinton administration, then no you have not shown support for invasion.
Jar praises Clinton for Somalia but condemns Bush for Iraq.
Bush deserves condemnation. He lied to the American people, and got us into an unwise unjust war under false pretenses. If Congress were truly representing the interest of the American people, they would impeach (and convict) Bush, and then ship him off to the Hague for trial as a war criminal. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.8 |
How do we get out without it becoming even worse than it is?
That's a very difficult problem. It is far easier to avoid getting into a quagmire, than it is to extricate yourself once you are there. The first step is to start being honest with the American people. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1658 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The purpose of terrorism is to turn the United States into an Islamic state, wipe Israel off the map, and to reestablish the Caliphate. Then ignoring them will defeat that goal. They are totally incapable of achieving any kind of dent in the USof(N)A. Less died in 911 than died in traffic accidents that year. There are (in case you aren't aware of it) ~300 MILLION people in the country. Less than 0.1% were directly affected. In terms of the total it was insignificant. Running away in fear will give them encouragement. HAS given them encouragement. A real leader would not have run and cowered from the threat. What is your policy achieving?
Where is your logic here? If you mean he is responsible for soldiers'/sailors'/airmen/marines' deaths in the GWOT, then I'll say that's innacurate. Bad guys with bad toys caused those deaths. Right out of the NRA handbook - guns don't kill people. They are bad because they fight back for their country? They are fighting back because the invasion was (1) wrong and (2) stupid and (3) was not what the people of Iraq wanted. First off the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the suppossed war on terror - even Schwubbia has admitted it (then turned around and claimed a link to 9/11 to appease your war fanatics). Second, yes, that is the meaning of being commander in chief -- that you are ultimately responsible for every death caused by your assigning soldiers to be in harms way. This is a good reason to be very careful in making a decision to send them -- it's not like playing at the stock market or at being a businessman with your dad's money, it's real and it involves the lives of people who are depending on you to make the correct decisions. So yes he is responsible for the number of americans that have died in Iraq as a direct result of his decision to invade. What part of that do you NOT understand? He is also responsible for the number of Iraqiis that have died -- the innocent men women and children that number in the hundreds of thousands, many times the numbers that were killed in ALL terrorist attacks in the last 50 years. That, imh(ysa)o makes him a worse threat to world peace than any terrorist activity. The fact that Schwubbia was a total weinie when it was his turn to stand up for his country doesn't relieve him of the responsibility of standing up to his job now eh? But he's still a weinie when it comes to taking responsibility: can't even admit anything like the correct numbers of deaths of innocents.
They've been doing it for 30 years (this time). What makes you think they would just lay down and leave us alone? I don't expect them to lay down Tal, I expect them to get marginalized when you deal with the issues in a rational way that prevents them from making new recruits. If they cannot recruit and their "voice" is increasingly ignored by those who see real progress in respecting human dignity, justice, and equality then they will become irrelevant. You don't need to deal with them, cater to them (such as reacting in terror to them), or negotiate with them -- all you need to do is make sure that the items on their grieviance list become irrelevant. Stating publically that the Geneva Convention does not apply and then having picures of abu ghraib broadcast around the world does not make them irrelevant does it? Treating them as lesser beings does not make them irrelevant does it? The methods used in Isreal have been shown to be completely incapable of stopping terrorism -- isn't it time to try something else?
