[quote]orion wrote:
Am I a "anti-war peacenik loving america hater "? Me would like to know! [/quote]
I don’t know - I haven’t really paid that much attention to your posts to be honest.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Am I a "anti-war peacenik loving america hater "? Me would like to know!
I don’t know - I haven’t really paid that much attention to your posts to be honest. [/quote]
you could have read them! 10 minutes max!
[quote]vroom wrote:
If you’d rather simply cheerlead and wish death on some media defined enemy that hates you “because you are free” and go around the world storming into shithole country after shithole country, knock yourself out.
You’ll spend billions, bankrupt your country financially and morally, and end up with millions of people hating you. At that point you can simply nuke most of the planet and have the US as the only inhabitable place in the world… but you should be mostly safe at that point.
Wow, sounds like a plan. Does anyone have the number to the White House, I think I have a solution for Bush to try out.[/quote]
Media Defined Enemy? Give me a break. We will storm shithole after shithole country if they harbor and/or sponsor terrorists.
We won’t go bankrupt, we always have Canada to take over. Right?
Sifu,
What in hell are you talking about? There is no muslim country on this planet that has anything close to strategic parity with US military power.
I don’t think anyone has suggested the US should dismantle any of its armed forces. What some are trying to do is suggest that the US might want to try a different method besides all out military intervention. Because that really isn’t helping the situation, at least as far as ending terrorism. It’s really just fanning the flames of jihad. A lot of people in the world see the US as a heavy-handed bully, especially in Iraq and that actually helps pull people who might not otherwise go, into the ranks of Islamic terrorists.
Now, just for those who think I’m a bead wearing, commie-pinko, liberal peacenik (you know, rainjack, Jeffr, a few others), I served in the first Gulf War. I believe there are times when war is the appropriate solution to a problem. I also think that having a strong military is essential in the world as it is. The WOT is an unconventional war, so the use of a massive military ground force is kind of like using a 4x4 to swat a fly. Unfortunately the people in charge are not military men, but people like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and yes, GWB, who somehow managed to avoid their military service. To me that makes them cowards and completely unqualified to start or wage a war, especially one that is going to be as ongoing and complex as this one. Terrorists are more like guerrilla fighters than anything else. They work in small isolated groups, making use of technology, secrecy and ideology to achieve their ends. I think they should be brought to justice to answer for their crimes. I’ve read what Vroom and others, like johngullick, have said and I don’t get any suggestions regarding appeasement towards terrorists out of their writings. What I get is a suggestion to perhaps consider how the US’s foreign policy has contributed in someway to the problems we face as opposed to going straight to the “fuck muslims” rhetoric. We don’t live in a black and white world nor a vacuum. What we do can have and has had far-reaching repercussions.
I frankly feel pretty disgusted by any sort of fanaticism or fundamentalism, whether it’s moslem, christian, jewish or whatever. All fanatics and fundamentalists are a threat to liberty and justice, for they seek to force everyone to live by their particular set of rules/interpretations of law/scripture.
Feel free to flame, deride and or hurl insults at my intelligence.
WMD
wmd wrote:
“Unfortunately the people in charge are not military men, but people like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and yes, GWB, who somehow managed to avoid their military service. To me that makes them cowards and completely unqualified to start or wage a war, especially one that is going to be as ongoing and complex as this one.”
Ok. Quick question: Did you vote for bill clinton? If you didn’t who did you vote for in 1992/1996. Thanks.
Second, please send Rumsfeld an apology. He was a Navy fighter pilot. Deployed. He served honorably. It wasn’t his “fault” that there wasn’t a war on during his tour. Unless, of course, you are saying all military who don’t see combat are cowards.
Please indicate an apology.
Oh, W. flew fighters. Did you?
I’ll have to look up Wolfowitz. However, I noted that you left out Colin Powell. Interesting.
By the way, it’s hard to imagine that you served without knowing some of this information.
Even e-hater doesn’t make these sort of mistakes.
JeffR
Rockscar wrote:
“We won’t go bankrupt, we always have Canada to take over. Right?”
I love it!!!
Remember, we are “imperialists.”
Might as well get some free shit out of the bad press!!!
JeffR
Thanks JeffR for confirming my belief that one of you GOPs would drop a nasty.
I left Colin Powell out because he actually served his country. Do look up Wolfowitz, please. Bush senior fought, but not little W. He managed to avoid his tour in Vietnam. Sorry on Rummy, I meant to write Ashcroft. And Mr. Cheney found ways to be absent. However Rumsfeld still hasn’t been to war. And I do believe that actually fighting in a war, you know bullets whizzing past your head and watching friends get blown to bits will definitely affect one’s willingness to go to war without doing a lot of careful consideration.
And JeffR, hows about actually addressing some of the other points I made as opposed to defending the guys you voted for who are sending people into harms way without sufficient armor or ammunition or heck, even enough manpower to do the job and then considering opening up a couple of other fronts. I’ll send Rummy an apology for calling him a coward as soon as he apologizes for that.
No I didn’t fly jet fighters. I was in the Army Intel. Good enough for you?
What did you do?
I thought the election was over. Why is WMD still using the loser’s propaganda/campaign slogans?
I find it insulting that in the midst of the safest war ever fought in terms of american lives lost, the peaceniks are still cryinf about how dangerous it is. NEWSFLASH - War is a dangerous business. Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Pilots will die.
Before the bleeding hearts jump in here and accuse me of minimizing the lives that have been offered in the defense of our Nation - I’m not.
Would you have been against the Normandy Invasion? The Battle of Midway? Tens of thousands dead in a matter of hours, Paratroopers droppped miles from their LZ, under-equipped Marines mowed down like lambs at slaughter - would you have had the balls to stand up and do what needed to be done then?
Thank God you weren’t around then to spread your whiny assed BS - you would have been shot as a traitor.
[quote]WMD wrote:
I think they should be brought to justice to answer for their crimes. I’ve read what Vroom and others, like johngullick, have said and I don’t get any suggestions regarding appeasement towards terrorists out of their writings. What I get is a suggestion to perhaps consider how the US’s foreign policy has contributed in someway to the problems we face as opposed to going straight to the “fuck muslims” rhetoric. What we do can have and has had far-reaching repercussions.
I frankly feel pretty disgusted by any sort of fanaticism or fundamentalism, whether it’s moslem, christian, jewish or whatever. All fanatics and fundamentalists are a threat to liberty and justice, for they seek to force everyone to live by their particular set of rules/interpretations of law/scripture.
WMD[/quote]
I didn’t see any of the pro-war people saying ‘fuck muslims’.
You think the terrorists should be brought to justice, but somehow not through war?
How exactly has the US foreign policy contributed to the problems we face? Please enlighten me. Also how are we supposed to deal with these fanatics/fundamentalists if not through the use of force?
[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
…
I didn’t see any of the pro-war people saying ‘fuck muslims’.[/quote]
Unfortunately you do find these gems here in the threads occasionally. I must state clearly, that the pro Iraq war crowd normally abstains from abusive language such as this.
Makkun
[quote]**** Moderator Note****
The context of some of the posts, including that of an earlier post by Makkun, has changed due to the removal of a tasteless post that fits the description of the quote above. The post in no way added to the discussion at hand so it was removed. [/quote]
I believe the “pro-war” label is inaccuarate.
I am pro-liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Both countries have had free democratic elections for the first time in their history.
I want the war to be over. I want the bombs to stop going off and I want the shooting to stop today.
Does this make me “pro-war”?
I only see 3 sides to this.
People like myself are “pro-peace”.
The anti-Bush crowd that posts on this board appears “pro-appeasement”.
The Islamic extremist terrorists are “pro-war”. If they stopped murdering today would there still be a war?
wmd wrote:
Thanks JeffR for confirming my belief that one of you GOPs would drop a nasty.
“I left Colin Powell out because he actually served his country. Do look up Wolfowitz, please.”
I did. You are right, he didn’t serve.
“Bush senior fought, but not little W. He managed to avoid his tour in Vietnam.”
Ok, pal. One of the limitations of the internet is that we have to be very precise or we will be misunderstood.
Let’s be quite clear. Did everyone who joined the National Guard during any War deserve the label of “coward” or “manage to avoid” the war?
If avoiding the War was the number one reason for entering the guard, why not fly a desk?
“Sorry on Rummy, I meant to write Ashcroft. And Mr. Cheney found ways to be absent.”
Did you vote for bill clinton? I hate to ask a question for a second time. Let’s be sure we answer all questions the first time around. If not, we are just being rude.
“However Rumsfeld still hasn’t been to war. And I do believe that actually fighting in a war, you know bullets whizzing past your head and watching friends get blown to bits will definitely affect one’s willingness to go to war without doing a lot of careful consideration.”
Perhaps. But, there are definetly more combat veterans who agreed 100% with invading Iraq. If you are who you say you are, ask them for me.
“And JeffR, hows about actually addressing some of the other points I made as opposed to defending the guys you voted for who are sending people into harms way without sufficient armor or ammunition or heck, even enough manpower to do the job and then considering opening up a couple of other fronts.”
Again, I’m having a hard time believing you are who you say you are. This sort of 20/20 hindsight seems rather uninformed. I know there has been military criticism, but it definetly has had a political flavor. You state it as a fact. Curious.
“I’ll send Rummy an apology for calling him a coward as soon as he apologizes for that.”
Reasonably, scratch that, very small of you.
“No I didn’t fly jet fighters. I was in the Army Intel. Good enough for you?”
Interesting that you were in “intel” when you seem no more informed about the bios of the decision makers than the average moveon.org reader.
Interesting.
“What did you do?”
I am not nor have I been in the military.
I flatter myself that I do one or two important things as a civilian that put me in harms’ way. I serve the public.
JeffR
Rainjack, you’ll have to label someone else as a peacenik, because it isn’t me. I’m not calling anyone a baby killer and you damned well know it.
At the same time, why did they start doing those things? Why did they say they were doing those things? Don’t you think there might be reasons, however misguided, that these clowns are willing to risk their lives to attack US interests?
When it comes to armed conflict and military escalation, there is always an easy excuse for both sides. Both can claim they were wronged in some way, by recent events, by historic events, or some other claptrap. These types of things have been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years.
How far back do you go? Who gets to decide when to draw the line?
When it comes to conflict and conflict resolution – both sides have to understand that the other feels they have a legitimate greviance. I’m not saying they actually do, but they feel that they do, even if they have been lied to.
If they didn’t think they had some type of greviance they wouldn’t be lining up to offer their lives as human bombs.
Nowhere in this statement have I said to make concessions, to ignore, or to otherwise perform some type of peacenik or kumba-ya type activity. I’m simply suggesting that in order to find a real solution, you have to dig down and find the real problems.
Military action is rarely the cure. However, it can often bring the parties to the table once they both pay a high enough price that they finally are willing to talk to each other. Often though, it just lays the groundwork for future enmity and conflict in a ongoing cycle.
Cheerlead all you want. Maybe at some point you actually lose the thirst for revenge and blood and want to find some type of appropriate solution that avoids the high cost of war in terms of both money and human lives. Maybe not.
–
Zeb, when you say you want solutions, what does that entail? Do you believe sending military might around the world is going to create a solution?
How do you justify invading country after country if doing so doesn’t eliminate the source of terrorist recruits? How do you justify invading a country if the terrorists are there but they don’t have government sanction and are not visible to anyone?
There are obviously terrorists in England. Would you suggest an invasion of England next? Of course not. How then do you imagine military action will solve the problem. Terrorist organizations are trans-national.
Winning the hearts and minds of the world population may be one way to slow the pace of recruits. Why do you believe that terrorist organizations have no trouble finding recruits? Don’t you imagine that something is wrong somewhere?
What might that something be?
Of course, even thinking down this path to see if anything is there leads one to be labelled an apologist at best.
You aren’t an apologist just because you want to consider an issue and determine what it is that the enemy thinks they have as grounds for action. It is necessary to understand an enemy in order to defeat an enemy.
Turn the brains on and figure out how to undercut the recruiting efforts of the terrorist organizations.
That, I believe, is the only way to come to a real solution to this problem. Until then all of us in the western world will simply be living under tighter and tighter security restrictions waiting for the next bomb to go off.
This is not the future I want. I want freedom, peace and security. I don’t mean security in that the government is able to put a GPS locator on my car, watch my bank account in real time, listen to all my conversations and stop me at random times to ensure my papers are in order.
I don’t want to live in a police state. Many folks these days seem to think a police state is acceptable due to the current war on terrorism. I think this is a grave mistake – the short term securities offered will in time turn into binds on personal freedoms, because in time, all power is abused.
Zap Branigan wrote:
I believe the “pro-war” label is inaccuarate.
I am pro-liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Both countries have had free democratic elections for the first time in their history.
I want the war to be over. I want the bombs to stop going off and I want the shooting to stop today.
Does this make me “pro-war”?
I only see 3 sides to this.
People like myself are “pro-peace”.
The anti-Bush crowd that posts on this board appears “pro-appeasement”.
The Islamic extremist terrorists are “pro-war”. If they stopped murdering today would there still be a war?
Good post, Zap (I mean me).
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I want to expand upon a point in Hedo’s excellent post.
Imagine a world in which 99% (there will always be the 1% johnguillicks) were 100% determined to destroy terrorists. I mean destroy it not only in reality but in concept. Every terrorist killed or captured. Anyone who signs up for a remotely terrorist activity immediately scooped up and thrown into jail. The jacqueschirac’s of the world contributing mightly to advertising in Iraq showing the death of terrorists.
Think about it. A real determined world effort to destroy this menace.
Taking the gloves off and not whining about air conditioning in Gitmo.
Imagine if the terrorists got on the internet and saw a United World (- the looney johnguillicks of course). No cutting and running. No moaning and hand wringing. Just a steely eyed determination to squeeze the pus out of this disgusting phenomena.
I forsee an immediate end to this concept in practice.
JeffR[/quote]
Very good points but wishing for something that will never happen is immature.
It is time we invaded Saudi Arabia, take their resources and erase Wahabism in that country and go from there.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Very good points but wishing for something that will never happen is immature.
It is time we invaded Saudi Arabia, take their resources and erase Wahabism in that country and go from there.
[/quote]
LOL, yeah that’s much more feasible.
There are many reasons to condemn this act of non-state terrorism. Innocent people dying indiscriminately. What is the value of human life? Is it sacred? Why is this happening?
I do have to wonder just how much the Saudi’s are involved in all this.
These terrorists do seem to hate mass transit.
I’m sure the saudi’s have some money invested in arms makers as well.
It’s a win win situation for the Saudi’s.
[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Very good points but wishing for something that will never happen is immature.
It is time we invaded Saudi Arabia, take their resources and erase Wahabism in that country and go from there.
LOL, yeah that’s much more feasible.[/quote]
Tell me how it isn’t?
Another hoser with a sarcastic comment.
Either way you are along for the ride.
Website that carried al-Qaida claim has connections to Bush family???
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0%2C16132%2C1524813%2C00.html
UK-based dissident denies link to website that carried al-Qaida claim
David Pallister
Saturday July 9, 2005
The Guardian
The claim of responsibility for the London attacks was first posted on one of the dozens of Islamic websites that are routinely monitored by western intelligence services.
The statement, under the name of the Secret Organisation of the al-Qaida Jihad in Europe, said: “The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters.”
Article continues
It was posted on an Arabic website, al-qal3ah.com, which is registered by Qalaah Qalaah in Abu Dhabi and hosted by a server in Houston, Texas.
But two Israeli groups devoted to exposing the network of jihadist sites claim that it is connected to the London-based Saudi dissident Saad al-Faqih. Mr Faqih, who is based in Willesden, north-west London, and runs the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (Mira), was designated by the US treasury last December as a supporter of al-Qaida. The UK Treasury followed suit by freezing Mr Faqih’s assets.
Speaking in December 2004 before the assets were frozen, Mr Faqih ridiculed any idea that “millions of dollars” would be frozen. “I have no assets in the US and all I have in the UK is a current account with a few hundred pounds.”
The US claimed that Mr Faqih was an associate of Khaled al-Fawwaz, who was arrested in Britain on a US extradition warrant for his alleged involvement in the 1998 east African embassy bombings.
The US said that “extremists utilise a website controlled by al-Faqih and Mira on messageboards to post al-Qaida-related statements and images. While Mira has issued disclaimers warning users to not attribute postings on Mira message boards to al-Qaida, information available to the US and UK governments shows that the messages are intended to provide ideological and financial support to al-Qaida affiliated networks and potential recruits.”
Mr Faqih has always vigorously denied being involved with terrorism. Yesterday he was indignant about being linked to the website.
“It does not belong to me at all,” he told the Guardian. “It is a Zionist smear.”
He had seen the message on Thursday morning and doubted its authenticity. “It was only there for a few minutes, and they misquoted the Qur’an.” He also said the website - or more accurately a bulletin board - could be used by anyone.
The server in Houston has intriguing connections. Everyone’s Internet was founded by brothers Robert and Roy Marsh in 1998 and by 2002 had an income of more than $30m (now about ?17m).
Renowned for his charitable work, Roy Marsh counts among his friends President George Bush’s former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, and the president’s navy secretary.
Everyone’s Internet, which also hosts a number of pornographic sites, states: “We support the uncensored flow of information and ideas over the internet and do not actively monitor subscriber activity under normal circumstances.”
However, the company has responded to requests to take down objectionable material and insists it cooperates with US law enforcement agencies.