Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

 

2006-01-20 08:54:19
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

then the UN needs to take action
Only the UN is a weak, gutless, and ineffective organization that the US needs to pull out of and kick off our soil.

Saddam was a bad man and all that, but there are a LOT of bad men in the world doing bad things to people every day.  That doesn't make it OUR problem nor our RESPONSIBILITY.
True, but he posed a potential threat to us. I don't care how many people bitch and moan about the lack of wmds, Saddam continued to have access to them. He murdered hundreds of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons and to think that a man like him couldn't get his hands on a few nukes and biological weapons is retarded.

No, he wasn't directly threatening us but I do feel that the entire world, including America, is a much safer place with him out of power.
What is the difference between a religious right government invading under the pretense of freedom and democracy and a bunch of knights invading under the pretense of the Christian God's supposed will?
The knights weren't concerned with oil.
2006-01-23 21:55:18
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7054
Hs said he was leaving and we were all happy he is always lost and always of the thread.

" The Mall Guards made him cry Geeezz "
2006-01-23 22:04:35
[MC]RG-Conan
Member
+0|6973|Ventura, CA
It is not the job of government agents to murder religious fanatics. Rather, parents should provide a positive upbringing for their children so that they do not seek such extreme measures.

30
CA
life
Buyer
No
2006-01-24 08:49:25
Beatdown Patrol
Member
+1|6956

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

then the UN needs to take action
Only the UN is a weak, gutless, and ineffective organization that the US needs to pull out of and kick off our soil.
Then fix the UN...don't think that gives one the justification to go off all cowboy on anybody on the planet that doesn't agree with you or bow at your feet.  That is the sign of irresponsibility.  Actually it is sheer lunacy.  I guess then that if somebody in another state threatens you and the police won't do anything, then you should take matters into your own hands.  Go to that person's home town and cause extreme amounts of collateral damage and death to the surrounding area while trying to bring this person to justice.  An example of this asinine mentality is shown with this latest strike we did on those terrorists in Pakistan.  Damn the civilian casualties, we were justified because we were trying to nail the third 2nd in command for Al Quada.  Little do those clowns in Washington realize that we just created a slew of terrorists by wiping out 18 innocent people...some of them women and children.  You think the family members of those innocent people are not going to try to get back?  I know that I would try.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Saddam was a bad man and all that, but there are a LOT of bad men in the world doing bad things to people every day.  That doesn't make it OUR problem nor our RESPONSIBILITY.
True, but he posed a potential threat to us. I don't care how many people bitch and moan about the lack of wmds, Saddam continued to have access to them. He murdered hundreds of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons and to think that a man like him couldn't get his hands on a few nukes and biological weapons is retarded.

No, he wasn't directly threatening us but I do feel that the entire world, including America, is a much safer place with him out of power.
er...if he didn't have WMDs, he didn't have WMDs.  You are going to have to explain to me what "having access" to them means because "access" is not possession.  Further, it basically defines the justification of invading a country by extremely simple criteria.  You must be a "bad person", you need to have access to WMDs, and you must kill your own people.

Worse, there are too many insipid people to count that are trying to get WMDs, Iran and N. Korea to name the two biggest threats.  I am so confident that we will NEVER invade those two countries that I will let you shave my balls if we do.  It ain't gonna happen.  So the problem with this whole Iraq thing is that people are talking about American ethical and moral integrity.  If you are going to go by the criteria that you listed above, then that basically means that Iran and N. Korea are next...but the fact that we will never go into those two countries set the double standard and makes us look like money grubbin', oil grabbin', right-wing, war mongers.  It might not be true, but perception is reality, my friend.

On the Kurds issue, let's be frank...if a group of people the United States tried to "ceed" a state or a portion of the US, you can bet that we are going to stop them by any means necessary.  The Kurds were trying to do this as well as strip Hussain from power.  Was the method of using chemical weapons harsh?  Yeah...but so what?  Dead is dead.  It is stupid to say that flat blasting somebody with 12 bullets, pasting them into gibblets with a 2,000 lbs GPS guided bomb, or blowing them in half with a 125mm artillery round is any more humane or civilized than having them choke to death.  Hypocrisy.  I am not trying to "defend" Hussain, because the guy was definitely a bastard, but to say that our leaders wouldn't achieve the same goal through other means is simply unrealistic.  This is a vilification campaign that is intended to keep public support on the side of the politicians as well as soothe their wacked moral conscious that they are doing the "right" thing.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

What is the difference between a religious right government invading under the pretense of freedom and democracy and a bunch of knights invading under the pretense of the Christian God's supposed will?
The knights weren't concerned with oil.
Perhaps not, but again...we are talking about perspective here.  Most of the peasants over there could care less about the oil because they ain't seeing a damn dime of the profits.  What they see is imperial American trying to stamp out Islam.  Remember, the people bombing the shit out of us are being swayed by religious zealots that are using the words of Islam (twisted or not) to incite unrest.  So to them, the similarities between the current situation and the Crusades is too close for them to ignore.

- Beatdown

Last edited by Beatdown Patrol (2006-01-24 08:55:41)

2006-01-24 10:50:21
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Then fix the UN...
The US has no obligation to do so. This isn't about preventing war crimes or collateral damage, which is certainly important, but about allowing an international consortium to dictate the policy of a global superpower. I think the UN should be disbanded as well as the majority of trade organizations that do more to inhibit free trade than help it. You want peace on this planet? Free trade. Open market capitalism is by far the most effective way to keep countries from fighting with each other. When your neighbors are essential to your income via trade then you're a hell of a lot less likely to pick fights with them.




er...if he didn't have WMDs, he didn't have WMDs.
Ask the Kurds that he gassed about that. Chemical weapons ARE weapons of mass destruction.
You must be a "bad person", you need to have access to WMDs, and you must kill your own people.
Seems like three perfectly good reasons to remove someone from power. He killed hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of his own people in addition to invading another nation (who then asked for our help). The people in Iraq are now able to vote. That cannot be denied.

Worse, there are too many insipid people to count that are trying to get WMDs, Iran and N. Korea to name the two biggest threats.
In my opinion those two nations should've been dealt with long before the first Marine set foot in Iraq.

I am so confident that we will NEVER invade those two countries that I will let you shave my balls if we do.  It ain't gonna happen.  So the problem with this whole Iraq thing is that people are talking about American ethical and moral integrity.  If you are going to go by the criteria that you listed above, then that basically means that Iran and N. Korea are next...but the fact that we will never go into those two countries set the double standard and makes us look like money grubbin', oil grabbin', right-wing, war mongers.  It might not be true, but perception is reality, my friend.
Do you know why we haven't invaded those two nations yet?

I sure don't. I'm sure someone has a reason for it; maybe they have a good reason, maybe it's not so good of a reason. Maybe there have been diplomatic talks with both nations that we don't know about for the past decade. Maybe Iraq will be used as a staging area for a full on assault on Iran. Maybe North Korea has shown an immediate threat to launch its' own weapons and we're biding our time to strike when it's most strategic to do so.

Or maybe they have no idea what they're doing. But arguing against the Iraq invasion by saying "well why haven't we invaded them and them and them and them?" is not a valid argument.

On the Kurds issue, let's be frank...if a group of people the United States tried to "ceed" a state or a portion of the US, you can bet that we are going to stop them by any means necessary.
Which would also be wrong and very unconstitutional. Lincoln was a federalist tyrant in that regard.

The Kurds were trying to do this as well as strip Hussain from power.  Was the method of using chemical weapons harsh?  Yeah...but so what?  Dead is dead.  It is stupid to say that flat blasting somebody with 12 bullets, pasting them into gibblets with a 2,000 lbs GPS guided bomb, or blowing them in half with a 125mm artillery round is any more humane or civilized than having them choke to death.
You can only kill so many people with those other methods. The reason that chemical warfare is considered a weapon of mass destruction is that, like other WMDs, it can cause massive casualties with minimal effort.

Hypocrisy.  I am not trying to "defend" Hussain, because the guy was definitely a bastard, but to say that our leaders wouldn't achieve the same goal through other means is simply unrealistic.
I agree. He should've been assassinated along with his top military commanders long before the invasion.


Perhaps not, but again...we are talking about perspective here.  Most of the peasants over there could care less about the oil because they ain't seeing a damn dime of the profits.  What they see is imperial American trying to stamp out Islam.  Remember, the people bombing the shit out of us are being swayed by religious zealots that are using the words of Islam (twisted or not) to incite unrest.  So to them, the similarities between the current situation and the Crusades is too close for them to ignore.

