Americans, not politicians, hold power to change Iraq war

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If you attack someone because they might attack you, there will definitely be an attack, and somebody (the other party, or you yourself) is going to get hurt. If you are at risk for an attack, but do nothing until you are absolutely certain that an attack is imminent, there may never be an attack at all.

In the US this is called self defense. Plenty of questionable cases have stood up to scrutiny in the good ol USA. In the Iraq scenario, we believed(or the government believed) that there was sufficient reason to make a decision to go to war. Self-defense plea.

I am sure that you have heard the saying "I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

Quote

In the US this is called self defense.

So we get to write our own terminology ebcause we can? Same logic used to steal this country, enslave Africans, suppress women, jail the innocent and so many other things. Changing the definition doesn't change the truth.

Quote

Plenty of questionable cases have stood up to scrutiny in the good ol USA.

Then why are the numbers for the support for the war way down?

Quote

In the Iraq scenario, we believed(or the government believed) that there was sufficient reason to make a decision to go to war. Self-defense plea.

No, a few people decided there was sufficient reason to go, now there are far fewer people thinking that. Self defence requires some imminency as just addressed by someone else. You can call this a preemptive strike, but nothing more.


I see that you want to enjoy some celebrity once you come back for good. I think we saw the victory celebrations of post WWII and we want to have that feeling again. The sacrifices given by you and all war soliers is respectable and equal, just that the premise is different. You/we can't manufacture a noble situation, we have to wait for them. I hope you come back in 1 piece and I also hope you are not dissapointed when you come back to see that you may not be revered as WWII soldiers were.

[MrBounce 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Ummm, what version of history is being studied in your schools mate? The US has had a constant policy of interference in all areas of the middle and far east as a result of the cold war and its policy or resisting the spread of communism.

Deposing the Shah of Iran
Arming Iraq in the 70's & 80's
Covertly arming Iran too during the Iraq/Iran war
Arming the mudjahideen in Afghanistan
Troop deployments to Lebanon
Constant support for Israel
Troop deployment and training in Saudi Arabia
...
I could go on.

Gavin

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. If you don't take it out and use it, its going to rust.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If we stay in Iraq, can we kill enough people that the remainder will stop hating us? How many members of an Iraqi family must you arrest or kill before the remainder no longer hates you?

We are creating a country of people who hate our guts. Not because of religious differences, but because we are torturing and killing them. You think that is going to lead to more or less support for Al Qaeda the next time they plan a 9/11?

Tis true....however can we suffer the attacks that will occur in the USA if we pull out? We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....it got us 9/11. Shall we continue to allow ourselves to be bullied into the corner by a few...radicals. We should be out there hunting them down. Death is the only end that some will understand. The only difference that we can make is where they meet their maker. I dont want to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of american civilians. Which is likely to happen.

which goes back to my initial question; what is the value of the lives of your loved ones? How many people are we willing to kill to insure that they remain safe?

Quote

Tis true....however can we suffer the attacks that will occur in the USA if we pull out?

If, Tis true, then why the contradiction? The longer we are there, the more likely there will be attacks before or after the time we are there. Can't you understand that the longer we stir the pot, the potent the brew?

A guy like you who is prone to defend his family or avenge some SOB doing harm to them can surely understand the position of an Iraqi citizen who has his family blown away by some broad attack where we kill them while clearing a villiage. They become more resolute and ruthless when they have nothing to live for. I can't see how you don't understand that position; your mental process and that of the guy who just had his family killed by some US attack are parallel.

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....it got us 9/11.

Actually 9/11 has been brewing for a long time. It intensified when Bush 1 forced Iraq out of Kuwait in the Gulf War and OBL asked Saudi to let him handle the mission and Saudi refused, leading to the revocation of OBL's passport to Saudi and him swearing to kill America. So when/where have we tried to live/let live thing?

Quote

I dont want to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of american civilians. Which is likely to happen.

It will be more likely to happen if we continue this war thing, ya think? We can't run the fight out of these people, just be diplomatic. Ultimately we can't defend Israel the way we do and expect to stay out of it.

Quote

which goes back to my initial question; what is the value of the lives of your loved ones? How many people are we willing to kill to insure that they remain safe?

You're staying with the premise that more war = less terrorism. The opposite is likely true and will pan out in future years.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>The point is that you never know in situations like this.

Then others should respect or fear you; don't let them think they may succeed, or they may try. As you can see I think the analogy between personal defense and what this country should do to defend itself falls apart pretty quickly.

>There weren't many americans objecting to our decision to enter WWII, after Pearl Harbor.

And it was a political decision as well to not enter that war earlier; millions had been put at risk ... Japan invaded China in 1937, Poland happened in 1939 ... our first overtly offensive move was in 1942, and though moving in the right direction, industry didn't really ramp up until after Dec 7th, years after the war overseas started. Politically untenable before December 7th, yes, but our tardy decision to enter that war cost MILLIONS of people their lives.

With that logic we would always be at war with someone. There is currently war going on somewhere, so if we are there in tehir business we will always be involved.

So you're saying WWII was mishandled? Could it be that it was handled by a Dme so it must be poorly handled?

[mnealtx 0]

Two questions for you:

1. How many times were U.S. troops or facilities attacked, pre- 9/11?

2. How many of those attacks were answered by U.S. military force?

That is the history being discussed in this thread.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Yea, we're victims. All of our medling in Israel and even going back to the 1947ish Palastinian War weren't our efforts, no. We are always right and never offend, huh? We just take it and take it until we can't take in no mo.

Instead of looking at this through the eyes of an American, look at this thriugh the eyes of the world and you might have another conclusion.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Yea, we're victims. All of our medling in Israel and even going back to the 1947ish Palastinian War weren't our efforts, no. We are always right and never offend, huh? We just take it and take it until we can't take in no mo.

Instead of looking at this through the eyes of an American, look at this thriugh the eyes of the world and you might have another conclusion.

Don't put words in my mouth. Dispute my words, not your fantasies of what you THINK I said.

Can you dispute the fact that we have been physically attacked over and over without a substantial response?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[MrBounce 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Yea, we're victims. All of our medling in Israel and even going back to the 1947ish Palastinian War weren't our efforts, no. We are always right and never offend, huh? We just take it and take it until we can't take in no mo.

Instead of looking at this through the eyes of an American, look at this thriugh the eyes of the world and you might have another conclusion.

Don't put words in my mouth. Dispute my words, not your fantasies of what you THINK I said.

Can you dispute the fact that we have been physically attacked over and over without a substantial response?

The point is that the reason you were attacked is because of US actions and policies. You can't just state that you were attacked for no reason and that you've been letting it go by, when in fact you've been provoking the attack in the first place.

Gavin

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. If you don't take it out and use it, its going to rust.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The point is that the reason you were attacked is because of US actions and policies. You can't just state that you were attacked for no reason and that you've been letting it go by, when in fact you've been provoking the attack in the first place.

First, show me where I've said we were attacked for no reason - good luck finding it, however. What I said (and I'll repeat it since you didn't get it) is that we were physically attacked by terrorists over and over and made no substantial response.

"Well, Your Honor, she was walking down the street in that low cut blouse and miniskirt...she was asking for it!"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[outrager 6]

Quote

I wanted to be in harms way if it means that my family might be a little safer at home.

I think you are more than a little misguided and brainwashed. This war makes your family less safe.

bsbd!

Yuri.

[MrBounce 0]

Quote

Quote

The point is that the reason you were attacked is because of US actions and policies. You can't just state that you were attacked for no reason and that you've been letting it go by, when in fact you've been provoking the attack in the first place.

First, show me where I've said we were attacked for no reason - good luck finding it, however. What I said (and I'll repeat it since you didn't get it) is that we were physically attacked by terrorists over and over and made no substantial response.

OK. You joined in on JKM2500's comment about america following a "live and let live" policy. I see now that you are interpreting that comment to mean that you've taken no action against terrorist attacks pre-Sept 11. I took in it the larger context of all US actions in the Middle East in recent history.


Fair enough, yes, you took no immediate military action over the embassy bombings and USS Cole, but I still disagree that that constitutes a "live and let live" policy. The US has always intereferred in the Middle East whether diplomatically, economically or covertly. These actions are a matter of record. I also wouldn't be surprised if actions were taken over those incidents that aren't a matter of record. It seems extremely unlikely that the US would no action at all over an attack against its troops or interests.

Gavin

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. If you don't take it out and use it, its going to rust.

[mnealtx 0]

Glad we got that straight.
As for political policy in the Middle East, I think it's safe to say that most of the world are "in the game" there...wouldn't you?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

With 9-11, we were attacked by an organization (and I use that term loosely), not a country. There was no real, clear enemy, which is why many people have a problem with this war. We're not sure if we're "pre-emptively striking" the wrong people.

We aren't? I thought the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that we ARE striking the wrong people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

We aren't? I thought the overwhwelming preponderance of evidence is that we ARE striking the wrong people.

i'm of the opinion that EVERYBODY knows the wrong people are being attacked.

Some feel that attacking the wrong people is wrong.

The rest feel that attacking ANYONE is a whole lot of fun.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Yea, we're victims. All of our medling in Israel and even going back to the 1947ish Palastinian War weren't our efforts, no. We are always right and never offend, huh? We just take it and take it until we can't take in no mo.

Instead of looking at this through the eyes of an American, look at this thriugh the eyes of the world and you might have another conclusion.

Don't put words in my mouth. Dispute my words, not your fantasies of what you THINK I said.

Can you dispute the fact that we have been physically attacked over and over without a substantial response?

Which words did I transpose - make your argument. I didn't misquote/misstate you, explain how I did.

As for attacked without a substantial response, I think we have been engaged in this constant trading of barbs for centuries, but especially since post WWII with the Palestinian war that established Israel and the Gaza Strip.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Glad we got that straight.
As for political policy in the Middle East, I think it's safe to say that most of the world are "in the game" there...wouldn't you?

Yes, therefore we can't complain about 9/11 or any other attacks we suffer on US soil or otherwise. You said it, we are in the game so quit whining when you get scored upon. There is an option, GET OUT OF THE GAME. If we left the Middle East we would be considered to be out of the game and the various countries of the ME would go back to killing each other.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Glad we got that straight.
As for political policy in the Middle East, I think it's safe to say that most of the world are "in the game" there...wouldn't you?

Yes, therefore we can't complain about 9/11 or any other attacks we suffer on US soil or otherwise. You said it, we are in the game so quit whining when you get scored upon. There is an option, GET OUT OF THE GAME. If we left the Middle East we would be considered to be out of the game and the various countries of the ME would go back to killing each other.

We DESERVE to be attacked because of foreign policy? To make the analogy again, that's like saying a woman "deserves" to be raped because she wore a low cut blouse and a short skirt to a bar.

You wouldn't happen to be a member of Mr. Phelp's church, would you? The logic seems much the same...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Glad we got that straight.
As for political policy in the Middle East, I think it's safe to say that most of the world are "in the game" there...wouldn't you?

Yes, therefore we can't complain about 9/11 or any other attacks we suffer on US soil or otherwise. You said it, we are in the game so quit whining when you get scored upon. There is an option, GET OUT OF THE GAME. If we left the Middle East we would be considered to be out of the game and the various countries of the ME would go back to killing each other.

We DESERVE to be attacked because of foreign policy? To make the analogy again, that's like saying a woman "deserves" to be raped because she wore a low cut blouse and a short skirt to a bar.

You wouldn't happen to be a member of Mr. Phelp's church, would you? The logic seems much the same...

Very poor analogy. A better analogy would be that a man deserves to be shot because he raped a woman wearing a low cut blouse. After all, the "west" has been raping the middle east for decades, because the middle east has oil.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Very poor analogy. A better analogy would be that a man deserves to be shot because he raped a woman wearing a low cut blouse. After all, the "west" has been raping the middle east for decades, because the middle east has oil.

I disagree... but then again, I'm not one of the "America is the cause of everything bad in the world" adherents.

Of course, the flip of Lucky's "we provoked it" statement would be that since Saddam threatened several times to destroy the United States, we were perfectly justified for going in and removing him and his party from power.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

After all, the "west" has been raping the middle east for decades, because the middle east has oil.

Yeah, the US made sure all those $$ Billions didn't filter down to the average Arab.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Very poor analogy. A better analogy would be that a man deserves to be shot because he raped a woman wearing a low cut blouse. After all, the "west" has been raping the middle east for decades, because the middle east has oil.

Your talking shuttlecocks and darts here. It's nonsense. The middle east doesn't wear low cut blouses. How does it relate at all?

And how can the 'west' be a mobile entity, while the 'middle east' here is just a region? Are you actually saying the middle east is stagnant? I think that's sad, the middle east is the birthplace of so much of the world's ancient learning and culture.....

I'm very much against your position that low cut blouses should be outlawed. I think they should be sold in volume and taxed heavily to pay for more education for airline union workers.

It's all very confusing.

Where are you going with this?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Very poor analogy. A better analogy would be that a man deserves to be shot because he raped a woman wearing a low cut blouse. After all, the "west" has been raping the middle east for decades, because the middle east has oil.

Your talking shuttlecocks and darts here. It's nonsense. The middle east doesn't wear low cut blouses. How does it relate at all?

And how can the 'west' be a mobile entity, while the 'middle east' here is just a region? Are you actually saying the middle east is stagnant? I think that's sad, the middle east is the birthplace of so much of the world's ancient learning and culture.....

I'm very much against your position that low cut blouses should be outlawed. I think they should be sold in volume and taxed heavily to pay for more education for airline union workers.

It's all very confusing.

Where are you going with this?

I don't wear low cut blouses. You?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't wear low cut blouses. You?

Does worn out count as "low cut" and t-shirt count as "blouse"?

If no, then I will agree with your proposal to tax low cut blouses. If it only affect someone else, then by all means tax away.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Donoff 0]

We are creating a country of people who hate our guts. Not because of religious differences, but because we are torturing and killing them. You think that is going to lead to more or less support for Al Qaeda the next time they plan a 9/11?

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....

That is not true. At least in the middle east.

Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Ummm, what version of history is being studied in your schools mate? The US has had a constant policy of interference in all areas of the middle and far east as a result of the cold war and its policy or resisting the spread of communism.

Deposing the Shah of Iran
Arming Iraq in the 70's & 80's
Covertly arming Iran too during the Iraq/Iran war
Arming the mudjahideen in Afghanistan
Troop deployments to Lebanon
Constant support for Israel
Troop deployment and training in Saudi Arabia
...
I could go on.

Mr Bounce

Congrats you have gotten to the root of the problem We're not taught history in school we're fed propaganda by the history books and the media. Some people belive it, some profit by it and others don't care.

We were brainwashed that the Viet nam war was necessary due to the domino theory. The terrorist threat is just a spin on the same bs excuse.

We are already repeating the mistreatment of some of our injured vets returning from the middle east just like we did with the vets for SEA.

Don't waste your breath trying to debate the issue in SC it's like trying to teach a pig how to sing.

If you try and teach a pig how to sing the only thing you will accomplish is to piss off the pig and get pig shit all over yourself

Very sad situation