Yeah, but did you know that enlistment rates are up and reenlistment rates are way up in the US? So what is your point?
I'll try to get over that little last bit about Naples and his refusal to let the last word go to someone else and say:
"What is my point?
can you read??
The supposed 'liberation' is by no means a "mission accomplished' . . .the people are living under threat of constant and immediate violence
and, more importantly, the idea that we would somehow be attacking 'evildoers' rather than creating more people willing to sign up for terrorism against the invading infidels is self-evidently wrong
The world is not safer now . . .
and just in case you didn't get this last part, I'll repeat it and ask you to read it as written:
[and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah]
and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah]
and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah]
and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah]
and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah
repeat as many times as there are American Soldiers who have been killed in Iraq!
pflam you seem to be a pretty level headed guy, so I will ask that we focus on just your last post for a little bit but in this light:
We need to examine if the rate of death among the soldiers there is greater or less then other important efforts that the US has taken on:
For example:
1. The war on drugs.
2. The war on drunk driving.
3. The war on crime.
I don't know what the figures are for these so maybe we could research and compare.
And how long have we been doing each of these things? Are we winning in each aspect? Are each of these things worth it?
Are there any people crying over death related to these?
A lot of the deaths and injuries resulting from these things are just accepted and taken for granted. Ever heard of murder in LA or NY? Ever pay attention?
Now when we get these figures, shouldn't we be just as worked up about them?
pflam you seem to be a pretty level headed guy, so I will ask that we focus on just your last post for a little bit but in this light:
We need to examine if the rate of death among the soldiers there is greater or less then other important efforts that the US has taken on:
For example:
1. The war on drugs.
2. The war on drunk driving.
3. The war on crime.
I don't know what the figures are for these so maybe we could research and compare.
And how long have we been doing each of these things? Are we winning in each aspect? Are each of these things worth it?
Are there any people crying over death related to these?
A lot of the deaths and injuries resulting from these things are just accepted and taken for granted. Ever heard of murder in LA or NY? Ever pay attention?
Now when we get these figures, shouldn't we be just as worked up about them?
But lets go beyond that, I know that SNL, the david letterman show, the tonight show, and many many others have poked at GWB and this admin. Were they wrong to do so? And did you think it was funny then?
Don't bother answering those are questions to answer to yourself, because I am not sure there is any way to verify any response.
No kidding, and the Madrid Bombings were a strong reminder. As each day goes by I worry we are closer and closer to another major attack. Let's just hope the Bush admin can do something right and make sure any terrorist attacks are stopped.
But by no stretch of the imagination are we safer right now because of the Iraq war.
You guys act like the short term threat of increasing tension between the US and groups like Al Qaeda is bad.
If they are to be dispatched, we must go after them. Going after them means they're going to fight back. Do you propose we not fight and instead try to appease them?
yeah, maybe AQ is pissed cause we went into Iraq. but who gives a shit if they get mad? They are terrorists. We don't tuck tail when we think a terrorist might get offended.
We must make ourselves "less safe" to defeat those who threaten our safety. It can't be done any other way.
Note: Before you blow an o-ring, this question is not posed within the context of "is invading Iraq a way to fight AQ or terrorism" So don't bust a nut screaming that Iraq isn't involved in terrorism at me. Because I agree with that.
You guys act like the short term threat of increasing tension between the US and groups like Al Qaeda is bad.
If they are to be dispatched, we must go after them. Going after them means they're going to fight back. Do you propose we not fight and instead try to appease them?
yeah, maybe AQ is pissed cause we went into Iraq. but who gives a shit if they get mad? They are terrorists. We don't tuck tail when we think a terrorist might get offended.
We must make ourselves "less safe" to defeat those who threaten our safety. It can't be done any other way.
Note: Before you blow an o-ring, this question is not posed within the context of "is invading Iraq a way to fight AQ or terrorism" So don't bust a nut screaming that Iraq isn't involved in terrorism at me. Because I agree with that.
So the last line of your post cancels out the rest.
I won't bust a nut, but I can't make out what you mean.
pflam you seem to be a pretty level headed guy, so I will ask that we focus on just your last post for a little bit but in this light:
We need to examine if the rate of death among the soldiers there is greater or less then other important efforts that the US has taken on:
For example:
1. The war on drugs.
2. The war on drunk driving.
3. The war on crime.
I don't know what the figures are for these so maybe we could research and compare.
And how long have we been doing each of these things? Are we winning in each aspect? Are each of these things worth it?