- Beatdown
I agree. But my point stands. Their perception does not change fact. Perception is not reality, only the interpretation of it.
2006-01-24 14:55:22
Beatdown Patrol
Member
+1|6956

FeloniousMonk wrote:

The US has no obligation to do so. This isn't about preventing war crimes or collateral damage, which is certainly important, but about allowing an international consortium to dictate the policy of a global superpower. I think the UN should be disbanded as well as the majority of trade organizations that do more to inhibit free trade than help it. You want peace on this planet? Free trade. Open market capitalism is by far the most effective way to keep countries from fighting with each other. When your neighbors are essential to your income via trade then you're a hell of a lot less likely to pick fights with them.
Then by the same notion, the US has no obligation to play as the world police.  While the UN might be "broken", I do believe that it serves more good than bad.  Unfortunately, the powerful nations that enact strong influence in the UN are the same ones that keep actions from happening.  You speak of free trade being the solution, but it will end up that the powerful with enact their influence on that as well.  To give an example, right now the world is about to shot itself in the foot by placing an embargo on Iran.  Gas prices WILL skyrocket because of this...whereby it would be infinitely cheaper to bomb the reactor to keep Iran from obtaining nukes.  Why won't the UN bomb?  Because the same countries who have the voting power to use force are financially tied to Iran and have even HELPED Iran develop and build the rector.  There simply is no silver bullet for peace on this planet...especially when you have people fighting for fundamentalism and religious beliefs.  Won't happen.

Ask the Kurds that he gassed about that. Chemical weapons ARE weapons of mass destruction.
He gassed the Kurds back in the 80s.  He HAD WMDs...almost 20 years ago.  That isn't now and having it that long ago sure isn't reason enough to invade now.

Seems like three perfectly good reasons to remove someone from power. He killed hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of his own people in addition to invading another nation (who then asked for our help). The people in Iraq are now able to vote. That cannot be denied.
It might be a great reason for the WORLD to remove him from power, but it isn't enough of a reason for AMERICA to remove him from power.  We do not have the time, resources, or RIGHT to do that to every single country that has leaders that kill their population.  If the UN can not step up and take action as a unified GLOBAL BODY, then a unilateral decision by one country isn't the way to go either.  I find it so ironic that our system of government uses the same process of decision making as the UN and is showing itself to be just as corrupt and inept as the UN.  I would love to see a senator who disagrees with the vote decide to simply ignore the results and direct his state to take its own actions.


In my opinion those two nations should've been dealt with long before the first Marine set foot in Iraq.
Therein lies the irony.  Iran and the DPRK were far more of a threat than Iraq and yet we still invaded Iraq?  It is any wonder that people look at the Iraq invasion with more disdain and skepticism?


Do you know why we haven't invaded those two nations yet?
Of course nobody will ever know for sure why they decided to go for Iraq first...but there are plenty of logical theories about on why we went for Iraq, the first being oil.  North Korea doesn't have a single thing that we want and the administration was happy to keep the same status quo.  Iran was not weakened by past exchanges with the US and they had just about all of Iraq's air force.  Hence, I would speculate that the Bush administration figured that Iraqi would be the easiest choice and would allow the armed forces to sharpen their teeth on an easy prey.  I am sure that they thought we would be "in and out" of Iraq and could then move on to something else.  Little did they know.

Or maybe they have no idea what they're doing. But arguing against the Iraq invasion by saying "well why haven't we invaded them and them and them and them?" is not a valid argument.
Point taken.  Obviously I can't see into the future, so there IS the possibility that the US will still invade those countries, however it is simply unlikely.  The US's reputation has suffered greatly by invading Iraq.  As unlikely as it sounds, there is also the possibility that the US could face the rest of the world in an economic or military confrontation.  The EU is already positioning itself from an economic standpoint.

Which would also be wrong and very unconstitutional. Lincoln was a federalist tyrant in that regard.
Not really.  Protection of the union is of the utmost importance.  Of course, there were other issues that CAUSED the states to cede from the union...but once it was done, any prudent country would move to keep that from happening.


You can only kill so many people with those other methods. The reason that chemical warfare is considered a weapon of mass destruction is that, like other WMDs, it can cause massive casualties with minimal effort.
I am sure that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would laugh at that statement if they were still alive.  You are VERY much able to kill that many people and MORE through other methods.  However, that point is really moot.  Dead is still dead.  HOW you kill 100,000 people is immaterial when the end result is still 100,000 dead people.  Ok...it took 1 year to kill 100,000 people instead of a day...it is still 100,000 souls.  People react with shock and horror about Saddam gassing his people for the same reason they go ape shit when a few hundred people die in a plane crash while about an average of 120 people die every day in the U.S. from car crashes.

