Not Vietnam, but Gaudalcanal

[Rude]

Originally posted by mars01
Hey Rude,

I agree we need to go after the countries that pose the greatest threats.  We need to be told the truth about these threats and then we need to inihalate them.

My problem with Iraq is that Saddam was not the largest threat, he was barely a threat and we had him contained.  My second problem is that Bush went into Iraq under false pretenses.  He scared the crap out of us claiming Saddam had WMDs, which he did not.  Bush did not do the due dilligence making his decision to go to war.  He based it on shotty intelligence or possibly planned on taking Saddam out no matter what.  He has spent vast resources that might have been better put to work against the terrorists rather than fighting in Iraq.

I am fully behind our troops no matter how our government blunders.  They are there laying it on the line for us and deserve our respect and support no matter what.  The BS of the sixties shall not return.  Bush and his mistakes are fare game our troops are not!

While I might agree with you absent of the reality of 9/11, Bush's response was not without reason. In the recent light of 9/11, the only middle eastern country which had been proven to not only hold chemical, biological and rumored nuclear weapon desires and to have actually showed the deliberate and purposeful deployment of these weapons was Iraq and only Iraq.

After 9/11, as the President of this country, I can easily understand after witnessing 3000 innocent US civilians murdered, how he could not dismiss Iraq from passing WMD to a terrorist supporting nation or to terrorists directly....in addition, the risk of future development by Iraq under the empty dictates of the UN, does not stand up to the responsibility of a sitting US presidents responsibility to protect our citizenship....too great a chance to take.

In light of broad delivery of intel by those outside of our agencies as well as our own intel sourcing, any reasonable leader would have made the same call.

Some here speak of Bush as if he just manufactured all of this himself.....support him or not, the fact remains he did what he thought was best in securing a safer climate for US interests. The fact our allies turned out to be not our allies at all, only has prolonged this exercise and brought about more deaths than would have been necessary if they had helped in the first place.

[Rude]

Originally posted by AKcurly
Yes, I agree.  Intentions and desires are one thing; action is another.  We can't go around attacking countries that we think are hostile to us.

However, the collective will of the world can be used to discipline countries such as Syria and Iran ... discipline to the extent that troops can be deployed.

Actions by single individuals are generally called crimes; actions by the community have the force of law.  It's taken humanity roughly 100,000 years to figure out a way to effectively protect itself against "law by the largest guy."  It's called law and order.  Let's use it.

curly

Hey Curly.....where was this force of law from Beirut thru 9/11?

Seems we tried it your way and it has brought us dead US citizens and a perception that US interests and population can be attacked without cost.

I hear what your saying and it's certainly preferrable to war....still, some view kindness and restraint as weakness as evidenced by the past twenty years of attacks and support of terrorists by many nations.

The problem of terror in this world has been consistently growing all the while we were being pleasant....it seems to be politically convenient to blame Bush for the woes of this world....simply too easy of an exercise if ya asked me.

Well, what's great about the USA, is that folks will speak their minds on Nov. 2nd and if Kerry gets to drive, you guys can all tell me how wrong I was over the next four years....great isn't it?

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Rude
We should go after countries which support or harbor terrorists....as to support from other nations, yes, that would be preferable and more pallatible for the US....however, just because other nations refuse to get involved does not define what has occurred for some twenty years( terrorist attacks against US interest and citizenship) as acceptable and not warranting serious and direct involvment by ALL of the resources of our country to combat the same.

Who determines which countries support or habor terrorists?  The CIA?  

If the US is attacked by a group of Saudi terrorists, do we attack Saudi?

How about Tim McVeigh?  Do we attack NY state (his home state.)

Rude, it's pretty tough to figure this one out.  But, if the international community agrees that yes, country X supports terrorists, then we have something to work with.

We are not the police force of planet earth.  We don't have the mandate.

curly

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Rude
Hey Curly.....where was this force of law from Beirut thru 9/11?

Seems we tried it your way and it has brought us dead US citizens and a perception that US interests and population can be attacked without cost.

I hear what your saying and it's certainly preferrable to war....still, some view kindness and restraint as weakness as evidenced by the past twenty years of attacks and support of terrorists by many nations.

The problem of terror in this world has been consistently growing all the while we were being pleasant....it seems to be politically convenient to blame Bush for the woes of this world....simply too easy of an exercise if ya asked me.

Well, what's great about the USA, is that folks will speak their minds on Nov. 2nd and if Kerry gets to drive, you guys can all tell me how wrong I was over the next four years....great isn't it?