If you get your ass kicked in a war by Country A, and sign on the dotted line that you will abide by certain standards if Country A will stop kicking your ass , then you break those standards for 13 years, then Country A reserves the right to kick your ass again at any time. Which of course is why we had the same international coalition for this invasion as we did for the First Iraqii War (IW1). Oh, yeah, and making up a bunch of the evidence of breaking those "standards" doesn't have a lot to do with it: there is an international standard for moral behavior, LIE about the evidence. Also don't forget to rush in before the facts are in place. After all they may prove your trumpted up charges to be the falacies you KNOW they are when you make it up. Iraq has nothing to do with capturing the terrorists that attacked the trade towers. There is no "global war on terror" -- it cannot be eradicated by any kind of military action, it is a false paradigm and is doomed to failure because of it. Terrorism is a response to oppression. Continue the oppression and you can be guaranteed of always having terrorists. Thus waging a "war" is automatically self-defeating. We see these results in the new studies that SHOW that terrorist ranks have increased since Schwubbia invaded Iraq - in spite of the number killed. It's a failed policy. It HAS failed. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1658 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is the second time I've explained it and still your not getting it. The IRA attempted to incapacitate through fear: blowing up targets in England. When they paused the campaign or were prevented from carrying it out people went straight back to normal. There were no aftershocks - the incapacitation lasted more or less as long as the terror. The difference here is that there is no "normal" to go back to should a relatively small scale attack succeed. Actually my life is really unchanged by 911 or its aftermath in any way -- other than incessant nattering by politicos trying to make everybody more scared of a propped up "boogy man" terrorist than of what the politicos are doing, and having to take my shoes off to fly -- it is, and has been, normal. If there is a difference for you then that means you were not paying attention before, that may make it different for you, but it is not universal. Certainly there is no difference for places like Darfur. The invasion of Iraq probably made Iran and N.Korea worse, but that was not due to terrorism, that was due to stupidity.
This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.” The author was Osama bin Laden.
On this point at least, I can't say that I disagree with him.. Of course. But that is what fuels the recruitment of terrorists -- why there will continue to be people willing to attack a system that is so unjust. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1658 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The first step is to start being honest with the American people. And with the Iraqii people and with the world. Then next step is to stand up for justice, equality, respect of people, including all prisoners, abiding by international standards and especially treaties that are signed, like the Geneva Convention. The next step is to prosecute those responsible for the wrong moves. There are words that some people thought were worth going to war over:
quote: These rights apply to all people, not just americans eh? You don't draw a line between {them} and {us} unless you are ignoring these precepts. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Then ignoring them will defeat that goal. Ah, yes, because that has worked brilliantly for the past 25 years, right? There were many warning signs long before 9/11. 9/11 just happened to be the most succesful attack. You can't ignore them because they have aspirations to punish us all in the name of Allah. It isn't retroactive and it isn't passive. Its literally convert or die for Wahhabists.
They are totally incapable of achieving any kind of dent in the USof(N)A. Delusions of grandeur. They hit the symbol of world economic strength and the symbol of military might, and you trivialize this? The scale of their attack is pretty impressive.
Less died in 911 than died in traffic accidents that year. There are (in case you aren't aware of it) ~300 MILLION people in the country. Less than 0.1% were directly affected. In terms of the total it was insignificant. These are trite statistics that neglects to pinpoint the obvious flaw in your rationale-- namely, that car accidents are just that-- accidents. The incineration of 3,000 + people was an act of premeditated murder. Aside from that, the damage incurred by one suicide bomber is nominal in comparison to a conventional bomb. But these people want to incur maximum damage. Imagine one gaining access to nuclear weaponry from Iran or N. Korea, or the defunct USSR? Do you realize that the US has suitcase-sized nuclear bombs that can be transported clandestinely with ease that would decimate the entire Eastern seaboard? We aren't the only nation with technical capacity. Do you realize that an EMP attack is virtually imminent and relatively cheap to manufacture with the aid of a rogue government bent on supplanting the only remaining world super power?
Running away in fear will give them encouragement. HAS given them encouragement. Yes, it will encourage them and strengthen their resolve to come to our own land to attack us for the umteenth time.
Right out of the NRA handbook - guns don't kill people. Guns won't go away through flower power, nor will it stop people from killing. People killed before guns, and people will kill after them. Disarming the responsible owners won't disarm Al Qaeda.
They are bad because they fight back for their country? Most of the insurgents are NOT Iraqi. They're Arab, yes, but few are Iraqi.
They are fighting back because the invasion was (1) wrong and (2) stupid and (3) was not what the people of Iraq wanted. They are fighting because they see an opportunity to kill coalition forces-- the very thing they were training to do BEFORE the invasion. No hindsight, no foresight-- they only see what's right in front of their face.
First off the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the suppossed war on terror - even Schwubbia has admitted it (then turned around and claimed a link to 9/11 to appease your war fanatics). There is no credible evidence to support that AQ was linked to Iraq, though, in retrospect everyone in Congress, Dems and Reps believed it to be true. The objective was to go after AQ, right? So they went into Afghanistan and supplanted the Taliban. Now, AQ is in Iraq and the US is catching them there. Now, don't take this to mean that I'm all for the invasion of Iraq or that collosal military blunders haven't taken place. The point is that you live in a fantasy world if you think that AQ doesn't present a legitimate threat to the Western world. That's a pipe dream, in which case, pass the bong so I can smoke what you're smokin'. I'd like to put my head in the sand too.
Second, yes, that is the meaning of being commander in chief -- that you are ultimately responsible for every death caused by your assigning soldiers to be in harms way. This is a good reason to be very careful in making a decision to send them -- it's not like playing at the stock market or at being a businessman with your dad's money, it's real and it involves the lives of people who are depending on you to make the correct decisions. What military campaign in human history doesn't have some of its soldiers die in the process. If you want to use statistics, the number of US casualties is far less in Iraq than it was in any war in its history.
Over 3,000 people were killed in one day on September 11, 2001.
He is also responsible for the number of Iraqiis that have died -- the innocent men women and children that number in the hundreds of thousands, many times the numbers that were killed in ALL terrorist attacks in the last 50 years. That, imh(ysa)o makes him a worse threat to world peace than any terrorist activity. You act as though the US hasn't used laser guided weapons that greatly mitigated the effects of collateral damage. You also act as though coalition forces 'carpet bombed' the Iraqi landscape. If we were out to kill Iraqi's, they'd all be dead. They aren't all dead because that's not an objective of coalition forces.
The fact that Schwubbia was a total weinie when it was his turn to stand up for his country doesn't relieve him of the responsibility of standing up to his job now eh? But he's still a weinie when it comes to taking responsibility: can't even admit anything like the correct numbers of deaths of innocents. And how should he have handled this whole mess starting from 9/11? If RAZD was president, (ooh, I just shuddered), how would he have handled it?
I don't expect them to lay down Tal, I expect them to get marginalized when you deal with the issues in a rational way that prevents them from making new recruits. If they cannot recruit and their "voice" is increasingly ignored by those who see real progress in respecting human dignity, justice, and equality then they will become irrelevant. And how do you stop them from recruiting? While we ignored them for 30 years, they built training camps to come and destroy us. So, explain how just pretending they don't want to kill us is going to stop them from trying to kill us?
Stating publically that the Geneva Convention does not apply and then having picures of abu ghraib broadcast around the world does not make them irrelevant does it? Treating them as lesser beings does not make them irrelevant does it? They're in prison instead of having their heads lobbed off with butterknives. What do you want to see happen? Them let go? The pictures of the people who want to kill you with electrodes and barking dogs are isolated incidents that have been dealt with. Those personell at Abu Ghraib will have to stand before a military tribunal, and you can bet your bottom dollar their punishment will be severe just because of the negative headlines.
The methods used in Isreal have been shown to be completely incapable of stopping terrorism -- isn't it time to try something else? Its all been tried. Ignoring them, pardoning them, making peace with them, coddling them, killing them, punishing them-- what options to you suggest at this point for both Israel and the US?
Iraq has nothing to do with capturing the terrorists that attacked the trade towers. What is it about then?
Terrorism is a response to oppression. Continue the oppression and you can be guaranteed of always having terrorists. Thus waging a "war" is automatically self-defeating. This is stultifying and about the time I shut down. Bin Laden is oppressed?
We see these results in the new studies that SHOW that terrorist ranks have increased since Schwubbia invaded Iraq - in spite of the number killed. I won't argue that. So, again, just pretend its not happening will work, like shutting your eyes makes the bad man go away? Out of sight, out of mind? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : correcting technical errors "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2193 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Actually my life is really unchanged by 911 or its aftermath in any way -- other than incessant nattering by politicos trying to make everybody more scared of a propped up "boogy man" terrorist than of what the politicos are doing, and having to take my shoes off to fly -- it is, and has been, normal. Of course there is no difference for you. 9/11 lay in the class of actions which I described the IRA as having done. The world moves swiftly on. But if the foiling of a plot to knock 10 planes out of the sky over the sea doesn't cause to project forward a little - to a time when you won't move swiftly on then you are sticking your head in the sand. That attempt revealed clearly how vunerable our society is to major damage. Such a small investment (by those already bent on destroying Western life) for such massive return would be one that would have the average finanical investor licking his lips. The key word there is "already" There are folk sufficient already to carry out such action - the West has long since given cause for many to hate us. You can wring your hands in anguish about more being added to their number but so what? It's not like you are creating something that doesn't already exist. What is there to lose if you are already in a position of losing. 'All' that has happened in recent times is the demonstration of how that existing hate can be channeled effectively and efficiently against Western structures. "Go for the arteries and let your opponants own heart pump the lifes blood out of his body"
The invasion of Iraq probably made Iran and N.Korea worse, but that was not due to terrorism, that was due to stupidity. I don't know about North Korea but I can't imagine Iran is doing anything other than rubbing its hands with glee at the dismantling of their former enemy. Sure they will make as much mileage from it as the can but lets not forget who Iraq was for them Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1658 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How does
Ah, yes, because that has worked brilliantly for the past 25 years, right? apply to
tal writes:
Then ignoring them will defeat that goal. The purpose of terrorism is to turn the United States into an Islamic state, wipe Israel off the map, and to reestablish the Caliphate. "That goal" being specifically the one Tal said -- which is what the comment related to, not to making the terrorists go away. And yes, it has worked brilliantly at preventing them from establishing a calliphate here, OR wiping Israel off the map. Lesson #1 in global politics: no nation has been defeated by outside terrorism. The worst they have accomplished so far is kill <3000 affected.
You can't ignore them because they have aspirations to punish us all in the name of Allah. Yes you can. You can totally ignore the individual terrorists. Why? because NOT ignoring them is what makes terrorism WORK. Think of how you treat a child having a tantrum. Ignore the terrorists, deal with the inequalities in the world, the dis-respect of other nations, and the the problems that lead people to take up terrorism and you will solve the problem.
These are trite statistics that neglects to pinpoint the obvious flaw in your rationale-- namely, that car accidents are just that-- accidents. The incineration of 3,000 + people was an act of premeditated murder. Number of people murdered in the USA in 2005 = 16,692http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm And the country is not brought to it's knees by that either. Yes, it is murder, so you go after them a murderers. With police. You DON'T go around scared 24/7. You don't throw away 200 years of rights, freedoms, liberty and justice. You don't go around with an army invading whatever country is convenient but one not at all connected to the murderers.
Imagine one gaining access to nuclear weaponry from Iran or N. Korea, or the defunct USSR? Do you realize that the US has suitcase-sized nuclear bombs that can be transported clandestinely with ease that would decimate the entire Eastern seaboard? We aren't the only nation with technical capacity. Do you realize that an EMP attack is virtually imminent and relatively cheap to manufacture with the aid of a rogue government bent on supplanting the only remaining world super power? Guess you better deal with the issue of making new terrrorists then, because that stuff is NOT going away. We had a better chance before this whole invasion issue made other nations think twice about the US motives.
Running away in fear will give them encouragement. HAS given them encouragement.
Yes, it will encourage them and strengthen their resolve to come to our own land to attack us for the umteenth time. So you agree that the Administration policy of running away from terrorism has been a bad policy? All they do is shout "911 911 the sky is falling ... " ... but then they invaded a country that has NOTHING TO DO with the terrorists that attacked rather than deal with the terrorist problem eh?
Most of the insurgents are NOT Iraqi. They're Arab, yes, but few are Iraqi. Most are Iraqi by any intelligent guess, but that is really beside the point - the point was that Tal labeled them "bad" because they were fighting off foreign invaders. This is simplistic at best, too simplistic to even be naive, imho. It is patently a false conception, as this makes anyone fighting in self defense the de facto bad guys. It is beside the point because most of the non-Iraqi fighters are there because why? Because they were radicalized by the US invasion of Iraq, offended by the wanton brutality displayed by the US forces with indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians. The invasion caused the insurrection, as (surprise) they normally do.
What military campaign in human history doesn't have some of its soldiers die in the process. Irrelevant. Bush is responsible for sending them into Iraq with insufficient cause, ill planning and ill management. BUT even if it WERE a just war he would STILL be responsible for their deaths. That IS the responsibility of being Commander in Chief: make sure the expense is justified. Of course he ran away from fighting in a war when it was his turn, so why would anyone expect any level of responsibility from him eh?
You act as though the US hasn't used laser guided weapons that greatly mitigated the effects of collateral damage. You also act as though coalition forces 'carpet bombed' the Iraqi landscape. If we were out to kill Iraqi's, they'd all be dead. They aren't all dead because that's not an objective of coalition forces. By the latest rational and considered professional estimates ~600,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed. That's 200 for every American soldier, and it includes women and children. The "objective" has changed so many times that it's gotten to the point where the only "objective" left is the ludicrous "stay the course" objective of keeping American soldiers in harms way for no good reason. Let's go back and visit the OP:
Reps have been badgering Dems with the label of "Cut and Run" when they suggest a timetable, or movement on objectives, for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. So why is it that the US has just let NATO take over responsibility for Afghanistan? How will that not let the terrorists grow stronger, or at the very least embolden them and give them a chance to grow stronger? Why would it not make MORE sense to stay in Afghanistan (where we are closer to the actual terrorists) and let NATO take over the FIASCO in Iraq? What is the "objective" of this administration in regard to dealing with (1) their own stupidity and (2) the real problem?
They're in prison instead of having their heads lobbed off with butterknives. What do you want to see happen? Them let go? The pictures of the people who want to kill you with electrodes and barking dogs are isolated incidents that have been dealt with. Those personell at Abu Ghraib will have to stand before a military tribunal, and you can bet your bottom dollar their punishment will be severe just because of the negative headlines. I believe they are the tip of the iceberg on the human rights offenses committed by this administration. I expect the nation that prides itself on being an example to the world of freedom, justice, equality, and liberty to defend those ideals, to show how we can deal with this situation without sacrificing those ideals for convenience. Ideals are not convenient, they are taskmasters. True leadership is by example. The person responsible for the mess is again Schwubbia, because he publicly stated as much when he said the conventions don't apply. He set the example of trashing rights, freedoms, justice, liberty - not just for the prisoners but for Americans as well. Of course this is to be expected from someone who has taken short-cuts all his life eh? Does the end justify the means?
Its all been tried. Ignoring them, pardoning them, making peace with them, coddling them, killing them, punishing them-- what options to you suggest at this point for both Israel and the US? What do I suggest? The one thing that has NOT been tried: dealing with the issues that make people terrorists in the first place. Why was Hamas elected?
Iraq has nothing to do with capturing the terrorists that attacked the trade towers.
What is it about then? Stupidity? or something truly evil? You tell me - when a country invades another for no good reason what is it about? When you do it based on lies, what is it about? When you run out of excuses to the point where the only thing left is "stay the course" then what is it about?
This is stultifying and about the time I shut down. Bin Laden is oppressed? I said "Terrorism is a response to oppression" - Bin Laden has emerged as a leader because (1) the USA trained him and (2) he sees it as something he can take advantage of to suit his personal agenda. The people that come to him to be the tools of terrorism are oppressed. Bin Laden also wants to free Saudi Arabia from the current leaders. Think about that for a bit eh? That is his true purpose.
I won't argue that. So, again, just pretend its not happening will work, like shutting your eyes makes the bad man go away? Out of sight, out of mind? You still don't get it. Take care of the problem, not the symptoms. Schwubbia and all his supporters are closing their eyes to the real problem - and yes, doing that will not make it go away, it is WHY
We see these results in the new studies that SHOW that terrorist ranks have increased since Schwubbia invaded Iraq - in spite of the number killed. It is a failed program. It is going the wrong way. It is making things worse. Enjoy ... especially if you voted for it. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
How does
quote: apply total writes: quote: Then ignoring them will defeat that goal. Because ignoring them hasn't worked. That's all Bill Clinton did throughout his term. He was a pussycat with timid policies and they preyed on that. They didn't see him as this gentle and meek man who won their hearts over. They saw him as a pansy who would cave into their demands and someone they can totally use and abuse. And that's exactly what they did. To be fair, for the average American, its difficult to remember what exactly the countries sentiments were concerning terrorism because it was often very far removed from us. But American presidents get the briefings and they know what kind of severity it posed. Could the Clinton adminstration or any administration have forseen the scale of the attack-- I doubt it. And I will grant that much leeway.
it has worked brilliantly at preventing them from establishing a calliphate here, OR wiping Israel off the map. Look at the UK. Look at France. They are a few steps away from from just handing it all over. I implore you to read "Londonistan," for a greater understanding of what I'm referring to. And do you know why this happening? Its because of a liberal ideology that coddles them and caters to their whims. Its like a mad case of Stockholm Syndrome. And its already happening here too. Its just slower to catch on. In Minneapolis, if the cab driver is Muslim and you have a six pack or a ham sandwhich, you are not allowed to ride in his cab. Hmm... The city of Minneapolis observes the Shari'a, but do they observe the Halacha? And the Left complains about how Christians "force" their dogma on them. Force? What, by them engaging with you in a forum? But them opting to watch TBN? Somehow, some way, that's considered forcing, but getting kicked out of a cab because of the drivers beliefs is not? How rich is the irony?
Lesson #1 in global politics: no nation has been defeated by outside terrorism. The worst they have accomplished so far is kill <3000 MILLION. "So far" is the optimal word in the sentence. And would please stop trivializing what happened by using numbers as if it justifies the action.
Yes you can. You can totally ignore the individual terrorists. Why? because NOT ignoring them is what makes terrorism WORK. I've already shared with you how not ignoring them doesn't do any good. Its the way the West lives that matters. Don't you get that? Just pretending its not happening isn't going to stop it from happening. So, what does this ignoring them entail? No airport security? No countermeasures of any kind? If they creep through again and blow up the Sears Tower, just act like it never happend? Seriously, what does that even mean?
Think of how you treat a child having a tantrum. According to California pop psychology you let them be spolied brats so they can grow up to be tall, spoiled brats. If you're sensible, you'll spank them when its appropriate. The analogy works for terrorism as well.
Number of people murdered in the USA in 2005 = 16,692 What is that supposed to prove? Do you ignore murders and rape by not responding to them?
Yes, it is murder, so you go after them a murderers. With police. I would have assumed from a man of your intelligence would have spotted the glaring contradiction in this pearl of wisdom. I thought you said to ignore them? Which is it? Go after them or don't go after them?
You DON'T go around scared 24/7. You don't throw away 200 years of rights, freedoms, liberty and justice. You don't go around with an army invading whatever country is convenient but one not at all connected to the murderers. Who is throwing away 200 years of rights? Tell me how your freedom has been affected? Can't bring mouthwash on the plane anymore??? Boo-hoo. By some gum. Uncle Sam isn't watching you RAZD. They don't have time to concern themselves with what you and your wife's sound like in the throes of passion, nor would they care.
Guess you better deal with the issue of making new terrrorists then, because that stuff is NOT going away. We had a better chance before this whole invasion issue made other nations think twice about the US motives. Here's the first thought of competing nations during Clinton's term. "This president is weak and so is his whole staff. They won't do anything. Whatever we do to them, they'll just try and ignore it." Here's where they think twice with the next presidency:"Attack America?!?! Are you serious? This guy doesn't play around." Its called "peace through strength," and its a tactic that has worked well for the United States for years. The difference with terrorists is that they run clandestinely and its hard to bring these shadow warriors out into the open. There is structure so you can't go directly to any source like you can with a nation.
It is beside the point because most of the non-Iraqi fighters are there because why? Because they were radicalized by the US invasion of Iraq, offended by the wanton brutality displayed by the US forces with indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians. The invasion caused the insurrection, as (surprise) they normally do. So what are your suggestions? If you say 'leave' and an extremist makes it to power in Iraq through complete civil unrest and threatens or attacks the US, you'll no doubt say, "See, GW did this to us. Why did the US leave prematurely?!?!" Don't believe me? Its happened already with this war. Democrats were just as hungry to go into this war. After they saw the backlash from many Americans, they changed their tune for political gain and pretended to suffer from a bad memory. And, naturally, the media won't talk about that because they share the same ideology, so everyone on the sidelines will be none-the-wiser. Its a perpetual stalemate for Bush. There is nothing he can do to make anyone happy.
even if it WERE a just war he would STILL be responsible for their deaths. That IS the responsibility of being Commander in Chief: make sure the expense is justified. Well, yeah, when you're the CC you have to eat every piece of criticism and like it and then ask for more.
Of course he ran away from fighting in a war when it was his turn, so why would anyone expect any level of responsibility from him eh? How did he run away?
By the latest rational and considered professional estimates ~600,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed. That's 200 for every American soldier, and it includes women and children. Yeah right! Source? Let's see: I placed that in a search engine and check the dates to match them as close as possible. Ever site has radically different figures ranging from, 3-5,000, 30-100,000, 16,000, 50-100,000, 600,000, 650,000, 13,000, LOL, I even have one that said Dubya has personally killed over a trillion people. What links them together? This parroted phrase, "Studies have shown that," "research has shown," but they don't give any sources and they don't give any details on how they could know those figures. Aw heck, lets just do the math here. We've been there a little over 3 years, starting on March 20, 2003. That's 1305 days to accumulate a staggering innocent civilian death toll of 600,000 bodies of men, women, and children. That's 2,175 bodies a day-- not including US or insurgent casualties. I'd like to know how any nation, especially one in such a decrepit condition as Iraq is, how they could possibly handle an influx of over 2,175 bodies a day. Sorry, but that's pure propaganda.
why is it that the US has just let NATO take over responsibility for Afghanistan? How will that not let the terrorists grow stronger, or at the very least embolden them and give them a chance to grow stronger? Afghanistan has been neutralized as much as it possibly can be without us going into Pakistan. At this point, you don't need alot of troops in country (which I though would please some people). All that is needed is an augmented special operations group with perhaps a contingency of light infantry and a small rotor/fixed wing supply. Iraq, on the other hand, is a disaster. I don't doubt that its a disaster and something needs to be remedied. And since its people are incapable of standing up on its own two feet as of yet, it would be incredibly negligent to leave them in that condition.
Why would it not make MORE sense to stay in Afghanistan (where we are closer to the actual terrorists) and let NATO take over the FIASCO in Iraq? There is only a small contingent of Taliban operating in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan. The terrorists are in Iraq fighting the front there.
I believe they are the tip of the iceberg on the human rights offenses committed by this administration. Well, unfortunately hunches don't carry alot of weight, but in the event that such atrocities are or have taken place, then let those reasponsible pay the wage of their crime.
The person responsible for the mess is again Schwubbia, because he publicly stated as much when he said the conventions don't apply. He set the example of trashing rights, freedoms, justice, liberty - not just for the prisoners but for Americans as well. I don't understand this paragraph here. What are you talking about here?
Of course this is to be expected from someone who has taken short-cuts all his life eh? Does the end justify the means? What are the short-cuts you are referring to?
What do I suggest? The one thing that has NOT been tried: dealing with the issues that make people terrorists in the first place. Why was Hamas elected? Hamas was elected because they cloaked themselves as a legitimate organization and won the people over by giving them healthcare and other incentives to join in their campaign against Israel.
quote: Stupidity? or something truly evil? You tell me - when a country invades another for no good reason what is it about? When you do it based on lies, what is it about? When you run out of excuses to the point where the only thing left is "stay the course" then what is it about? No good reason...? Even if Iraq was a huge mistake, there is no way that you could say that it was for no good reason. Again, you don't know what would have happened had Hussein still been in power. You also have to know that the average American is not privvy to certain information-- information that. if leaked, could cause irreparable damage to the US and its allies. You could say with a credible amount of sanity, "Ha, ha, we told you Iraq was a mistke." You could make that kind of an argument and be justified. What you can't say is that it was for no good reason, that there were not actual reasons for going in.
I said "Terrorism is a response to oppression" - Bin Laden has emerged as a leader because (1) the USA trained him and (2) he sees it as something he can take advantage of to suit his personal agenda. The people that come to him to be the tools of terrorism are oppressed. And so what should we do about that? Free tickets to the Dr. Phil show? Have them psychoanalyzed and treated for depression? I'm questioning what you motivation is for mentioning it.