I agree. He should've been assassinated along with his top military commanders long before the invasion.
No necessarily.  There is a saying...

"The hell you know is better than the hell you don't know."

The same concept applies, just replace "hell" with "dictator", "tyrant", "asshole", whatever.  In essence, it was felt that it was best that Hussain stay in power because at least we knew what he was capable of.  By removing him, we were creating a power vacuum and the possibility of somebody even worse taking his place...like one of his sons.  Such an action would destabilize the region even worse than what it already was...so we sat back and basically kept him in check.

I agree. But my point stands. Their perception does not change fact. Perception is not reality, only the interpretation of it.
You are correct, but only in the literal when the problem exists in the figurative.  If perception is what drives an organization to take an action against you, then one must attempt to change that group's perception.  History has shown that unless you completely destroy the group (which has been done pleeeeenty of times through history), the perception will continue to drive the group to resist.  So basically, the more we kill civilians, the more we are propagating their negative perception of us and the more their ranks will swell with members eager to get back at us.

- Beatdown

Last edited by Beatdown Patrol (2006-01-24 15:18:21)

2006-01-24 22:16:51
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Then by the same notion, the US has no obligation to play as the world police.
I fully agree.


He gassed the Kurds back in the 80s.  He HAD WMDs...almost 20 years ago.  That isn't now and having it that long ago sure isn't reason enough to invade now.
You're right. But it does show that he is willing to use such weapons and has the means to procure them. The intelligence may be sketchy and while I completely agree that it hasn't been proven he had recent access to them, do any of us really believe that he didn't? Being good at hiding something does not mean you don't have it.


It might be a great reason for the WORLD to remove him from power, but it isn't enough of a reason for AMERICA to remove him from power.  We do not have the time, resources, or RIGHT to do that to every single country that has leaders that kill their population.  If the UN can not step up and take action as a unified GLOBAL BODY, then a unilateral decision by one country isn't the way to go either.  I find it so ironic that our system of government uses the same process of decision making as the UN and is showing itself to be just as corrupt and inept as the UN.  I would love to see a senator who disagrees with the vote decide to simply ignore the results and direct his state to take its own actions.
I agree. But none of that changes the fact that the Iraqi people are now far more free than they ever have been.


Therein lies the irony.  Iran and the DPRK were far more of a threat than Iraq and yet we still invaded Iraq?  It is any wonder that people look at the Iraq invasion with more disdain and skepticism?



Of course nobody will ever know for sure why they decided to go for Iraq first...but there are plenty of logical theories about on why we went for Iraq, the first being oil.  North Korea doesn't have a single thing that we want and the administration was happy to keep the same status quo.  Iran was not weakened by past exchanges with the US and they had just about all of Iraq's air force.  Hence, I would speculate that the Bush administration figured that Iraqi would be the easiest choice and would allow the armed forces to sharpen their teeth on an easy prey.  I am sure that they thought we would be "in and out" of Iraq and could then move on to something else.  Little did they know.
I agree with everything but the last bit. There isn't a doubt in my mind that this administration knows full well and has known from the beginning that this "War on Terror" is going to last at least a decade or two. People in this country accept the lame excuse from the government in regards to the erosion of civil liberties via the idea that we're at war. War was never legally declared but since terrorism cannot be truly defeated until every one of them is dead, this is a "war" that will last as long as they want it to....or until we get tired of having our freedoms slowly taken away (excuse me, given away but those in this country that have little concept of what liberty truly is).

Point taken.  Obviously I can't see into the future, so there IS the possibility that the US will still invade those countries, however it is simply unlikely.  The US's reputation has suffered greatly by invading Iraq.  As unlikely as it sounds, there is also the possibility that the US could face the rest of the world in an economic or military confrontation.  The EU is already positioning itself from an economic standpoint.
Indeed. The EU is doing everything it can to restrict and regulate US goods and services beyond reasonable measures to keep products out. I may not like that but I do realize that it's their perogative. On the other hand militarily the EU can't compete. Only China has the ability to compete with the US and that's through sheer numbers alone. Without the US armed forces the UN has virtually no enforcement power and the strength of the US military is still what allows so many EU nations to have such tasty social programs.

Not saying that I agree with our spending half a trillion dollars on the military but my point is that while the rest of the world could cripple the US economically they'd have to be prepared to back that up. That would be a terrible day for all of us.

Not really.  Protection of the union is of the utmost importance.  Of course, there were other issues that CAUSED the states to cede from the union...but once it was done, any prudent country would move to keep that from happening.
I disagree. The "union" was originally intended to exist as nothing more than a regulatory body for commerce, national defense, and coordinating infrastructure. The most important responsibility the federal government is charged with is making sure that the states do not violate the Constitution.


I am sure that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would laugh at that statement if they were still alive.  You are VERY much able to kill that many people and MORE through other methods.  However, that point is really moot.  Dead is still dead.  HOW you kill 100,000 people is immaterial when the end result is still 100,000 dead people.  Ok...it took 1 year to kill 100,000 people instead of a day...it is still 100,000 souls.  People react with shock and horror about Saddam gassing his people for the same reason they go ape shit when a few hundred people die in a plane crash while about an average of 120 people die every day in the U.S. from car crashes.
It takes you a year to kill 100,000 people. It takes me a day. In that same year I've killed 36 million. That's the difference. Dead is still dead but WMDs are called such because they can inflict casualties far, far beyond the scope of conventional weapons.
No necessarily.  There is a saying...

"The hell you know is better than the hell you don't know."

The same concept applies, just replace "hell" with "dictator", "tyrant", "asshole", whatever.  In essence, it was felt that it was best that Hussain stay in power because at least we knew what he was capable of.  By removing him, we were creating a power vacuum and the possibility of somebody even worse taking his place...like one of his sons.  Such an action would destabilize the region even worse than what it already was...so we sat back and basically kept him in check.
And then after a while they decided to take him and his whole party out of power. Either way I believe it was a badly handled procedure that would've been a lot easier had the symbolic leader (and his family) been taken out of the picture from the beginning (not necessarily assassination...that's a little extreme but there are other ways to remove a powerful dictator, our leaders just haven't figured them out yet. just ask Fidel :p ).

But you're right, there's no telling what his sons would've been capable of. They were supposedly even more psychotically fucked up than their already nutjob father.

You are correct, but only in the literal when the problem exists in the figurative.  If perception is what drives an organization to take an action against you, then one must attempt to change that group's perception.  History has shown that unless you completely destroy the group (which has been done pleeeeenty of times through history), the perception will continue to drive the group to resist.  So basically, the more we kill civilians, the more we are propagating their negative perception of us and the more their ranks will swell with members eager to get back at us.

- Beatdown
That makes it sound like all the US armed forces are doing is killing civilians. They're hunting, alongside Iraqi security forces, the people who strap bombs to their chests and blow up wedding receptions. Those are not civilians; sorry to toss around a buzzword but in this case it applies perfectly. The insurgents are not civilians they are terrorists. It's their perception that's causing the biggest problem, not that of the Iraqi people. Sure we don't look very good with them either and that certainly needs to be worked on if this is ever going to succeed but we're not going to change the minds of religious fundamentalists nor the minds of guys that now have to live on the street because their elite status and wealth was taken from them when their guy was kicked out.




There's no quick solution to this...if I had it I'd be known as the guy that saved the world. But there are certainly things that will most certainly not solve the problem. Sending in more occupation troops will not help. Pulling all the troops out immediately will not help. Trying to reason or negotiate with Osama will not help. Stripping away our freedoms will not help. And as much as I hate to admit it, bitching about it on the internet won't do a damn bit of good. :p Thanks for the healthy discussion.
2006-01-24 22:32:26
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7054
still wrong post and off the thread.
2006-01-25 02:09:46
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7059|Cologne, Germany

obviously, the discussion has taken various different directions...

I might be starting a new thread on the state of the UN pretty soon, as it is an integral part of most of the discussions that revolve around the middle east and american involvement here.
2006-01-25 10:55:27
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7054
Thanks This thread is done, its pretty obvious if you have been following who got beat down .
2006-01-25 14:42:04
Beatdown Patrol
Member
+1|6956

FeloniousMonk wrote:

You're right. But it does show that he is willing to use such weapons and has the means to procure them. The intelligence may be sketchy and while I completely agree that it hasn't been proven he had recent access to them, do any of us really believe that he didn't? Being good
at hiding something does not mean you don't have it.
He could have done that during Desert Storm and with good reason since that was definitely a war.  Yet he didn't.  Apparently, he has a bit more restraint that people believe him to be.  Should we be judged by using chemical and nuclear weapons during World War II?


