Jump to content

Love, Peace, and the War on Afganistan


CommanderJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

The idea that our country should be at "peace" is badly flawed. First, a few notions that need to be addressed:

Notion: We are killing innocent civilians in our war on terrorism.

Reality: If you study a number of authors, you'll realized that it is maintained that personal freedom is more important than life. During United States slavery, all of the slaves were living in a constructed world, much like the Matrix. The fact that slaveholders let the slaves be free of work for 3 days, and instead let them get so drunk they were miserable, is an example of how the society was constructed to deprive the people of their freedoms, by making life SEEM good. That is what is going on in Afganistan and many of the terrorist harboring countries. Although I truly believe that US citizens are brainwashed to some extent by the media, it is worse in the Middle East. In many Middile Eastern countries, especially Afganistan, people are living in a constructed world. They believe the propoganda fed to them by the terrorists, Taliban, Islamic Extremists, and Osama Bin Laden. They are being completely brainwashed.

Notion 2: It is impossible to win the war on Terrorism.

Reality: Think logically for a minute. Yes, bombing Afganistan to hell will not end the war on terrorism, neither will bombing Iraq, or any other Middile Eastern Country. That's why we are setting up a new government in Afganistan, and probably will in any other terrorist harboring country. I doubt the United States will make the same mistake twice, in this specific instance. After the terrorist harboring countries' governments are replaced, it will become much harder for terrorist groups to operate. Yes, terrorism won't be eliminated, but it will likely be lower than pre 9/11 levels, because they will be unable to operate in the open because of governments crushing them.

Notion 3: We are acting like terrorists by bombing Afganistan.

Reality: It's a clash of ideals, they declared war by attacking the WTC, and Afganistan didn't hand them over. That's like saying we acted like Nazis for bombing German cities in WW2. Get out of my country you traitors!

Notion 4: We are doing what the terrorists want.

Reality: Bin Laden doesn't want his top military and terror advisors dead. That's like Bin Laden saying that he wants us to chop off his hands and legs so he'll be more effective against us.

Notion 5: People who oppose the war are not for the Taliban.

Reality: Think of an analogy. You steal someone's wallet. They punch you in the face. You don't do anything. They punch you in the face again. Now, common sense would tell you that there are two things you can do.

1. Give the wallet back, and hope they still wont be mad over it.

2. Disable the person's ability to punch you.

The terrorists are mad. The only way to make them happy is the destruction of America, and/or the withdrawl of support for Israel (which would cause them to declare their nuclear status and start a Middle Eastern Arms race, not much fun when a bunch of "kill the non-islam fanatics" have nukes) The only option is to disable the person's ability to punch you AKA, destroy terrorists and their supporting countries. Anyone who is "pro-peace, anti-war" is saying, "let them keep punching us". If that's not pro-Taliban, nothing is.

The war on Afganistan, and any other terrorist supporting country, is needed. The "innocent" civilians, are totally brainwashed, and will not have any sort of freedom until we save their countries. Their lives aren't worth living if they are mindless drones for the Taliban. The destruction of Terrorist supporting countries will highly limit the capabilities and activities of terrorist groups, and in the end protect American security.

Anyone who's going to argue this, please read the entire post, respond to the entire post, and you better have some evidence backing you up because my position is the popular one which almost every reputable news source is basing their reporting on, and it better not be something simple like "civilians shouldn't die". Go fight in a goddamn war (WW2) like my Grandfather did, then you have a right to start complaining about the civilians dying.

It's so disheartening, that's the problem with people today. People think "fighting is wrong", and never stop to think about all of the people who have spilt their blood and died fighting for the United States. Never thought about the people who died for what the United States stands for, and realized that the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror.

If we don't stand up for our country, our freedom, and our nation now, then the last 224 years have been for nothing. If we weaken now, all of the people who have died for this country have lost their lives in vain. Nowhere is it said that our country should value peace above everything else. Our country is based around freedom, and with terrorism in the world, we will never be free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now, before we continue the thread that was on the other topic, with my last post as a spring board, please do ONE, SIMPLE, THING when arguing for peace, etc.

*Give an alternative*

No one's going to disagree that peace is good, but you better have feasible **means** in order to create peace WITHOUT having a bunch of Americans dying, or you'll probably be laughed and flamed off the forum. Also, please note again, present a *MEANS*, not just "we should be at peace".

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Captain Dread ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to start posting all of the exchanges between me and Captain Dread that took place after the first post in this thread so that I don't have to repeat myself. This is the first one:

My response to the first post

quote:

Notion: We are killing innocent civilians in our war on terrorism.

Reality: If you study a number of authors, you'll realized that it is maintained that personal freedom is more important than life. During United States slavery, all of the slaves were living in a constructed world, much like the Matrix. The fact that slaveholders let the slaves be free of work for 3 days, and instead let them get so drunk they were miserable, is an example of how the society was constructed to deprive the people of their freedoms, by making life SEEM good. That is what is going on in Afganistan and many of the terrorist harboring countries. Although I truly believe that US citizens are brainwashed to some extent by the media, it is worse in the Middle East. In many Middile Eastern countries, especially Afganistan, people are living in a constructed world. They believe the propoganda fed to them by the terrorists, Taliban, Islamic Extremists, and Osama Bin Laden. They are being completely brainwashed.

If the people are being completely brainwashed into believing that life in Afghanistan is good, then why do hundreds of thousands of Afghanis risk their lives to leave the country for a better life somewhere else? This was happening long before the war started. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan don't believe a word that the Taliban says, which is why the government resorts to flogging people for disobedience. Secondly, even if the civilians were brainwashed, that is no excuse for their deaths. They are non-combatants, pure and simple.

quote:

Notion 2: It is impossible to win the war on Terrorism.

Reality: Think logically for a minute. Yes, bombing Afganistan to hell will not end the war on terrorism, neither will bombing Iraq, or any other Middile Eastern Country. That's why we are setting up a new government in Afganistan, and probably will in any other terrorist harboring country. I doubt the United States will make the same mistake twice, in this specific instance. After the terrorist harboring countries' governments are replaced, it will become much harder for terrorist groups to operate. Yes, terrorism won't be eliminated, but it will likely be lower than pre 9/11 levels, because they will be unable to operate in the open because of governments crushing them.

The United States has tried to influence the installation of pro-West governments in the Middle East before. One of them was the Taliban. Almost every Arab government that the US has supported and attempted to pull strings with has either become a terrorist harbouring country, an openly hostile country, or both. The rare exceptions that America continue to support, such as Saudi Arabia, are also authoritarian regimes that suppress the people's freedoms and rights. There is little evidence that the new coalition government in Afghanistan will be any different.

quote:

Notion 3: We are acting like terrorists by bombing Afganistan.

Reality: It's a clash of ideals, they declared war by attacking the WTC, and Afganistan didn't hand them over. That's like saying we acted like Nazis for bombing German cities in WW2. Get out of my country you traitors!

In case anyone didn't notice, the war started decades ago. This isn't the first time that the US has been attacked by terrorists in the Middle East. They destroyed a hotel full of US marines in Beirut in 1982 using the same methods as the attack on the WTC (except that a truck was used). The US has been sending military responses since the 1970s and the situation has only worsened. Both sides have tried to terrorize each other into retreat. Whether you call it war or terrorism depends on your point of view. In any case, it's destructive and does nothing but escalate the violence.

quote:

Notion 4: We are doing what the terrorists want.

Reality: Bin Laden doesn't want his top military and terror advisors dead. That's like Bin Laden saying that he wants us to chop off his hands and legs so he'll be more effective against us.

If Bin Laden did not want the US to send a full scale military response, then why did he make sure that they would? He's not a complete idiot: he knew that the US was going to react like this. He wanted to renew the war because he thought that he could win it. The fact that he's losing does not hide the fact that the US is doing exactly what the terrorists want. By destroying Bin Laden's organization, the US is only making room for another, more fanatical organization to take its place. The cause will still exist, and so will the terrorists, and so the war will continue until one side wakes up and sues for peace.

quote:

Notion 5: People who oppose the war are not for the Taliban.

Reality: Think of an analogy. You steal someone's wallet. They punch you in the face. You don't do anything. They punch you in the face again. Now, common sense would tell you that there are two things you can do.

1. Give the wallet back, and hope they still wont be mad over it.

2. Disable the person's ability to punch you.

Actually, common sense would tell you not to steal the wallet in the first place.

quote:

It's so disheartening, that's the problem with people today. People think "fighting is wrong", and never stop to think about all of the people who have spilt their blood and died fighting for the United States. Never thought about the people who died for what the United States stands for, and realized that the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror.

The people did not spill their blood so that America could continue spilling more blood.

Secondly, if the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror, then why did they support the Taliban's rise to power? Why did the government initially support the Taliban's oppressive regime? Why does the USA continue to support Saudi Arabia's government, a monarchy with no constitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you want to include all the rebuttals here are a couple from Ravonaf (the 1st one) and $ilk, (the 2nd one). Didn't post all the replys because I thought you wouldn't want to have to deal with them.

-------------------------------------------------

Menchise

"Prove it."

What's to prove? It's common knowledge.

"Peace itself requires that both sides lay down their arms. I am not advocating surrender."

And how do you suggest this happen? Do we go first or them? It will NEVER happen.

"That's not necessarily true. Remember that Bin Laden and the Taliban are only extreme versions of what the people actually want. The vast majority of people do not regard westerners as infidels. If they did, the Taliban would have much stronger military support."

It's absolutely true. Terrorists and non-terrorists alike want us out. Not everyone. But as long as there are a few there will always be terrorists. That's one of there biggest demands. They don't like the influence our culture has.

"Rubbish. Peace through force is not peace at all. It's oppression."

Rubbish? Again. Name any peace that did not come about after war. The fact of the matter is the Terrorists will not stop until they are all dead. That's a fact. No matter how much you refuse to accept it. You can't change it. We have to learn to live with it.

--------------------------------------------------

And number 2:

--------------------------------------------------

Menchise, youre views on peace, commendable though they may be, are another case of wishful thinking. I would say "it's not gonna happen" and you will quote that and answer "how come?"

It's clear to anyone who has studied the subject matter, and clear to you as well, that there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is no more Israel.

Bin Laden has said that Israel is nothing more than an American outpost, and he want's the "infidels" driven from the Middle East. In order to do that, he would have to destroy Israel, but knows it is not possible while we support Israel.

What kind of peace is there when everyone has the ability to attack everyone else? It makes for forced treaties and "my arsenal is bigger than yours" agreements. True stability and peace could only be brought about through force, until that one magical day when everyone becomes "tolerant" and "understanding".

Leftists are so well-intentioned that they don't look beyond the well-intentions and see the folly of the programs they wish to initiate.

For instance,

Left wing nut: "I just saw a man get shot in the street. If the bad man had not had a gun, he wouldn't have shot anyone! The gun obviously made him do it! I must seek to ban all gun ownership.

So let's say dumbass in the example above succeeded.

Well, no one is shooting anyone else any more (except those criminals who still own guns), yet it seems like everone has started either stabbing or strangling each other... and those who are of small physical stature can't defend themselves, because the new ways of self-defense are beyond their ability. So all the former legal gun owners become victims instead of defenders of justice.

Then look for the left wing moron to try banning knives, clubs, cars, bats, rings, string, yo yo's, and anything else that could be possibly used as a weapon, not realizing that the weapons enable defense, and that people are responsible for their own actions.

Taking away someone's right to self defense is immoral, yet the leftist in America sees it as their sacred duty. If only they would wake up out of the "wouldn't it be great if" fantasy land, they would realize what they are doing is misguided.

I believe - for the record, that liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, whatever - are the same people who hide from the reality of life in a selfish dreamworld, wanting to do something great for humanity, but wanting others to expend the effort.

Oh the homeless! Oh the disadvantaged! Oh the disenfranchised!