Are there any people crying over death related to these?
A lot of the deaths and injuries resulting from these things are just accepted and taken for granted. Ever heard of murder in LA or NY? Ever pay attention?
Now when we get these figures, shouldn't we be just as worked up about them?
Why do you try and derail this thread?
and the war on drugs has been a Calamity since its inception!!!!!!! . . .
It has thrown people in jail for over 20 years for having marijuana!!!!
that is utterly stupid and an utter waste of government money and resources
and it is not just a 'liberal' opinion to think that way . . . ask Mr God And Man At Yale . . . .(name excapes me now)
The ultimate goal of battling terrorism is to make us safer. But by attacking an enemy, we can expect to be attacked as well.
Does this make us less safe? Yes.
Does that mean we can't reach our goal? No.
Agreed.
My point of confusion is your agreement that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.
So are you just saying, sort of hypothetically, that fighting terrorism may lead to localized increases in danger but that is no reason not to prosecute that war?
Because that is reasonable, but saying so in the midst of a discussion of the relative merits of being in Iraq pace the WOT is confusing, your disclaimer not withstanding.
So are you just saying, sort of hypothetically, that fighting terrorism may lead to localized increases in danger but that is no reason not to prosecute that war?
yes.
Quote:
Because that is reasonable, but saying so in the midst of a discussion of the relative merits of being in Iraq pace the WOT is confusing, your disclaimer not withstanding.
that's why i made the disclaimer. my comments were in regards to the many "we're less safe now" comments that have appeared in this thread and others. the reason i chose to put that disclaimer was because I wasn't trying to make the claim that fighting terrorism ties into the war with Iraq, because I do not agree with that idea.
The ultimate goal of battling terrorism is to make us safer. But by attacking an enemy, we can expect to be attacked as well.
Does this make us less safe? Yes.
Does that mean we can't reach our goal? No.
That is a basic point of departure . . . what then do you do with that knowledge . . . also knowing that to win in such a war you must eventually dwindle the population of the "evildoers"
You would probably think that it is best to both kill them and to irradicate the ideological breeding ground which spawns them
'Spawning grounds' in this case means the intellectual environment of enmity towards the US and anything American
The latter ('The Spawning ground campaign'), would, IMO, wisely been done through aggressive diplomatic means including targetted marketing strategies etc . . . not visible force.
The former (getting the 'Evildoers') would be done in such a way as to not collapse the possibility that the 'Spawning ground Campaign' method of the WOT could succeed . .
If it does not succeed then more people would gladly find that the terrorists are right in all of their characterizations of the US . . .
Such would be a failure of the 'Spawning Ground campaign': people would start to sympathize with the Islamists . . . more would sign up . .. prolonging the WOT
One of the best ways that we could fail in that part of the campaign is to do exactly what the Islamists say that we want to do: invade a country in the Middle-East and set up shop . . .with corporations and soldiers.
. . . guess what happened. . . first we invaded Afghanistan . .. but that was understandable and even Islamic countries supported that, I sure did,
but then we invaded an oil-rich country under what appears to be false pretenses . . . just as the Islamists said we wouild do . . .
(Im not saying oil has anything to do with it . . . but it looks like it in the eyes of the Islamists)
That is a failure in the battle . . . that is bad strategy . . . that is being blinded by an ideologically driven agenda that refuses to take into account the difficulty of the war . . . that is one thing that Clarke has been saying
That is more than just "we can expect to be attacked as well." That is we can expect to have the ranks of the "evildoers" swelling because we are fighting a tragically bad WOT.
You guys act like the short term threat of increasing tension between the US and groups like Al Qaeda is bad.
If we could actually trust our government to fight this form of islamic terrorism, then it would be acceptable. But we can't so it isn't
Quote:
If they are to be dispatched, we must go after them. Going after them means they're going to fight back. Do you propose we not fight and instead try to appease them?
It's not a black and white issue.
I think it's a massive mistake to believe we can stop this kind of terrorism with military force. It may be the biggest mistake this country ever faces. While we are fighting to prevent terrorist attacks from islamic militants, we should be doing everything in our power to empower their societies and work to eliminate them from within.
I don't see this happening and, as such, feel we are being made less safe without any hope for resolution.
that's why i made the disclaimer. my comments were in regards to the many "we're less safe now" comments that have appeared in this thread and others. the reason i chose to put that disclaimer was because I wasn't trying to make the claim that fighting terrorism ties into the war with Iraq, because I do not agree with that idea.
Yeah, but I don't think you can decouple the "we're less safe now" remarks from the context of Iraq, since this particular loss of safety comes with no up side, as you seem to agree.
I didn't hear much of this kind of talk in re Afghanistan, so I don't think the issue lies in a general reluctance to "stir them up", but rather an assurance that such a course of action is fully justified by the results.
I think it's a massive mistake to believe we can stop this kind of terrorism with military force. It may be the biggest mistake this country ever faces. While we are fighting to prevent terrorist attacks from islamic militants, we should be doing everything in our power to empower their societies and work to eliminate them from within.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. But surely you don't think that Al Qaeda or whoever would not see us making efforts to do things such as this and sit idly by. We would still get attacked in retaliation.
Yeah, but I don't think you can decouple the "we're less safe now" remarks from the context of Iraq, since this particular loss of safety comes with no up side, as you seem to agree.
Well I disagree with the assumption that I see no upside to the war with Iraq. What I don't see is how it in any way has to do with the WOT.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. But surely you don't think that Al Qaeda or whoever would not see us making efforts to do things such as this and sit idly by. We would still get attacked in retaliation.
No kidding
nobody here is saying tht we can appease these violent freaks
I am saying that we should fight a smart war
otherwise we risk swelling their ranks. . . . especially when we do things they say we truly want to do, under apparently false motivations, and things that result in our apparent appropriation of huge amounts of "islamic" resources . .
bad fighting plays right into their hands . . and has done so
Well I disagree with the assumption that I see no upside to the war with Iraq. What I don't see is how it in any way has to do with the WOT.
But that was its justification
so you are agreeing with the statement that the war with Iraq was motivated by reasons other than those presented to the American people and the world?!?!
Comments
Originally posted by rageous
I get it now. Jim's trying to be comical.
Excuse me?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Please explain to me what my profile tells you? I am not sure that I see what you are trying to point out.
Seriously, help me understand what you're talking about.
Read the rest of the post.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Yeah, but did you know that enlistment rates are up and reenlistment rates are way up in the US? So what is your point?
I'll try to get over that little last bit about Naples and his refusal to let the last word go to someone else and say:
"What is my point?
can you read??
The supposed 'liberation' is by no means a "mission accomplished' . . .the people are living under threat of constant and immediate violence
and, more importantly, the idea that we would somehow be attacking 'evildoers' rather than creating more people willing to sign up for terrorism against the invading infidels is self-evidently wrong
The world is not safer now . . .
and just in case you didn't get this last part, I'll repeat it and ask you to read it as written:
[and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah]
and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah]
and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah]
and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah]
and oh yeah . . . isn't it all so funny . . . your son is dead . . . are those weapons under the table?!?! hahahahah
repeat as many times as there are American Soldiers who have been killed in Iraq!
We need to examine if the rate of death among the soldiers there is greater or less then other important efforts that the US has taken on:
For example:
1. The war on drugs.
2. The war on drunk driving.
3. The war on crime.
I don't know what the figures are for these so maybe we could research and compare.
And how long have we been doing each of these things? Are we winning in each aspect? Are each of these things worth it?
Are there any people crying over death related to these?
A lot of the deaths and injuries resulting from these things are just accepted and taken for granted. Ever heard of murder in LA or NY? Ever pay attention?
Now when we get these figures, shouldn't we be just as worked up about them?
Originally posted by NaplesX
pflam you seem to be a pretty level headed guy, so I will ask that we focus on just your last post for a little bit but in this light:
We need to examine if the rate of death among the soldiers there is greater or less then other important efforts that the US has taken on:
For example:
1. The war on drugs.
2. The war on drunk driving.
3. The war on crime.
I don't know what the figures are for these so maybe we could research and compare.
And how long have we been doing each of these things? Are we winning in each aspect? Are each of these things worth it?
Are there any people crying over death related to these?
A lot of the deaths and injuries resulting from these things are just accepted and taken for granted. Ever heard of murder in LA or NY? Ever pay attention?
Now when we get these figures, shouldn't we be just as worked up about them?
So is Bush at a dinner joking about them?
Originally posted by jimmac
So is Bush at a dinner joking about them?
If he was would you be offended?
But lets go beyond that, I know that SNL, the david letterman show, the tonight show, and many many others have poked at GWB and this admin. Were they wrong to do so? And did you think it was funny then?
Don't bother answering those are questions to answer to yourself, because I am not sure there is any way to verify any response.
Just a thought though.
Originally posted by pfflam
The world is not safer now . . .
No kidding, and the Madrid Bombings were a strong reminder. As each day goes by I worry we are closer and closer to another major attack. Let's just hope the Bush admin can do something right and make sure any terrorist attacks are stopped.
But by no stretch of the imagination are we safer right now because of the Iraq war.
If they are to be dispatched, we must go after them. Going after them means they're going to fight back. Do you propose we not fight and instead try to appease them?
yeah, maybe AQ is pissed cause we went into Iraq. but who gives a shit if they get mad? They are terrorists. We don't tuck tail when we think a terrorist might get offended.
We must make ourselves "less safe" to defeat those who threaten our safety. It can't be done any other way.
Note: Before you blow an o-ring, this question is not posed within the context of "is invading Iraq a way to fight AQ or terrorism" So don't bust a nut screaming that Iraq isn't involved in terrorism at me. Because I agree with that.
Originally posted by rageous
You guys act like the short term threat of increasing tension between the US and groups like Al Qaeda is bad.
If they are to be dispatched, we must go after them. Going after them means they're going to fight back. Do you propose we not fight and instead try to appease them?
yeah, maybe AQ is pissed cause we went into Iraq. but who gives a shit if they get mad? They are terrorists. We don't tuck tail when we think a terrorist might get offended.
We must make ourselves "less safe" to defeat those who threaten our safety. It can't be done any other way.
Note: Before you blow an o-ring, this question is not posed within the context of "is invading Iraq a way to fight AQ or terrorism" So don't bust a nut screaming that Iraq isn't involved in terrorism at me. Because I agree with that.
So the last line of your post cancels out the rest.
I won't bust a nut, but I can't make out what you mean.
The ultimate goal of battling terrorism is to make us safer. But by attacking an enemy, we can expect to be attacked as well.
Does this make us less safe? Yes.
Does that mean we can't reach our goal? No.
Originally posted by NaplesX
pflam you seem to be a pretty level headed guy, so I will ask that we focus on just your last post for a little bit but in this light:
We need to examine if the rate of death among the soldiers there is greater or less then other important efforts that the US has taken on:
For example:
1. The war on drugs.
2. The war on drunk driving.
3. The war on crime.
I don't know what the figures are for these so maybe we could research and compare.
And how long have we been doing each of these things? Are we winning in each aspect? Are each of these things worth it?
Are there any people crying over death related to these?
A lot of the deaths and injuries resulting from these things are just accepted and taken for granted. Ever heard of murder in LA or NY? Ever pay attention?
Now when we get these figures, shouldn't we be just as worked up about them?
Why do you try and derail this thread?
and the war on drugs has been a Calamity since its inception!!!!!!! . . .
It has thrown people in jail for over 20 years for having marijuana!!!!
that is utterly stupid and an utter waste of government money and resources
and it is not just a 'liberal' opinion to think that way . . . ask Mr God And Man At Yale . . . .(name excapes me now)
Originally posted by rageous
Then let me be more concise.
The ultimate goal of battling terrorism is to make us safer. But by attacking an enemy, we can expect to be attacked as well.
Does this make us less safe? Yes.
Does that mean we can't reach our goal? No.
Agreed.
My point of confusion is your agreement that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.
So are you just saying, sort of hypothetically, that fighting terrorism may lead to localized increases in danger but that is no reason not to prosecute that war?
Because that is reasonable, but saying so in the midst of a discussion of the relative merits of being in Iraq pace the WOT is confusing, your disclaimer not withstanding.
Originally posted by addabox
So are you just saying, sort of hypothetically, that fighting terrorism may lead to localized increases in danger but that is no reason not to prosecute that war?
yes.
Quote:
Because that is reasonable, but saying so in the midst of a discussion of the relative merits of being in Iraq pace the WOT is confusing, your disclaimer not withstanding.
that's why i made the disclaimer. my comments were in regards to the many "we're less safe now" comments that have appeared in this thread and others. the reason i chose to put that disclaimer was because I wasn't trying to make the claim that fighting terrorism ties into the war with Iraq, because I do not agree with that idea.
Originally posted by rageous
Then let me be more concise.
The ultimate goal of battling terrorism is to make us safer. But by attacking an enemy, we can expect to be attacked as well.
Does this make us less safe? Yes.
Does that mean we can't reach our goal? No.
That is a basic point of departure . . . what then do you do with that knowledge . . . also knowing that to win in such a war you must eventually dwindle the population of the "evildoers"
You would probably think that it is best to both kill them and to irradicate the ideological breeding ground which spawns them
'Spawning grounds' in this case means the intellectual environment of enmity towards the US and anything American
The latter ('The Spawning ground campaign'), would, IMO, wisely been done through aggressive diplomatic means including targetted marketing strategies etc . . . not visible force.
The former (getting the 'Evildoers') would be done in such a way as to not collapse the possibility that the 'Spawning ground Campaign' method of the WOT could succeed . .
If it does not succeed then more people would gladly find that the terrorists are right in all of their characterizations of the US . . .
Such would be a failure of the 'Spawning Ground campaign': people would start to sympathize with the Islamists . . . more would sign up . .. prolonging the WOT
One of the best ways that we could fail in that part of the campaign is to do exactly what the Islamists say that we want to do: invade a country in the Middle-East and set up shop . . .with corporations and soldiers.
. . . guess what happened. . . first we invaded Afghanistan . .. but that was understandable and even Islamic countries supported that, I sure did,
but then we invaded an oil-rich country under what appears to be false pretenses . . . just as the Islamists said we wouild do . . .
(Im not saying oil has anything to do with it . . . but it looks like it in the eyes of the Islamists)
That is a failure in the battle . . . that is bad strategy . . . that is being blinded by an ideologically driven agenda that refuses to take into account the difficulty of the war . . . that is one thing that Clarke has been saying
That is more than just "we can expect to be attacked as well." That is we can expect to have the ranks of the "evildoers" swelling because we are fighting a tragically bad WOT.
Originally posted by rageous
You guys act like the short term threat of increasing tension between the US and groups like Al Qaeda is bad.
If we could actually trust our government to fight this form of islamic terrorism, then it would be acceptable. But we can't so it isn't
If they are to be dispatched, we must go after them. Going after them means they're going to fight back. Do you propose we not fight and instead try to appease them?
It's not a black and white issue.
I think it's a massive mistake to believe we can stop this kind of terrorism with military force. It may be the biggest mistake this country ever faces. While we are fighting to prevent terrorist attacks from islamic militants, we should be doing everything in our power to empower their societies and work to eliminate them from within.
I don't see this happening and, as such, feel we are being made less safe without any hope for resolution.
Originally posted by rageous
[B]yes.
that's why i made the disclaimer. my comments were in regards to the many "we're less safe now" comments that have appeared in this thread and others. the reason i chose to put that disclaimer was because I wasn't trying to make the claim that fighting terrorism ties into the war with Iraq, because I do not agree with that idea.
Yeah, but I don't think you can decouple the "we're less safe now" remarks from the context of Iraq, since this particular loss of safety comes with no up side, as you seem to agree.
I didn't hear much of this kind of talk in re Afghanistan, so I don't think the issue lies in a general reluctance to "stir them up", but rather an assurance that such a course of action is fully justified by the results.
Originally posted by giant
I think it's a massive mistake to believe we can stop this kind of terrorism with military force. It may be the biggest mistake this country ever faces. While we are fighting to prevent terrorist attacks from islamic militants, we should be doing everything in our power to empower their societies and work to eliminate them from within.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. But surely you don't think that Al Qaeda or whoever would not see us making efforts to do things such as this and sit idly by. We would still get attacked in retaliation.
Originally posted by addabox
Yeah, but I don't think you can decouple the "we're less safe now" remarks from the context of Iraq, since this particular loss of safety comes with no up side, as you seem to agree.
Well I disagree with the assumption that I see no upside to the war with Iraq. What I don't see is how it in any way has to do with the WOT.
Originally posted by rageous
I wholeheartedly agree with this. But surely you don't think that Al Qaeda or whoever would not see us making efforts to do things such as this and sit idly by. We would still get attacked in retaliation.
No kidding
nobody here is saying tht we can appease these violent freaks
I am saying that we should fight a smart war
otherwise we risk swelling their ranks. . . . especially when we do things they say we truly want to do, under apparently false motivations, and things that result in our apparent appropriation of huge amounts of "islamic" resources . .
bad fighting plays right into their hands . . and has done so
Originally posted by rageous
Well I disagree with the assumption that I see no upside to the war with Iraq. What I don't see is how it in any way has to do with the WOT.
But that was its justification
so you are agreeing with the statement that the war with Iraq was motivated by reasons other than those presented to the American people and the world?!?!