I agree. But none of that changes the fact that the Iraqi people are now far more free than they ever have been.
Sooooo....are you saying that we were justified because we went there and "freed" some people?  What about China?  Vietnam?  N. Korea?  Iran?   Or even better....CUBA, which is 90 miles off the coast of the US and has been accused of human rights violations?  The freedom now available to the Iraqi’s is great and I am happy that they are free, but I still do not believe that was justification for us going in there, nor do I think that it was our responsibility.


Indeed. The EU is doing everything it can to restrict and regulate US goods and services beyond reasonable measures to keep products out. I may not like that but I do realize that it's their perogative. On the other hand militarily the EU can't compete. Only China has the ability
to compete with the US and that's through sheer numbers alone. Without the US armed forces the UN has virtually no enforcement power and the strength of the US military is still what allows so many EU nations to have such tasty social programs.

Not saying that I agree with our spending half a trillion dollars on the military but my point is that while the rest of the world could cripple the US economically they'd have to be prepared to back that up. That would be a terrible day for all of us.
After the current efforts in Iraq and the strain on our military, I am not so confident of that anymore.  Strangely enough, the Pentagon released a study today on our military beginning to show signs of strain.  We are struggling in one country against a bunch of untrained fighters, I fail to see how we could realistically go against the entire EU whose members have trained fighters, modern air forces, modern battle tanks, radar, night visions, etc.  Even more interesting, how would we react if the EU tried to invade the US and we had to try to fight on our own soil?  There is no ONE country with an army as powerful as ours, but against the entire might of the EU? 
::pausing for effect::


I disagree. The "union" was originally intended to exist as nothing more than a regulatory body for commerce, national defense, and coordinating infrastructure. The most important responsibility the federal government is charged with is making sure that the states do not violate the Constitution.
While the original intent of a union might be as you say, it changed during the expansionary periods of this country, especially the Louisiana Purchase and the colonization to the west coast.  Too many states became too important for a succession from the union to be tolerated.  If you have states ceding from the union, the union loses that valuable commerce, national defense, and coordinating infrastructure.  Too many states cede and you no longer have a union or if you do, it is one that has little or no power.  If one is allowed to cede, then other states will take it upon themselves to think they can cede as well.  Of course, the Civil War was a prime example of this.  In general, I do support a strong union because it is our best interest to have one.

It takes you a year to kill 100,000 people. It takes me a day. In that same year I've killed 36 million. That's the difference. Dead is still dead but WMDs are called such because they can inflict casualties far, far beyond the scope of conventional weapons.
Absolutely true, WMDs can cause massive amounts of casualties and in the hands of a person that isn’t afraid to use them, they make that person a threat.  I don’t debate that.  I am only saying that if your intent is to kill off 100,000 people, the method is irrelevant because 100,000 people are still dead.


That makes it sound like all the US armed forces are doing is killing civilians. They're hunting, alongside Iraqi security forces, the people who strap bombs to their chests and blow up wedding receptions. Those are not civilians; sorry to toss around a buzzword but in this case it
applies perfectly. The insurgents are not civilians they are terrorists. It's their perception that's causing the biggest problem, not that of the Iraqi people. Sure we don't look very good with them
either and that certainly needs to be worked on if this is ever going to succeed but we're not going to change the minds of religious fundamentalists nor the minds of guys that now have to live on the street because their elite status and wealth was taken from them when their guy was kicked out.
First, let me assure you that I FULLY support the US armed forces efforts over in Iraq!!!  It is not my intent to make it sound like US troops are trying to kill civilians and if my comments made it seem like that, I apologize.

That being said, I believe that the media and the US government are using the terms “insurgents” and “terrorists” interchangeably when they really don’t have an idea of who is who.  Just after Iraqi Freedom ended, those same insurgents were being called terrorists even though they were attacking only American troops.  That is flat out wrong because an attack on a military target is NOT terrorism.  While insurgent methods might have been crude, they were legit in my opinion.  As for bombs going off against civilians, most regional analysts believe that it is sectarian violence between the different groups rather than insurgent efforts to cause regional instability.  Even more so, why is it that we call an insurgent attack “terrorism” when civilians are caught up in their car bomb blasts, but it is called “collateral damage” when we wipe out 18 civilians during a surgical strike?  Honestly.  There really is no difference other than who controls the media because if it were Americans, we would be Patriots.  If it were the French, they would be la Résistance.  If it were Star Wars, they would be the Alliance.  To all of these past groups larger, stronger adversaries with control over the media...they were nothing but traitors, terrorists, and rebels. 



There's no quick solution to this...if I had it I'd be known as the guy that saved the world. But there are certainly things that will most certainly not solve the problem. Sending in more occupation troops will not help. Pulling all the troops out immediately will not help. Trying to reason or negotiate with Osama will not help. Stripping away our freedoms will not help. And as much as I hate to admit it, bitching about it on the internet won't do a damn bit of good. :p Thanks for the
healthy discussion.
Here Here!  Well said.  I believe the situation over there is a quagmire that requires a new approach, but to be honest…I don’t know where to even start.  Regardless of the approach, it is not going to be one that is quickly resolved.  I DO believe that bitching about it on the Internet helps in a way by if anything being therapeutic to people that are frustrated with the entire thing.  Note your use of the word “healthy”.    I think that being able to express one’s self can sometimes sway an open mind by getting them to think about situations from a different perspective.  I thank you for the healthy discussion as well!

- Beatdown

Last edited by Beatdown Patrol (2006-01-25 14:52:22)

2006-01-25 15:04:07
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Just after Iraqi Freedom ended, those same insurgents were being called terrorists even though they were attacking only American troops.  That is flat out wrong because an attack on a military target is NOT terrorism.  While insurgent methods might have been crude, they were legit in my opinion.
I agree with you to an extent.  Attacks by true insurgents (i.e. Iraqis who are against the US occupation) would be legit.  However, the foreign-born fighters who flooded into Iraq after the war to wage jihad (like Al Qaida in Iraq) are terrorists, even if they are attacking military targets.  Otherwise, would the attack on the US Cole be considered a terrorist attack?
2006-01-25 19:52:59
Beatdown Patrol
Member
+1|6956

atlvolunteer wrote:

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Just after Iraqi Freedom ended, those same insurgents were being called terrorists even though they were attacking only American troops.  That is flat out wrong because an attack on a military target is NOT terrorism.  While insurgent methods might have been crude, they were legit in my opinion.
I agree with you to an extent.  Attacks by true insurgents (i.e. Iraqis who are against the US occupation) would be legit.  However, the foreign-born fighters who flooded into Iraq after the war to wage jihad (like Al Qaida in Iraq) are terrorists, even if they are attacking military targets.  Otherwise, would the attack on the US Cole be considered a terrorist attack?
While I understand the point you are trying to make, one of the main criteria that defines terrorism is that the primary target be civilian.  The attack on the USS Cole or any other military installation is not a terrorist attack because the target is a legitimate military target.  Was the attack on the USS Cole sneak attack?  Yes.  Was it a rather dirty and perhap even dishonorable attack?  Some would opinion, yes.  Was it a terrorist attack?  Absolutely not. 

Hence, even though foreign-born fighters are flooding into Iraq to wage jihad (and I am sure you know that jihad means Holy War...so that means to wage war), they are not terrorists as long as their intent is to hit military targets.  In essence, the insurgents are guerrilla fighters...not terrorists, however, the media and government labels them as terrorists because it is convienent, stereotypical, continues to place the US Government in the "moral" right, continues to put fear into the American population, and fits into the whole anti-terrorist stance that the US is advertising.

Don't believe me.  Look up exactly what defines terrorism.

- Beatdown

Last edited by Beatdown Patrol (2006-01-25 22:27:29)

2006-01-25 20:09:06
Drunkaholic
Member
+4|6942

atlvolunteer wrote:

What I don't understand is why we need the ATF to begin with.  Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal, right?
Alcohol and tobacco aren't legal for minors, and automatic firearms are illegal for private citizens in the US.
2006-01-26 08:15:07
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7059|Cologne, Germany

Drunkaholic wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

What I don't understand is why we need the ATF to begin with.  Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal, right?
Alcohol and tobacco aren't legal for minors, and automatic firearms are illegal for private citizens in the US.
wow...are you saying we are back at the original topic now ?

In all seriousness, I want to thank everyone involved here for conducting a ( mostly ) well-argued, polite discussion with a minimum of name-calling, especially Beatdown Patrol, Horseman77, atIvolunteer, Marconius, xanthpi and many others.