Left Wing Nut: "I must raise money to help these poor people. But where should I get it from? Charities are obviously right-wing establishments and would only serve to give aid to the judeo christian dictatorship that is a stranglehold to our society, and not like those white male racists would give money anyway. WAIT! I know, I will ask congress and several groups to raise taxes so those greedy people will HAVE to pay! They make too much money anyway, and those people doing without deserve more, even though they haven't worked for it. But WHO is to say they should work for it? They have their dignity, and it would obviously contribute to the racial divide and the years of terrorism these people have had to deal with if they had to work. THose poor poor disadvantaged. I want to take care of them and feel better about myself!"

But Menchise, of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to help people. But this "means to an end" nonsense is wrong. But any excuse that get's in the way of the liberal mind is either declared as (outdated, racist, greedy, etc.)

How can those who claim to represent minority rights want to force labor on the smallest minority of all, the working individual?

The liberal mind is full of hypocrisy and what is perfectly logical to them in one case is obviously racist in another.

To your credit Menchise you haven't tried whipping out the race card really. But the liberalistic "save the world by blindly moving towards an end regardless of means" idea is still pervading your thoughts.

The peace you want - everyone lives happily ever after and no one attacks anyone.

The means? Forcible seizure of guns? Victimization of the majority? Forcing a one world government?

Your noble intentions can't win arguments without describing exactly how you would bring about such an anti-realistic change in society.

It sounds good to you to say nice things and blow sunshine up people @$$, but at the same time let's be realistic - it can't happen.

To save you the trouble I could probably fill in your argument for you.

Menchise : "why not?"

Me: "Because at no point in history and no time of human nature that conflict has not existed"

Menchise: "But it could change"

Me: "How?"

Menchise:"There could be peace!"

Me:"How?"

Menchise:"People could stop fighting and everyone could form a big utopia and sing kumbaya!"

Me:"And how would you get them to do this?"

Menchise"The promise of peace!"

Me:"And what if they don't believe the promise and fight anyway?"

Menchise"But they wouldn't..."

And we could go on and on like that, just like in our continuing the debate thread.

I'm aimed at convincing you to doubt that little self-guilt laced voice in your mind, so just bear with me and understand, that when you get a job, children, a family, and start paying taxes : you will understand where I'm coming from.

I don't have the money available to dick around and save the world like liberals want to. I barely have enough money to get by and have enough left over to throw into my computer, and even then haven't you noticed how I've sold off most of my PC games, my PS2, etc. just to make ends meet? That's one of the things that influenced me to the military is LESS tax.But big government liberals will only want to raise taxes higher and higher and higher until only a small majority is forced to work to support those that don't.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but wasn't slavery people working to support those that didn't?

There's a pattern happening here, and good intentions through the acts of liberals are going to raise taxes and oppress the working class of this country until we do have a revolution - but it's not going to be the communist one they want, it's going to be an American revolution to throw off the oppressive hands of tyranny. That's what liberalism is today - tyranny. It's forcing one class of citizens to support another. It's wrong, and immoral. But all that liberals see is the light at the end of the tunnel. They don't realize, that liberalism never makes it that far down the tunnel.

And all the good intentions in the world, no matter how successfully leftists blind themselves to the facts of what they are doing, reality is going to sneak up and it's going to bite them in the ass. Mark my words.

--------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I get the basic gist of this thread so far, and of course I disagree with Menchise so strongly that it is unreal.

The onyl way to keep terrorists from targeting civilians is to destroy them. PERIOD!!!!

There is one HUGE difference between the terrorists and us. The terrorists TARGET civilians, WTC, Israeli stores and shops, etc ad nauseum.

We TARGET military and terrorist encampments, we DO NOT target civilians. Civilians are going to die in this war, there is now way around it.

THIS IS WAR, PEOPLE DIE!!! Get OVER IT!!!

Peace is wonderful, but to disarm would be stupid and Naive in the extreme. We disarm, and then the person or persons that didn't would attack us.

Bad people that hunger for power in any way they can get it, are out there, and will always be there. The only way to protect yourself is to have better weapons and be able to punish the aggressor more then he can punish you!!

The way to win this war is to make sure that the terrorists fear us more then they hate us. If they know that everything that they hold dear will be destroyed if they attack us, then they will NOT attack us.

PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER!! Live it, LOVE IT!!!!

There ya go!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar, $ilk. I wish that the world would be separated in 2 halfes. One half populated by people who are pacifists, and have no weapons, and other by people who agree with Jaguar and $ilk and MICHAEL SAVAGE. I would just love to see osama take over the other half of the world and kill all those #$%@ so that we can calmly kill osama and his followers and other terrorist without the whining of (I don't even know what to call them, liberals maybe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost forgot a seperate small rant.

Since WW2, there has not been anything comparable to a World War.

Why?

Because all major powers know that if there was one, many, many, many people would die, if not the destruction of the world (Nuclear Arms). All minor powers know they would be crushed by the major powers.

Countries and nations fear the power of the US. The US is the most powerful country in the world. Fear decreases if other countries realize the US is gutless. Fear decreases even more if we don't protect our own citizens. Hedgemony decreases, terrorists keep attacking us, all respect that the US has in the world goes plummeting, and we end up with an unstable world, with terrorists having power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What's to prove? It's common knowledge.

Common knowledge? You're kidding, right? If you think that the drivel spat out by Omar or Bin Laden represents Arabic Muslim opinion then you're dreaming.

quote:

And how do you suggest this happen? Do we go first or them? It will NEVER happen.

Have you ever heard of cease-fires?

quote:

It's absolutely true. Terrorists and non-terrorists alike want us out. Not everyone. But as long as there are a few there will always be terrorists. That's one of there biggest demands. They don't like the influence our culture has.

This has little to do with culture, despite the rhetoric of the extremists. It's about the influence that the US has on the economics and political structure of the region, which is one step behind the influence that the British had before they withdrew in the 1930s. That's why Americans are called imperialists in issues such as this.

quote:

Rubbish? Again. Name any peace that did not come about after war.

Irrelevant. That's like me asking you to name any peace that did not come about before war.

quote:

The fact of the matter is the Terrorists will not stop until they are all dead. That's a fact.

That is not a fact at all. The terrorists have a cause. Without a cause, they have no reason to fight. The nature of the cause seems to be what we're debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Common knowledge? You're kidding, right? If you think that the drivel spat out by Omar or Bin Laden represents Arabic Muslim opinion then you're dreaming.

Of course not. It is common knowledge that with them in power or people like them in power, they are going to force feed it to everyone around them, create terrorists, and oppress those with opposing views.

quote:

Have you ever heard of cease-fires?

Every action is spurred by some sort of motivation. Their motivation behind attacking us has not disappeared since 9/11. There was a "cease fire" prior to the WTC. The effectiveness of a cease-fire to do anything is non-existant.

quote:

This has little to do with culture, despite the rhetoric of the extremists. It's about the influence that the US has on the economics and political structure of the region, which is one step behind the influence that the British had before they withdrew in the 1930s. That's why Americans are called imperialists in issues such as this.

Umm, it is culturally motivated. America's culture is pretty opposite their religion, while just about every government in the Middle East is religiously dominated by one form of Islam or another. The United States has very little influence on the region except in a couple very important ways.

1. Israel

2. Iraq

That's many steps behind Britain's influence. We can't lay off Iraq, and we can't become isolationist toward Israel, so the motivation of attacks will always be there, so the best option is to reduce the terrorists ability to terrorize.

quote:

Irrelevant. That's like me asking you to name any peace that did not come about before war.

The point is that there has been no significant conflict that has been resolved with anything EXCEPT war, and historians agreed. There was no diplomatic solution to WW1 or WW2. Once the hostilitites started, there was no turning back. The internal and external reprecussions of the US stopping the retaliation would be horrendous. It'd be internaltional relations suicide, not to mention political suicide for the leaders and economic suicide on the stock market.

quote:

That is not a fact at all. The terrorists have a cause. Without a cause, they have no reason to fight. The nature of the cause seems to be what we're debating.

I think what we're debating is the best solution to the terrorists. Your saying "peace", we're saying "keep bombing until there can be peace". Your right, without a cause they have no reason to fight. Realistically, it is impossible to remove the cause (without arms race, global instability, etc), so it IS a fact. The terrorists wont stop until they are all dead. Or locked into little tiny boxes. Or stuffed on a spaceship and sent into the sun.

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Captain Dread ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain Dread, you forgot one more thing that you could add to the subject of terrorists not stopping until they don't have a cause anymore. Since their cause is total annihilation of infidels, when all people that do not share Islamic beliefs are dead then they won't have a cause anymore. And if we do things like Menchise suggests that's exactly what will happen.

So instead of having my kids go through the same thing that happened on 9/11, I think we need to take care of the problem once and hopefully for all, the only way to do this is kill terrorists and their supporters. Those supporters are also civilians. Also, just like in any war, there will be some civilians that are not the supporters of terrorists, but that's the price that will bring long term peace and it's better than having 6,000 people dead every 40 years, or God forbid them setting off some nuclear or biological bomb.

Like I said before, I hate the fact that people who would take action to protect themselves and secure a safe future and a place in this world for their kids, also have to protect those who would do nothing and if natural evolution would take it's course, be dead a long long time ago.

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....We've seen their kind before. The terrorists are the heirs to fascism. They have the same wield of power, the same disdain for the individual, the same mad global ambitions. And they will be dealt with in just the same way.

(APPLAUSE)

Like all fascists, the terrorists can not be appeased. They must be defeated. This struggle will not end in a truce or a treaty. It will end in victory for the United States, our friends and for the cause of freedom.

The Enterprise has been part of this campaign, and when we need you again I know you'll be ready........

The above is from the leader of the greatest country in the world, President George W. Bush of the United States of America. You can read the entire transcript at:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushtext_120701.html

Just goes to point out that President Bush, with the greatest minds in the nation advising him did the following:

1. Related it to WW2

2. Knows that there is no "peaceful solution"

3. That the terrorists are a threat to American freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Menchise, youre views on peace, commendable though they may be, are another case of wishful thinking. I would say "it's not gonna happen" and you will quote that and answer "how come?"

Would you mind not putting words in my mouth?

quote:

It's clear to anyone who has studied the subject matter, and clear to you as well, that there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is no more Israel.

Not true, especially if you examine the Israel-Palestinian negotiations of the past and how close they came to achieving a lasting peace.

Both sides agreed to almost every term in the peace proposals except one: the condition that Palestinians who were forced to flee from Israel during the conflicts could return to their homes. Israel refused. That was the biggest obstacle in the peace negotiations.

quote:

Bin Laden has said that Israel is nothing more than an American outpost, and he want's the "infidels" driven from the Middle East. In order to do that, he would have to destroy Israel, but knows it is not possible while we support Israel.

I don't think he was referring to the Israelis as infidels. If that were the case, then why isn't he attacking Israel? The fact that the US is supporting Israel would not stop him from trying if he's willing to attack the USA.

quote:

What kind of peace is there when everyone has the ability to attack everyone else? It makes for forced treaties and "my arsenal is bigger than yours" agreements. True stability and peace could only be brought about through force, until that one magical day when everyone becomes "tolerant" and "understanding".

Ever heard of mutual advantage? That's when peace benefits both sides. That is a more true peace than the idea of forcing one side to follow the will of another, which sounds more like oppression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Ok, after we replace the government of Afganistan and bomb them a lot, no other government of any other country, is going to want to be REMOVED. They want to continue to have power, and don't want the same thing to happen to them.

That would be the motivation for them to unite for collective security.

quote:

Wrong. Terrorism is the actions by a non-nation group that carries out violent actions in order to impose TERROR. Terrorism is not imposing a wall through force, it is causing people to live in fear.

Causing people to live in fear in order to impose their will. Get it?

quote:

Our actions in WW2, WW1, Revolutionary war, were not for the same goals as terrorists.

The goal of the Revolutionary War was to end the British domination of American political life. The goal of the Middle Eastern terrorists is to end the American domination of Arab political life. Spot the difference.

quote:

Also, current war does *NOT* target civilians. Terrorism does. That's why what we are doing is not terrorism.

Terrorists target civilians when they're incapable of attacking military targets.

quote:

Ok, peace is great, i'd love to hear a way to get it. There was no "escalation". The terrorists kept doing what they we're doing, and we finally got sick of it and are ending it. Just because it didn't happen on America's soil before doesn't mean it was an "escalation". It's arguable that US military bases and embassies are US soil anyway.

They didn't just attack US soil this time, they attacked the centre of American trade and the offices of the Defense Department. That sounds like escalation to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The way to win this war is to make sure that the terrorists fear us more then they hate us. If they know that everything that they hold dear will be destroyed if they attack us, then they will NOT attack us.

In many cases, everything that they hold dear has already been destroyed, so it's impossible to make them fear us more than they hate us. Please do explain how you expect to frighten people who are training themselves to become suicide bombers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Of course not. It is common knowledge that with them in power or people like them in power, they are going to force feed it to everyone around them, create terrorists, and oppress those with opposing views.

They also oppress those who agree with the cause but disapprove of their methods.

quote:

Every action is spurred by some sort of motivation. Their motivation behind attacking us has not disappeared since 9/11. There was a "cease fire" prior to the WTC. The effectiveness of a cease-fire to do anything is non-existant.

Of course a cease-fire on its own is not enough; I never said that it was enough. I was responding to Ravonaf's statement about the laying down of arms. Secondly, the cease-fire prior to WTC was not followed up with any attempt at negotiation.

quote:

Umm, it is culturally motivated. America's culture is pretty opposite their religion, while just about every government in the Middle East is religiously dominated by one form of Islam or another.

That doesn't prove anything. There are millions of Arabs living in the USA who practice Islam, yet they do not conspire to attack anyone.

quote:

The United States has very little influence on the region except in a couple very important ways.

1. Israel

2. Iraq

That's many steps behind Britain's influence.

The United States has plenty of influence on the region. Apart from military aid to Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq, it also has military bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and it's always trying to increase its influence through indirect installation of authoritarian pro-US governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain Dread

Well said. I couldn't have said it better my self. Peace loving leftists drive me totally nuts. At least to me they appear want to be neutral. At least the traitor took up arms and picked a side. Let terrorists kills thier families and lets see how neutral they are. I think many of them are afraid that the war will escalate into WW3 and eventually end our way of life anyways. The sad thing is it may be that we are damned if we do and damed if we don't. The only thing we know for sure is if we don't do anything the terrorists will not stop. Our great country will not go down with out a fight. If we don't support Isreal then more than likely there will be a war. If Isreal loses we would see a repeat of what the Germans did in WW2. Isreal would use thier nukes before that would happen. Is that what we want? I don't think so. The US supporting Isreal is actually preventing or at least delaying a major war. The terrorists will not stop. We will not stop. Someone must be put down. The terrorists do not have the means to defeat us. Thier best hope is that by us attacking them they can rally support from the other Muslim nations. All of the Muslim nations working as one against us would have a chance against us and Israel. That's what the terrorists want. The terrorists lack the means to wage a conventional war. They are attempting to get it. Fortunately for us we have good diplomats and a president who can keep the peace among our Muslim allies while still wage a war on our enemies. No matter how much one would like it the fact of the matter is there is no backing out now. We are in this for good or bad.

Ravonaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Ever heard of mutual advantage? That's when peace benefits both sides. That is a more true peace than the idea of forcing one side to follow the will of another, which sounds more like oppression.

So I guess every time we are attacked we could yell "cease fire" and that would be peace. Sure.

You could argue that peace would benefit both sides if no one had to die in battle. Let's say that the Taliban with their large army of suicide bombers, used 1/4 of them to bring us to our knees. If we do as you suggest and not fight back, then we still have 3/4 of their suicide bombers that could strike at any time just like the first 1/4 did. In order to ensure peace, we would have to wipe out their reason for attacking, namely removing them from power and killing whatever terrorists we find.

It's hard to start a fight when you don't have the ABILITY to fight don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...