Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1826 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 92  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The War Room: Discuss The War On Terror And Iraq
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:14 am 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Twin Ports
This thread can be used as an area to discuss the war on terror and the war in Iraq in terms of validity, progress, and criticism.

If it can be done in a civil manner, that would be best!

Here are some thoughts and ideas from the locked thread to get started:

Stonecrest said:
While I don't like the OP's condescending tone or lack of respect for other human beings with different viewpoints, he certainly has touched on some points that I do agree with.

Do I think it takes a certain kind of person to enlist in military service? Absolutely. Maybe adjectives like "courageous" and "patriotic" come to mind for most people but different adjectives come to mind for me.

Has the "war on terror" helped to secure our country? I think that indeed it has, but only in the short-term. Right now, there is a lot of anti-America sentiment brewing about, and while these people are in disarray right now because of our wars, I think it is only serving to foster more hatred and violence for the future.

ericd102 wrote:
Many soldiers (when they enlisted in ther reserves) were never expecting to be deployed. The Clinton years were a pretty safe time to count on your one weekend a month two weeks a year and nothing more. That has changed since the administration change but that is not the fault of those who enlisted.

By being in the millitary, they are not supporting (or diasagreeing with) the war. They are doing their job, regardless of their opinion, and that is commendable. There is a need for a military, even if there is no need for the war. No reason to criticize them for doing a necessary service.

sleightofhandpj wrote:
There will always be terrorists. It doesn't matter if we (the US) or anybody else for that matter stands up to them. We do not make them terrorists...they in their own mind DECIDE to fuck with other people. And until you get off your high and mighty horse there is no point in trying to have an actual intelligent conversation with you.

ElPhantasmo wrote:
I disagree. I think military aggression can and does lead to creating more terrorists. If the current situation in Iraq hasn't convinced you of that, I don't know what would. I'd blame that on American foreign policy however, not the soldiers themselves.

sleightofhandpj wrote:

How did we show any aggression to anyone....we didn't start this shit....9/11.

tsunami wrote:
That is for the most part true, but I think what he is saying is that there is certainly an argument that what is being done in response may not be as effective as it could or should be.

tsunami wrote:
I agree that action was certainly warranted.

I didn't used to, but after studying the whole picture more thoroughly, I believe we are certainly in the right in terms of trying to eliminate threats against our country. We live here and we have a right to defend ourselves.

Now, that being said, I think many on here and certainly in the country, believe that our foray into Iraq was a move that limited our ability to keep our forces strong and on alert for al-Qaeda. Many feel that we should have had better plans for the occupation of Iraq. I do not see a problem with outsting Saddam (again, I changed my opinion over time on this) but I do see a problem with how things are going post-topple.

I think we could have and should have focused more on al-Qaeda first and taken our time with Iraq (with better plans and a stronger force).

Our national defense needs to come first. Our ports, our cities, etc. Once that is more "shored up" we can focus our military on things such as Iraq.

ElPhantasmo wrote:

I think action was warranted, and I was all for taking down the Taliban. Iraq, however, seemed like a big smokescreen from day one.

tsunami wrote:
The connections between 9/11 and Iraq are not as strong as many originally thought.

Does that weaken the argument for getting rid of Saddam? Not too much since they are almost mutually exclusive.

I do agree that both the war on terror and Saddam's removal were both moves that should have been taken, I just do not think that they should have been done in such quick succession.

I think with more time we could have done a more complete job in both tasks.

tsunami wrote:
Whether or not there is a connection it is a small one, not nearly on the same scale as the connection of 9/11 to Kalid Sheik Mohammed or Osama bin Laden.

It is understood that al-Zarqawi is a member of al-Qaeda, but it is also known that he did not play a significant role in the 9/11 attacks (not to the scale of the heirarchy and the 20 hijackers themselves).

And let us not forget that al-Zarqawi was also not the reason why the US invaded Iraq to begin with. The invasion commenced on grounds that Saddam's regime was a threat to the US because he held weapons of mass destruction. If the real reason was to get al-Zarqawi, then we did a rather large secondary task in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I believe that the administration, the soldiers, and just about everyone in the world would agree that al-Zarqawi and any al-Qaeda links in Iraq was not the reason why we went in. We went in to get Saddam out of power and establish a US-friendly democracy smack dab in the Middle East.

The removal of a dictator is never a bad thing, and attempting to democratize a nation with the hope of having another ally in the Middle East besides Israel and Jordan may have been quite noble as well.

However, the task was larger in real life than it was on paper and the process itself was rushed. I agree that not everything could have been forseen, however I disagree that we could not have possibly known that with such a small invasion force and the toppling of a brutal regime at the hands of a distrusted nation, that there would be no unrest or insurgency. I would say that the administration knew this as well, but took the risk anyway.

They're not stupid, but they do gamble.

Long story short, we have a mess to clean up and I hope we do. I hope things turn out the way they were supposed to.

We owe it to them.

tsunami wrote:
Oust Saddam? Of course. Saddam was a brutal dictator. The same should have been done to Castro, Pol Pot, and various South American and African dictators.

tsunami wrote:
If we are truly the land of the free, and we are to enforce a doctrine of spreading democracy, then we do not need a terror link to overthrow ruthless dictators. Especially if intelligence (be it wrong) finds that they are indeed a threat to this nation as well as their own citizens.

That was the reason for the invasion of Iraq.

We ARE there. Terrorists or Bathists or dictators..we ARE there now and it would be foolish to pull out now and leave things in worse shape than when we first came.

But remember, what we are doing now is cleaning up what happened after we accomplished our initial goal of overthrowing Saddam's regime. Our initial goal was NOT to engage terrorists, but to engage Saddam's regime.

Being that it was our initial goal, I found it unwise to proceed with the war at the time that it was initiated.

tsunami finally added (because she is long-winded):

Well, its true. The world would be better off if there was more democracy. However, it is foolish to assume that this could be accomplished in a mere presidential term or even several decades (if ever!).

At this point, we need to put forward foreign policy that causes people to flock to democracy...to want freedom for themselves. We cannot force it. All we can do is help to get rid of sadistic rulers and dictators. What happens next (as we are finding out) is the REAL meat of the matter...the tough part.

For as much as Americans want the Iraqis to be free and have peace with democracy, they must want it for themselves. All we can do is provide the opportunity. That is all we can do for anyone. Is that justified? Sure. If we have the power to do something, we should not stand idly by. But let it be known that it is only part of the equation. Once broken, a nation must be rebuilt.

In large part due to Cold War Politics, the US had strayed from spreading democracy into an area where we placated dictators to remain friendly to the US. That time is passed, and even though there will be unrest and war, the time has come for the US to stand up for democracy and end support for "friendly dictators" and questionable nations.

The US should look at what is happening in Ukraine as a triumph. It took TIME, but democracy is happening slowly. Democracy exists in Panama after the toppling of Noriega in 1989, but of course growing pains are apparent. Still, they are working towards making it better.

The key to the US's policy is patience, planning, diplomacy, and the use of overwhelming force when necessary. Rushing into war, placating dictators, and fighting battles at less than 100% will only serve to hinder progress.


----------------

So I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on the wars the US is fighting right now, and in a manner that does not involve name calling or closed minded hatred of the "other side's" point of view.

Lets see if we can find some common ground on these issues.

_________________
Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:19 am 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Twin Ports
anyone?
anyone?

_________________
Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:25 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Pledge My Grievance wrote:
Fuck em. They're dumb asses for signing up, most of them probably barely made it out of high school, and nobody should feel sorry for stupid asses. They arent "defending our freedom," and helping to "rid the world of evil-doers," rather they are helping to recruit more terrorists and making the United States look like chumps.

Go back to school and get an education. Get a real occupation such as "Wall-Mart greater" or "Bojangles bisquit maker." Your in a war that will never be won, so come to grips and realize this now while you still young and have some dignity left.


j/k :lol:

--PunkDavid

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Last edited by punkdavid on Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:25 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:23 pm
Posts: 6165
Location: Mass
I disagree with the war but support the troops 100%. It is not their fault that there is a war, and it would be terrible to see another Vietnam, where the soldiers were shunned upon their return. It is disgusting that the soldiers are not getting the best equipment and armor.

I disagree with the war because it was unjustified. There have been no solid proven links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam and there were no WMDs: these were the two main justifications. It took the focus off Afghanistan; there are approx. 100,000 troops in Iraq and 10,00 in Afrghanistan. Was this not the war on terror? Was Osama not the terrorist responsible for 9/11? Did Saddam not have no link whatsoever to 9/11? Why do we have ten times as much manpower in Iraq for the "war on terror"?

The Bush doctrine: if you harbor/support terrorists, you are against us. First of all, the whole with us or against us mentality is part of the problem dividing the county more than ever, but that is another discussion. 19 of 20 terrorists on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia; remind me again why we are in Iraq? Not that I'm saying we should go to Saudi Arabia, but my point is the "Bush docrine" is only selectively enforced. It does sound great when you need to justify a war though, doesn't it?

Pakistan, Iran, South Korea, etc. All are arguably more threataning than Iraq was. I just can't see a clear justification for the 1000+ who have died there.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:43 am
Posts: 427
Location: Australia, Brisbane
Heres a quote from Terrorism expert DR MICHAEL McKINLEY,from the AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY:
If the United States stays, it will bleed to death slowly. If it leaves, it will be humiliated for at least the next two decades and Australia will incur both costs along as it's that close, and it refuses to think critically and positively about sovereignty, something which interestingly the conservative parties keep talking about every time the United Nations is raised, but don't want to talk about in relation to the United States. It really is a strategic disaster for the United States. They tried to change the psychology of the Arabian Peninsula, one of their principle advisers, Richard Pipes, or Daniel Pipes rather, talked about changing the face of Islam - now that is which was arrogance beyond belief.

_________________
YessCode wrote:
2003!

State College, Boston Shows, New York shows...numerous 2 and 3 encore shows that last 2-3 hours...its like a sore dick....can't beat it


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The War Room: Discuss The War On Terror And Iraq
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Man, The Myth
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:12 am
Posts: 1080
Location: boulder
tsunami wrote:
So I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on the wars the US is fighting right now, and in a manner that does not involve name calling or closed minded hatred of the "other side's" point of view.


Must.. not.. comment..

ericd102 wrote:
It is not their fault that there is a war


Would there be a baseball game if there were no players?

_________________
"my fading voice sings, of love..."


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
Quote:
I disagree with the war but support the troops 100%.


This is like saying you don't your favorite football team to play, but support the players 100%. You just don't wanna see them do their job...

It's what I like to call, liberal camoflauge.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Medford, Oregon
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
I disagree with the war but support the troops 100%.


This is like saying you don't your favorite football team to play, but support the players 100%. You just don't wanna see them do their job...

It's what I like to call, liberal camoflauge.


Oh look, it's the typical "You're either with us or against us" mentality. :roll:

Fuck that. You can hope the best for our men in arms without agreeing with the cause.

_________________
Deep below the dunes I roved
Past the rows, past the rows
Beside the acacias freshly in bloom
I sent men to their doom


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:23 pm
Posts: 6165
Location: Mass
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
I disagree with the war but support the troops 100%.


This is like saying you don't your favorite football team to play, but support the players 100%. You just don't wanna see them do their job...

It's what I like to call, liberal camoflauge.



I don't support THIS PARTICULAR war becasue it was started on false pretexts. I support the troops because it is not their fault that they are at war, and I have no ill-will toward them. I hope they come home safe. I don't hold them responsible, they have no choice and they are doing what they must. If the US were attacked I would be very glad that they were there.

And as for your comment, are you suggesting that without war soldiers have nothing to do? In that case we should be at war constantly just to make sure they don't get bored.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Banned from the Pit
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:36 am
Posts: 72
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
I disagree with the war but support the troops 100%.


This is like saying you don't your favorite football team to play, but support the players 100%. You just don't wanna see them do their job...

It's what I like to call, liberal camoflauge.


This is ridiculous. First of all, "support our troops" is the most bullshit slogan entered into American discourse, namely because it represents nothing even remotely close to what it should. It is simply a tool for partisan rhetoric. When you have people with stickers like "Support our troops and our President", or "Support our troops, bring them home" on the other side, it says that the slogan essentially means different things to different people, and is merely used to further a goal one way or the other. Guess what folks? Everyone from Rush Limbaugh and George Bush to Noam Chomsky and Al Franken support the troops. Everyone in America supports the troops. Simply put, everyone wants to see the minimal amount die now that they are in combat. Of course the minimal amount to some who want to see the mission 'completed' is different than those who want to pull out now, but still, no one likes seeing Americans killed. Supporting the troops is something inherent in all of us, we all support people from our country put in harms way staying as alive and healthy as they can. All that the slogan "support our troops" is, is a convenient way for people to get others behind their ideology (and I must say, it is used far more and better by the right) then it is to actually express sympathy. The slogan, as Noam Chomsky says, means absolutely nothing.
As to the football analogy, it is like saying that we don't want our football team to play because we don't want our players to injure themselves, as we like for them to stay healthy until games that actually need to be played. Like when your team has already clinched a playoff berth and is playing for nothing, we want them to rest until a game that is critical, like, the playoffs.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:23 pm
Posts: 6165
Location: Mass
Betterman0986 wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
I disagree with the war but support the troops 100%.


This is like saying you don't your favorite football team to play, but support the players 100%. You just don't wanna see them do their job...

It's what I like to call, liberal camoflauge.


This is ridiculous. First of all, "support our troops" is the most bullshit slogan entered into American discourse, namely because it represents nothing even remotely close to what it should. It is simply a tool for partisan rhetoric. When you have people with stickers like "Support our troops and our President", or "Support our troops, bring them home" on the other side, it says that the slogan essentially means different things to different people, and is merely used to further a goal one way or the other. Guess what folks? Everyone from Rush Limbaugh and George Bush to Noam Chomsky and Al Franken support the troops. Everyone in America supports the troops. Simply put, everyone wants to see the minimal amount die now that they are in combat. Of course the minimal amount to some who want to see the mission 'completed' is different than those who want to pull out now, but still, no one likes seeing Americans killed. Supporting the troops is something inherent in all of us, we all support people from our country put in harms way staying as alive and healthy as they can. All that the slogan "support our troops" is, is a convenient way for people to get others behind their ideology (and I must say, it is used far more and better by the right) then it is to actually express sympathy. The slogan, as Noam Chomsky says, means absolutely nothing.
As to the football analogy, it is like saying that we don't want our football team to play because we don't want our players to injure themselves, as we like for them to stay healthy until games that actually need to be played. Like when your team has already clinched a playoff berth and is playing for nothing, we want them to rest until a game that is critical, like, the playoffs.



This was what I was trying to say in my above post. You're just much more eloquent. Great post!


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Medford, Oregon
Gender: Male
Betterman0986 wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
I disagree with the war but support the troops 100%.


This is like saying you don't your favorite football team to play, but support the players 100%. You just don't wanna see them do their job...

It's what I like to call, liberal camoflauge.


This is ridiculous. First of all, "support our troops" is the most bullshit slogan entered into American discourse, namely because it represents nothing even remotely close to what it should. It is simply a tool for partisan rhetoric. When you have people with stickers like "Support our troops and our President", or "Support our troops, bring them home" on the other side, it says that the slogan essentially means different things to different people, and is merely used to further a goal one way or the other. Guess what folks? Everyone from Rush Limbaugh and George Bush to Noam Chomsky and Al Franken support the troops. Everyone in America supports the troops. Simply put, everyone wants to see the minimal amount die now that they are in combat. Of course the minimal amount to some who want to see the mission 'completed' is different than those who want to pull out now, but still, no one likes seeing Americans killed. Supporting the troops is something inherent in all of us, we all support people from our country put in harms way staying as alive and healthy as they can. All that the slogan "support our troops" is, is a convenient way for people to get others behind their ideology (and I must say, it is used far more and better by the right) then it is to actually express sympathy. The slogan, as Noam Chomsky says, means absolutely nothing.
As to the football analogy, it is like saying that we don't want our football team to play because we don't want our players to injure themselves, as we like for them to stay healthy until games that actually need to be played. Like when your team has already clinched a playoff berth and is playing for nothing, we want them to rest until a game that is critical, like, the playoffs.


This post is so well done and right fucking on, I'm gonna make a 24K gold plaque out of it and hang it in every room of my house. I'm going to learn it by heart, and shout it from the highest fucking mountain. I wish politicians spoke like this, it just cuts through all the partisan bullshit, and as it does, gives you a pretty shocking assessment at just how thick that bullshit's become. Seriously man, well fucking done! I hope that you submit that to every newspaper in the country, as well as every worthwhile magazine and TV news outlet.

Ara

_________________
Deep below the dunes I roved
Past the rows, past the rows
Beside the acacias freshly in bloom
I sent men to their doom


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Man, The Myth
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:12 am
Posts: 1080
Location: boulder
Betterman0986 wrote:
This is ridiculous. First of all, "support our troops" is the most bullshit slogan entered into American discourse, namely because it represents nothing even remotely close to what it should. It is simply a tool for partisan rhetoric. When you have people with stickers like "Support our troops and our President", or "Support our troops, bring them home" on the other side, it says that the slogan essentially means different things to different people, and is merely used to further a goal one way or the other. Guess what folks? Everyone from Rush Limbaugh and George Bush to Noam Chomsky and Al Franken support the troops. Everyone in America supports the troops. Simply put, everyone wants to see the minimal amount die now that they are in combat. Of course the minimal amount to some who want to see the mission 'completed' is different than those who want to pull out now, but still, no one likes seeing Americans killed. Supporting the troops is something inherent in all of us, we all support people from our country put in harms way staying as alive and healthy as they can. All that the slogan "support our troops" is, is a convenient way for people to get others behind their ideology (and I must say, it is used far more and better by the right) then it is to actually express sympathy. The slogan, as Noam Chomsky says, means absolutely nothing.
As to the football analogy, it is like saying that we don't want our football team to play because we don't want our players to injure themselves, as we like for them to stay healthy until games that actually need to be played. Like when your team has already clinched a playoff berth and is playing for nothing, we want them to rest until a game that is critical, like, the playoffs.


Nice post, I said the exact same thing on here a few months ago. I had followed it up with a question to which I've still never received an answer, so I'd like to ask again: What does it mean to really support the troops? It's easy to say what supporting the troops isn't, but what is it?

I'd also like to point out that the football analogy was blatantly stolen from my baseball analogy :P

ETA: Am I the only person who thinks of the quote "There's no fighting in the war room!" everytime they see this thread?

_________________
"my fading voice sings, of love..."


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
Image

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Man, The Myth
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:12 am
Posts: 1080
Location: boulder
:thumbsup:

_________________
"my fading voice sings, of love..."


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Twin Ports
I think it is plausable that everyone DOES support the troops whether they agree with the war or not.

But in a way, we all HAVE to support the troops with the taxes we pay. So, in essense, we ALL support the troops financially anyway.

I guess if one were to really be serious about supporting the troops, he or she would donate part of their salary (along with taxes paid) directly to the military.

_________________
Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Twin Ports
Scott,

Nice post about Dr. Strangelove...and yeah I thought of that too.

:wink:

_________________
Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
THIS IS FUCKING CRAZY!

IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT WE DO, THEN YOU DON'T SUPPORT US!

YOU DO NOT SUPPORT ME AS A SERVICE MEMBER.

All you want me to do, is sit in my reserve center, and twiddle my little thumbs. That's it...it's disgusting.

Again, it's liberal camoflauge, Al Franken and Noam Chomsky do not support me. They never have, they never will, and if they had their way the military would be cut down even worse than it already is. And if half you had your way, it would be cut down, and monies would be diverted into your grand social welfare programs.

You don't support me at all. You might want me to be alive. But I'm telling you right now. THAT IS NOT SUPPORT! The only thing you people use "I support the troops, but not the war," is to make yourselves appear more moderate...but every single solitary time we pick up arms, people like you guys do nothing but bash what we do. To you people, NOTHING that we do should be done.

Quote:
As to the football analogy, it is like saying that we don't want our football team to play because we don't want our players to injure themselves, as we like for them to stay healthy until games that actually need to be played. Like when your team has already clinched a playoff berth and is playing for nothing, we want them to rest until a game that is critical, like, the playoffs. - 1986


Well, this is where you are wrong. Because we rested our players for ten fucking years while the other side kept building the team up through experience. We let our guard down in more than one aspect. We allowed our military to degenerate, we allowed our enemy to sneak into our soil, we knowingly allowed our enemy to gain access and train freely. When we should have been playing football, like you would in the playoffs, the whole time. But you wouldn't agree to that type of mentality would you? You wouldn't support our troops and our job in such a situation...would you. Of course not, because that's exactly what we're doing now.

Quote:
I don't support THIS PARTICULAR war becasue it was started on false pretexts. - eric


Let me guess, you're another one of those, "terrorists exist in Ireland, Columbia, Mexico, Iran, North Korea, Indonesia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, BUT IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM folks aren't you?

Or are you one of those people who don't think any WMD's have been found? Well maybe if you actually read the weapons reports instead of swallowing the "NO WEAPONS FOUND" from the top of the NYT front page, you'd actually know the truth about these "false pretexts"

WMD's Found
"Since May 2004, ISG has recovered a total of 53 chemical weapons from various sources and military units throughout Iraq. A preliminary assessment indicates they are part of Iraq's pre-1991 stockpile. Variations in size, type, and agent fill raise the possibility that other, similar rounds remain at large." - Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, Volume 3, page 30

Now what was the pretexts? Oh yeah, terrorists getting a hold of weapons like this via Saddam. Ya know, the way the terrorist built their ability to fight from the Taliban. Now you go change the pretexts around.

Quote:
If the US were attacked I would be very glad that they were there. - Eric


I'm sorry, what don't you understand about our extra-government enemy? Under your pretext, we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan to disrupt a terrorist network because a country didn't attack us.

Quote:
And as for your comment, are you suggesting that without war soldiers have nothing to do? In that case we should be at war constantly just to make sure they don't get bored. - Eric


No. Find me a period in history when our soldiers and servicemen and women would have been bored.

Quote:
It is disgusting that the soldiers are not getting the best equipment and armor. - Eric


What makes you say that? We've all got SAPI plates for our flak vests. Oh, it must be that individual who asked Rumsfeld about the lack of armor on his company's vehicle. Which is funny, because I posted an article just ONE DAY before Rumseld arrived from the same reporter, who was reporting that all but twenty vehicles had their armor, the picture was rosy, and upbeat. Nobody on this messageboard really seemed to care about the truth of the situation though. On top of that, over half of that company was flown into Baghdad, and the trucks were by and large trucked in on flat beds. Oh, and as for not having enough, would you support Bush increasing the military budget for us to to get any more than we have? Let me see your name pop up in such a thread.

Quote:
I disagree with the war because it was unjustified. There have been no solid proven links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam and there were no WMDs: - Eric


Since we've already dispelled the widely touted liberal myth of "NO WMD's FOUND!" Let's tackle another one. Go to yahoo, and look up Salman Pak for starters.

“But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants” “Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs.” “Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. But UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoonful of this deadly material. And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had.” “Underlying all that I have said, underlying all the facts and the patterns of behavior that I have identified, is Saddam Hussein's contempt for the will of this Council, his contempt for the truth, and, most damning of all, his utter contempt for human life. Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities. Five thousand men, women and children died. His campaign against the Kurds from 1987 to '89 included mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing and ethnic cleansing, and the destruction of some 2,000 villages. He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shia Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. Saddam Hussein's police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country -- tens of thousands of people reported missing in the past decade. Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him.” Colin Powell UN February 5, 2003

It is well documented that Zarqawi, our largest present threat, was running his operation out of a government run Baghdad hospital. So now the question becomes. That in and of itself is reason to go into Iraq. Agree?


Quote:
100,000 troops in Iraq and 10,00 in Afrghanistan. - Eric


This is laughable. If you can validate this with anything, I'll mail you a hundred bucks. Troops were NEVER transfered from Afghanistan to Iraq, and troop levels in Afghanistan are presently at their lowest level since we invaded at 18,000 http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... chive=true


Quote:
Was this not the war on terror? Was Osama not the terrorist responsible for 9/11? - Eric


Is Operation ENDURING Freedom based on retaliation? Of course not. The purpose of Operation Enduring Freedom is to set up US positions in the heart of the terrorist homeland, to break up their ability to train, to communicate, to fund, and to commit terrorist acts. This was entirely a part of the war on terror.

Quote:
Why do we have ten times as much manpower in Iraq for the "war on terror"? - Eric


Because we need more manpower in Iraq than in other regions to remain effective? Perhaps Mr. Armchair quarterback.

Quote:
The Bush doctrine: if you harbor/support terrorists, you are against us. First of all, the whole with us or against us mentality is part of the problem dividing the county more than ever, but that is another discussion. 19 of 20 terrorists on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia - Eric


So, you have a problem with the with us or against mentality, but cannot discern the difference between government states that sponsor and harbor terrorists, than nineteen individuals who happened to be born in a certain nation, leaving to nations that support terrorist operations to kill people. You're just stupid. Yeah, let's attack Saudi Arabia because that's where the terrorists were from.

Quote:
Pakistan, Iran, South Korea, etc. All are arguably more threataning than Iraq was. I just can't see a clear justification for the 1000+ who have died there. - Eric


I'm good aren't I...

Quote:
I disagree. I think military aggression can and does lead to creating more terrorists. If the current situation in Iraq hasn't convinced you of that, I don't know what would. I'd blame that on American foreign policy however, not the soldiers themselves. - ElPhantasmo


Oh yeah, leave to you to advocate a policy that created 9-11 and dozens of other terrorist attacks against US interests. Don't fight them, because you might create some more of them...crazy.

Quote:
How did we show any aggression to anyone....we didn't start this shit....9/11. - sleightofhand


It didn't start on 9/11, it started in Beirut twenty years ago.

Quote:
I think action was warranted, and I was all for taking down the Taliban. Iraq, however, seemed like a big smokescreen from day one. - ElPhantasmo


Cool. So we should have just waited for a product of Iraqi funded terrorism to strike America. Then you would have supported a retalitory act against Saddam. Awesome.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:27 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:07 pm
Posts: 12393
LittleWing wrote:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT WE DO, THEN YOU DON'T SUPPORT US!

YOU DO NOT SUPPORT ME AS A SERVICE MEMBER.


A fellow teacher who started with me and has been a friend of mine for some time is over in Iraq right now, and his letters have stated that he feels the people who most support the troops the most are those who hope they're home and safe soon, and those who are concerned as to whether they are adequately equiped or whether the methods currently being used are the most effective for achieving the goal. So I can understand your feelings, but I feel the need to point out that I hear the exact opposite sentiments, from time to time, from others in service.

This is worlds away from your situation, and I want to make sure I'm fully aware of that ahead of time, but as a teacher I think the people who most support me are those who take the time to learn about issues in education, and are willing to add to the public discourse even if the ideas they support lie in opposition to the methods/goals I aspire to.

On an unrelated note, I'm personally appreciative of the fact that you always fully and completely express your views, rather than offering the two-sentence empty calorie party lines certain other individuals use on this board.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:18 am 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Twin Ports
I support the need for a strong, well paid, professional, and powerful military.

AND I can certainly reserve the right to not want to see such a force wasted in circumstances that are questionable to what I am seeing.

As for Iraq, we have a job to do there and we are doing it.

But if we were to say invade Japan, for example, for reasons sketchy at best or outright lies, I would disagree with their mission but not with their existance.

Yes. People can support the existance of the military. I support its use against dictators and those who attack us (Saddam, al-Qaeda, the 36 or so we let go in the last century but should have taken out).

However, if a situation were to arise where I would disagree with the use of our military under a certain circumstance, I would not support that PARTICULAR mission but of course support the EXISTANCE of the force.

LW, I respect you opinion on this, but I feel that there ARE definately certain circumstances where people can fully support the existance of a strong fighting force, but not a specific mission to which they are assigned. That is freedom of speech and really freedom of thought.

Note: This is not in reference to Iraq or any specific mission. This is a hypothetical in which if such a case were to arise, this very situation could occur.

_________________
Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1826 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 92  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:10 pm