I cherish these discussions.

Just felt I needed to say that.

rgds,
B.
2006-01-26 08:17:15
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7054
Smart people here no ? Beatdown is a lawyer or something in law enforcement? Wealth of knowledge.
2006-01-26 08:20:43
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

While I understand the point you are trying to make, one of the main criteria that defines terrorism is that the primary target be civilian. 

Don't believe me.  Look up exactly what defines terrorism.
According to the Free Dictionary, terrorism is defined as:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism
I looked it up on Websters also, but it gave a vague definition:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Neither, however, specify that a civilian target is necessary for the act to be considered terrorism.
2006-01-26 08:41:24
Losati
Member
+0|6890|St. Louis, MO
Once again, it seems BeatdownPatrol is the only fool who makes sense.

Though it is hilarious that this discussion has turned from some guy tryin' to find sympathy for dead, child molesting gun owners to another debate on the amorphorous "War On Terrorism".

Though not necessarily hilarious enough for me to read all of Felonious's and Beatdown's debate.
2006-01-26 09:18:46
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Sooooo....are you saying that we were justified because we went there and "freed" some people?
Thanks again for the stirring debate. Just wanted to reply to this one statement.

I do not justify the actions of this administration in the middle east. Not in the least bit. There are some things I agree with, some I don't, but overall I do not approve of the invasion/liberation.

But two things cannot be denied.

1. The people of Iraq are now experiencing more freedom then they have since the country was established.

2. Leaving now would only make things worse for the Iraqis.
2006-01-26 09:21:37
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Drunkaholic wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

What I don't understand is why we need the ATF to begin with.  Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal, right?
Alcohol and tobacco aren't legal for minors, and automatic firearms are illegal for private citizens in the US.
Sorry, wrong. Automatic firearms are not illegal for private citizens.

And for the record, the ATF was originally a tax collection agency under the purview of the Treasury Department. Only in 2002 was it split and the BATF officially became a law enforcement agency. The guys that attacked the Davidians were basically the strong arm of the IRS.
2006-01-26 09:23:33
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Losati wrote:

Though it is hilarious that this discussion has turned from some guy tryin' to find sympathy for dead, child molesting gun owners to another debate on the amorphorous "War On Terrorism".
Prove to me or anyone else that they were child molestors. Also there's nothing wrong with owning guns so it shows a bit of ignorance to compare gun owning with child abuse.
2006-01-26 09:34:32
Losati
Member
+0|6890|St. Louis, MO

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Losati wrote:

Though it is hilarious that this discussion has turned from some guy tryin' to find sympathy for dead, child molesting gun owners to another debate on the amorphorous "War On Terrorism".
Prove to me or anyone else that they were child molestors. Also there's nothing wrong with owning guns so it shows a bit of ignorance to compare gun owning with child abuse.
LOL, sorry man, I didn't mean to imply that owning a gun is wrong.  I put that in there because that's what the topic starter (Horseman77?) was trying to find sympathy for:  Gun owners.  That was the intent he had when starting this topic, there is no doubt.  I have no problem with (most) guns.

The whole comment was sort of meant to be a joke.

The post was meant to (tongue in cheek-like) point at something I find it pretty weak, though.  Namely, I find it weak the lengths some people will go to incite a fight about the government "oppressing" gun owners.  The Branch Dividians were a cult.  David Koresh did brainwash and exploit people.  And these are the people the more vocal gun supporters are pointing at for support?  You gotta be kidding me. 

Point to rational, thinking americans who enjoy guns (like I hope I am myself), not to a bunch of brainwashed  "martyrs" and the fool who exploited them.
2006-01-26 09:42:15
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
My apologies, I misunderstood you.

My only issue with the situation is that all of those things Koresh is accused of doing have never been proven.
2006-01-26 09:53:09
Losati
Member
+0|6890|St. Louis, MO

FeloniousMonk wrote:

My apologies, I misunderstood you.

My only issue with the situation is that all of those things Koresh is accused of doing have never been proven.
No worries.  I read it again and I could have been clearer
2006-01-26 15:37:07
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7054
That was the entire ponit of the original post. Not some nauseating Tirade on the Miranda act or search and seizure but rather that due process was circumvented and an investigation of good, bad, AT,F FBI or the cultist never took place but should have. Imbecile.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard