Recommended Posts
Trent 0
QuoteThat is what the UN is for.
And their track record has proven them to be excellent at their job, right?
QuoteThe fact is, that our government over the years has overlooked the things that we claimed was going on in Iraq. Why didn't Regan go into Lybia? They were training terrorists there in the 80s. Why didn't anyone go after Pol Pot? 1-2 million dead people were not enough reasons? What about the Sudan now where there is strong proof of genocide happening as we speak.
Maybe its that our government overlooks things that aren't deemed to be a growing or immediate threat to us? Maybe? Reagan did bomb Libya in the 80's remember? They bombed his palace and his refineries. As for Pol Pot, do you think the same anti-war politicians and citizens would have supported another SE Asia war right after they got their way abandoning the S.Vietnamese? Please.... What about Sudan? We're busy in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, perhaps the beloved UN could handle that until we get there? Oh wait, their shuffling their feet and making recommendations right now... not DOING anything is policy.
QuoteIf we were to go by what GW says, and the altruistic reasons we are in Iraq and Afghan and to bring freedom and democracy to them by removing a madman....well, shouldn't we be helping out these countries as well?
One thing at a time. Like I said before, someone is deciding what crisis poses a greater threat to our way of life, now or in the future.
QuoteThe moment any innocent civilian is dead because of an act of agression, you are screwed. It doesn't matter who you are.
No one wants people to die... but they always will in a war. I understand that you don't like war, specifically THIS war, but us not protecting our perceived safety and interests is not the answer either.
Oh, hello again!
There was a coup attempt in Sudan over the weekend by an Al Queda organization. Seems to me letting Al Queda take control of an entire government is more threatening to us than anything else.
Trent 0
QuoteThere was a coup attempt in Sudan over the weekend by an Al Queda organization. Seems to me letting Al Queda take control of an entire government is more threatening to us than anything else.
Watch this:
There has been an ongoing coup attempt in Iraq over the last year by many Al Queda organizations. Seems to me letting Al Queda take control of an entire government is more threatening to us than anything else.
Go call the UN... quick... they'll have to talk about it for a year or 10 before they get around to helping Sudan without us.
Oh, hello again!
QuoteThere has been an ongoing coup attempt in Iraq over the last year by many Al Queda organizations. Seems to me letting Al Queda take control of an entire government is more threatening to us than anything else.
Agreed. Guess who made that possible.
The UN isn't perfect, and they are there to perserve the peace so we do not escalate into a world war again. Technically they are following that guidline. However, over the years politics has gotten worse at the table and thier actions are slower. The UN was also tossed into a very unstable world at its birth - things have never been perfect with them. And they are losing thier power and authority when the biggest supporter of democracy, America, is violating what the UN asks for. Remember how mad we were at the USSR, Lybia, China all during the 80s and we couldn't believe how they were going against the UN? Peace prevailed nonetheless via sanctions and mostly non-aggressive means.QuoteAnd their track record has proven them to be excellent at their job, right?
IIRC (I was a bit young), we only did one or two bombing runs and that was it. We know that he was hiding terrorists that were responsible for attacks across the world. But in the long run, he faded from power and eventually handed over those that caused the damage. Sanctions and removing outside support killed off his power. Just like it did in Cuba.QuoteReagan did bomb Libya in the 80's remember? They bombed his palace and his refineries.
QuoteAs for Pol Pot, do you think the same anti-war politicians and citizens would have supported another SE Asia war right after they got their way abandoning the S.Vietnamese?
Probably not.
Personally, I see Afghan and the Sudan more of a threat to us than Iraq was. AQ didn't strongly move into Iraq until after SH was gone. Now they are being smart on a strategic level...they are using our mistake/war to keep our attention and troops in Iraq while they strengthen their forces elsewhere. OBL is still alive and sitting in Pakastan as of the reports that came out this morning, and the Sudan had an attack by AQ trying to take over the government. AQ will be able to grow and regroup because of GW's personal war with SH. Now, if we hadn't pissed the rest of the world off with - they might be willing to back us up in Sudan. If we had waited, we wouldn't be so spread thin while the real threats grow in other corners of the world.QuotePlease.... What about Sudan? We're busy in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, perhaps the beloved UN could handle that until we get there?
QuoteNo one wants people to die... but they always will in a war. I understand that you don't like war, specifically THIS war, but us not protecting our perceived safety and interests is not the answer either.
No, I don't like war, and hopefully no one does . I don't have all the answers on this, and eventually we do need to protect ourselves...however I feel that the decisions made have put us at more risk.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
gemini 0
I never used the term "patriotic propriety". I believe in using the system to make changes. Some believe that changes only come from "revolutionary" tacticts.
I agree with you that soldiers do not live in the same world that civilians do, but neither do they live outside that civilian world because many are not career soldiers, and almost all have family and friends that do in some manner influence them.
Again, I am not against free speech and the changing of the government if enough of the people want the change to be made. However I object to the media portraying a very vocal minority as being the will of the people, repeated displays of screaming morons who think anything the US does is wrong, and the destruction of private property.
For example, this public discussion is a valid exercise of our right of free speech and I will fight anyone who tries to take this right away from us. But once you step in the street and harm someone else or infringe on their rights, you are on your own.
For the record, I do not think saying "the war in Iraq is wrong" is aiding and abetting in itself. What would be wrong would be to participate in a "peace" march where someone in opposition is beaten to a bloody pulp.
Again I truly support free speech and the exercise of the rights given to us by the Constitution. I do not support terror, lies, propaganda, riots, or political correctness in the quise of free speech.
Blue skies,
Jim
I agree with you that soldiers do not live in the same world that civilians do, but neither do they live outside that civilian world because many are not career soldiers, and almost all have family and friends that do in some manner influence them.
Again, I am not against free speech and the changing of the government if enough of the people want the change to be made. However I object to the media portraying a very vocal minority as being the will of the people, repeated displays of screaming morons who think anything the US does is wrong, and the destruction of private property.
For example, this public discussion is a valid exercise of our right of free speech and I will fight anyone who tries to take this right away from us. But once you step in the street and harm someone else or infringe on their rights, you are on your own.
For the record, I do not think saying "the war in Iraq is wrong" is aiding and abetting in itself. What would be wrong would be to participate in a "peace" march where someone in opposition is beaten to a bloody pulp.
Again I truly support free speech and the exercise of the rights given to us by the Constitution. I do not support terror, lies, propaganda, riots, or political correctness in the quise of free speech.
Blue skies,
Jim
gemini 0
At least we agree on a few things.
And all I said was fine, get enough votes to change it.
And again there is no misunderstanding. I do not think our system is government is worng. I think the people in power are right.
Blue skies,
Jim
QuoteUnfortunately, we usually don't get to vote on a war. And again, public discourse is an established and legitimate means. In fact one of the only means available to us.
And all I said was fine, get enough votes to change it.
QuoteAgain, you're misunderstanding. I don't think our system of government is wrong. I think the people currently in power are.
And again there is no misunderstanding. I do not think our system is government is worng. I think the people in power are right.
Blue skies,
Jim
I don't disagree with you but I don't do those things so I'm not sure what your point is.
I still wonder how publicly opposing the war helps them achieve their goals.
Unfortunately, we usually don't get to vote on a war. And again, public discourse is an established and legitimate means. In fact one of the only means available to us.
Again, you're misunderstanding. I don't think our system of government is wrong. I think the people currently in power are.
I wish that were true. But it seems that these days it is whoever comes up with the loudest, catchiest, phrases are the ones that win. People seem to ignore the meaning of a message in favor of the emotions it invokes.
For example, I say the war is wrong and you interpret that to mean that I oppose the troops and don't appreciate their sacrifice. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites