One step at a time
Printable View
One step at a time
Why not just stay in Iraq and let the rest of them come to us? It's been working pretty well so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
For you maybe... Some people who've been attacked since might disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I don't buy the whole 'fight the terrorists overthere' line, especially because it was only thought up when things turned not to be so rose-colored.
One thing we cannot do is let terrorists dictate our policy.Quote:
For you maybe... Some people who've been attacked since might disagree.
It may seem that way to you over there, but over here we were always told that was one of the reasons for going into Iraq.Quote:
I don't buy the whole 'fight the terrorists overthere' line, especially because it was only thought up when things turned not to be so rose-colored
I didn't say that, just suggested that it hasn't worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Well, it does seem like that to me. At least it is not the argument that was used to persuade foreign lands such as mine to support the war, be it politically or military.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I am over here, and I was never told that....oh wait, I don't listen to Fox news. I do remember the study that showed that the majority of Fox viewers believed there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 even after Bush had gone on the air to state explicitly that there was not. Is that what you mean when you say it was always one of the reasons?
As for fighting them over there, it is not actually working, but you have to look into history to see why.
The terrorists are not actually a bunch of people. They may look like they are, but we have taken out any number of people, and the terrorists are still there. That is because the organization can exist without any one or several of its parts.
To destroy the ant hill of terrorism, it is not sufficient to kill an ant or two. You must remove the source of its growth and sustenance.
The sustenance is the view of the people who fund the organization, and the view of the people who directly or indirectly recruit for the organization. If a leader speaks of the organization in a positive way, even if they are neither associated with the organization, nor a recruiter, then a person in the audience will receive a favorable impression of the organization. Thus if a mullah speaks of al-whatever without calling it a bad thing, he instills a positive view in the mind of a willing listener. That listener might then be more inclined to donate time, money, or their life to al-Q.
So as to the war: We will lose!
That's hardly surprising, nobody has ever come even close to winning a war of this type. That's largely because winning has no definition in this type of war. You are reaching for some endpoint, but the endpoint has no firm measurement. We are having a hard time even figuring out what our actual objectives are. Sure, some feel that killing terrorists is the objective, but it isn't. We have not sent out a single suicide bomber of our own. Therefore, we have other objectives, and other guidelines that limit the ways we can meet any stated objective. A few points:
1) We can't sustain what we are doing currently forever. We might continue for a year, or a decade, but not forever.
2) Whenever we leave, if Al-Q is still bombing ANYBODY in Iraq, they will be able to claim victory. What we say at that point will make no difference to the audience al-q is targeting.
Therefore, for the organization al-q, it is only necessary to remain in existence. When we tire of this and quit the field, they can claim victory, and this claim will be believable to that audience from which they derive sustenance.
The net result of Iraq will be a stronger and more dangerous al-q. There will be some dead ants, but the ant hill will be larger and stronger than ever.
This is failure.
Do you all ever get tired of repeating yourselves - we were all in a thread two weeks ago that was just like this.
Seems a silly waste of time. I've seen all these same arguments - I think we all know each others position!
People on the left will never agree with people on the right.
It's up to politicians to forge a common "action-plan" out of uncommon points-of-view.
The overly left-thinking countries will be all out against the "action-plans" that appear right-ist to them. They will call us extremists - and liars - and abusers of power. So be it - either it will be clear 10 years from now that this was all a good idea or we will all be dead.
I could start making stabs are debating issues in this thread - but it's all been said before.
I would just like to point out that your closest ally(Brittain) has reelected for the third time a government from the left. Also, a country that opposed the war: France has a conservative government.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Left and right were terms I chose to simply make my sentences - they are so relative to each country and each persons point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
We recently sentenced a nut to life in prison - a extreme-right Christian terrorist - who blew up doctors at abortion clinics - in the name of religion. He had no remorse at his sentencing - said he was doing good work in killing these doctors.
I consider myself a conservative (I'm sure some people are laughing right now) - but certainly not as conservative as that nut case.
Why do people believe that there is only one mold that you must fit in. I do not agree with all the "planks" in Bush's "party-platform". But I more agree with Bush's conservative view of smaller government control, his economic views and stuff like that.
I do believe that some kind of action needs to be occurring in the middle east. I'm far from privy to the kind of information that the governments use to decide where that action should occur.
So some of you think Iraq was a mistake. Maybe you think Afghanistan would have been a better choice - right? More al-Q in that country - right? Maybe some of you think that the real bad boys are the Saudis. Maybe Pakistan really is the evil power.
Are you ready to send your fellow citizens to a war in one of these countries based on your knowledge and opinions? That would be pretty arrogant of you. I know what I know - and it certainly isn't enough to make a decision at all - other then to support my leaders that they are not doing selfish acts, but attempting something with good at the end.
If you think we are acting selfishly, then that's fine. I can't imagine a motive for that myself.
Moral reasons? Irrelevant, since they are simply putting a facade on the arguments I just put forth - "oh - I'm better then you - do what I say instead". That's still arrogant.
By the way, I like your last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I do have a thought about this quote, though. There was a Nazi tank commander in WWII (when else, duh) called something like Jochen Pieper. He was tried and convicted after the war for various things (including the Malmedy massacre, I believe), and sentenced to a really long time in jail.
Eventually, he was released, and got back together with some of his old friends. Later, he was murdered, but that is pretty much irrelevant.
He was a nazi from start to finish. He never changed his beliefs, despite all that happened to him. After 10 years, it was not clear to him that Hitler was a bad idea.
I suspect that we are all like that. Some will change their minds about this and that, but if you don't like Bush now, you probably won't like him 10 years from now. If a policy seems wrong to you now, you can find calamities down the road that can be attributed to this.
An excellent example is MB blaming the recession at the end of the 90's on Clinton. Personally, I'm a strong believer in chaos theory, and saying a politician did something like that seems nuts. However, something did that. If I were to place the blame somewhere, I would place it squarely on the computer in front of me, but that's another story. We had the greatest period of economic growth in this century during the later years of the Clinton administration, but it is the economic downturn that began around the election at the end of that administration that he claims is the Clinton legacy.
What a nutcase, it was CLEARLY Ford's doing!!! Should never have let that bumbling bum into the White House!
No, there was a reason I attributed it to Bill Clinton. Startup companies were being taxed into non existance. Small startup technology providers that could have survived a market bubble burst didn't have the capital to bounce back. there starts the unemployment downward spiral. Tax the rich and feed the poor doesn't work. The rich are the ones who own the jobs and you better believe that they'll fire you or me before they take a hit to their own pocket. Al Gore(the idiot that he is) was more responsable for the economic growth than Clinton. Unleashing the information superhighway was his winning lottery ticket. Even the dumb get lucky sometimes.
actually there were several "polls" that claimed a majority of people regardless of where they got their news believed this link.Quote:
I am over here, and I was never told that....oh wait, I don't listen to Fox news. I do remember the study that showed that the majority of Fox viewers believed there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 even after Bush had gone on the air to state explicitly that there was not. Is that what you mean when you say it was always one of the reasons?
I am a news junkie. I don't rely on television for all my news. If, however, you just watched the evening news to get your info then I am not suprised that you are unfamiliar with the reasons we went to war. Fortunately for us the old dominant media: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, are no longer our only sources thanks to other outlets like Fox News, Radio and Blogs.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go get my marching orders from Rush Limbaugh:)
BTW I do not repeate myself, repeat myself, repeat myself...
I'm not sure that employment figures are a national phenomem (sp?). I believe it's more a state, maybe even a local, issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
The president likes to take credit for good unemployment figures - but it's not really in his control.
Clinton federal corp taxes didn't kill me as much as Connecticut corp taxes did.
Just for the record, I don't even own a TV. I get NO news from television sources, only from radio, print, and you folks :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Clinton did sell us to China.
Masterblaster i'm low on cash, you think i should sell these people a clue?
Dont quit your day-jobs.