Bin Laden also wants to free Saudi Arabia from the current leaders. Think about that for a bit eh? That is his true purpose. His true purpose is to fulfil Wahhabi Islam. Bin Laden is sincere when he thinks that "garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" Maybe they stick it out because ""believers, when you encounter the armies of the infidels do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons, or to join another band he shall incur the wrath of Allah and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate." -Qur'an 8:12-17 Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
nemesis_juggernaut
Perhaps you failed to realize something in this discussion. I know you do not ignore or advocate ignoring the terrorists, as is the case with me as well. What you might have missed is that RAZD isn’t ignoring them either, regardless of his denial of that fact and advocating ignoring as a “solution”. All of his posts are VERY VERY concerned with terrorism, so he’s definitely not ignoring it. There is a difference however between the two positions. You and I are not doing anything close to what the terrorists wish. RAZD is doing and advocating exactly what they wish him to do. I’m sure you realize, as well as I do, that the terrorist’s only hope of victory is to create, by their terror and the use of the media, more people in this country exactly like RAZD. It is their final and only hope. In regards to the OP, we have not abandoned Afghanistan, and quite honestly are doing quite a bit there. The premise, that we have “cut and run”, is based upon a knowledge of only what is reported in the media. I wouldn’t put too much stock in that as it is quite different than what troops on the ground say. In fact almost 180 degrees different. My son, a cavalry scout, was in Afghanistan 2003-2004 with 3-17th Cav., 10 th Mountain, and in Iraq 2005-2006 with 1-71 Cav., 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10 th Mountain. My cousin Marcia’s son graduated from West Point 2 years ago and is presently deployed to Afghanistan with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Div as well. I trust what these guys say a hell of a lot more than the parroted media BS Jar and Razd spew forth. If you personally know troops on the ground I’d be happy to hear what you think, otherwise, I have better stuff to do. BTW as an aside for Jar. Jar, I noticed you have bumped your pet project “Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up” for me. Is there some reason you think I owe you my geologic expertise on that thread? What do you think my response should be to that thread ,to someone who has acted in a way, IMO, to put my son and my relative at greater risk in doing their job, a job that needs to be done?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jar, I noticed you have bumped your pet project “Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up” for me. Is there some reason you think I owe you my geologic expertise on that thread? What do you think my response should be to that thread ,to someone who has acted in a way, IMO, to put my son and my relative at greater risk in doing their job, a job that needs to be done? I do not think you owe ME anything. I do though believe that the reading public deserves to know the facts about things such as how the Grand Canyon was formed. I also believe that is true of every situation, including why your son and your relatives are in danger. I would also be interested to learn why you think I have acted to increase the risk to them. I am not at all sure that this is the thread to explore that issue but I am more than willing to discuss it either here or in some other venue. As to what I think the proper resonse should be in the GC thread, IMHO it would be to provide what knowledge or expertise you have. How could I think anything else? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
What you might have missed is that RAZD isn’t ignoring them either, regardless of his denial of that fact and advocating ignoring as a “solution”. All of his posts are VERY VERY concerned with terrorism, so he’s definitely not ignoring it. He is advocating that. He has announced it several times. However, if by chance I misunderstood what he meant by 'ignoring them' I would certainly consider that. The question is, 'who' does RAZD want to ignore the terrorist? If he is referring to us, the public, it does no good because the terrorists do not hear our message. Aside from which, we're not all tucked away in our homes in abject fear just counting down the days until we die. We go to work, we shopping, we ride the trains, planes, buses, go to the movies. And in that way, we aren't ignoring them, we're sending a message that we won't be scared into submission. If by 'ignoring them' means that the government should ignore tham and we should go back to our half-assed, lackadaisacal attitude on security, that, as I've pointed out, just didn't work. Even when we didn't retaliate or hardly acknowlege that it happend, they still kept coming. If RAZD meant 'ignoring them' as to refer to the media, then I couldn't agree more. The media has done a stand-up job of painting a nasty picture where the US is bad, bad, bad, and the terrorists are actually a gentle people's. They love presenting gore and are certain to tell us every time a troop dies so that every single day our morale will go down. And its worked brilliantly. Instead of focusing on the schools that were built, or the new Iraqi police force beginning to stand up under its own volition, we hear of "IED, roadside bomb, 4 Marines killed, Striker Brigade under attack, insurgents gaining strength, Al-Qaeda defiant, Zarqawi's death did nothing, the world hates the US now, negative angle, negative spin, negative outlook. But I guess this shouldn't shock anyone. Good things don't get good ratings. People are often masochistic as evidenced by what is popular and what is not. As long as some kind of conflict involved in the plot, the people love it. Shows about betrayal, infidelity, death, destruction and gore are the top go-getters. Interestingly enough, its this Americanized mentality that the extremists despise. I wonder why those who want to coddle them can't make the connection that it is them they despise the most. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024