Was there a major terrorist incident in the US prior to 9/11?  The only one I recall is Tim McVeigh.  A US military installation in a foreign country attacked by natives isn't a terrorist attack.  The marines were armed, right?

The problem of terror is consistently growing and I'm not sure it's smart to blame our past politicians for our current problems.  One thing for sure though, we need a political solution (which includes military teeth) to solve our existing problems.  We need the solution to have strong support from the international community.  They need to be part of the solution.

Don't get me wrong, Rude ... I've been a US citizen longer you, I have been a member of the armed forces and I agree, on the average, we have a healthy & productive state.  It's not wise to trumpet how great our society works when an international team of observers will be monitoring our next presidential election.

curly

[Rude]

Originally posted by AKcurly
Who determines which countries support or habor terrorists?  The CIA?  

If the US is attacked by a group of Saudi terrorists, do we attack Saudi?

How about Tim McVeigh?  Do we attack NY state (his home state.)

Rude, it's pretty tough to figure this one out.  But, if the international community agrees that yes, country X supports terrorists, then we have something to work with.

We are not the police force of planet earth.  We don't have the mandate.

curly

It was not hard to read the SAT photos of what was going on in Afghanistan nor was it challenging to know that Saddam left unchecked might cost us thousands of lives in the future....of course, if this were to happen, it would be this administration which would be blamed due to inaction.

I respect you opinion because you're an American citizen with the right to call it as you will....I disagree strongly with you that in order for us to defend ourselves, we need the permission of the UN or we have to be attacked first.

Big diff between policing the planet and eliminating madmen.

[Rude]

Originally posted by AKcurly
Was there a major terrorist incident in the US prior to 9/11?  The only one I recall is Tim McVeigh.  A US military installation in a foreign country attacked by natives isn't a terrorist attack.  The marines were armed, right?

The problem of terror is consistently growing and I'm not sure it's smart to blame our past politicians for our current problems.  One thing for sure though, we need a political solution (which includes military teeth) to solve our existing problems.  We need the solution to have strong support from the international community.  They need to be part of the solution.

Don't get me wrong, Rude ... I've been a US citizen longer you, I have been a member of the armed forces and I agree, on the average, we have a healthy & productive state.  It's not wise to trumpet how great our society works when an international team of observers will be monitoring our next presidential election.

curly

International observers.....don't even get me started!!!

We've lost our way.....we have no spine as to what is right and wrong

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Rude
It was not hard to read the SAT photos of what was going on in Afghanistan nor was it challenging to know that Saddam left unchecked might cost us thousands of lives in the future....of course, if this were to happen, it would be this administration which would be blamed due to inaction.

I respect you opinion because you're an American citizen with the right to call it as you will....I disagree strongly with you that in order for us to defend ourselves, we need the permission of the UN or we have to be attacked first.

Big diff between policing the planet and eliminating madmen.

Ok.  Let's take a simple case.  Let's look at the group of folks with two felony convictions.  They have an extremely high risk of future felony convictions.  Why not just lock them up, permanently?  Even better, why not lock up their children before they reach adulthood?  Children of felons often become felons.  

In a civilized world, presumed innocence is an inherent part of law enforcement.  You ignore presumption of innocence at the risk of presenting a far larger danger to the general public than the felon.

Like it or not, the only safe way (and I mean safe to our political system) to deal with this problem lies in the following:

1. Protect ourselves internally.
2. Seek like-minded governments who share out world view and band together.

Eventually, one of two things will happen.  
1. We will successfully deal with stateless terrorists

or

2. The terrorists will eventually control a nation state.  If they attack us, then utterly destroy them.

curly

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Rude
International observers.....don't even get me started!!!

We've lost our way.....we have no spine as to what is right and wrong

Speak for yourself, boyo.

curly

[Rude]

Originally posted by AKcurly
Ok.  Let's take a simple case.  Let's look at the group of folks with two felony convictions.  They have an extremely high risk of future felony convictions.  Why not just lock them up, permanently?  Even better, why not lock up their children before they reach adulthood?  Children of felons often become felons.  

In a civilized world, presumed innocence is an inherent part of law enforcement.  You ignore presumption of innocence at the risk of presenting a far larger danger to the general public than the felon.

Like it or not, the only safe way (and I mean safe to our political system) to deal with this problem lies in the following:

1. Protect ourselves internally.
2. Seek like-minded governments who share out world view and band together.

Eventually, one of two things will happen.  
1. We will successfully deal with stateless terrorists

or

2. The terrorists will eventually control a nation state.  If they attack us, then utterly destroy them.

curly

Two questions for you.....

1. Do you really believe we can secure our own borders to the extent we will be safe from terror being that we are America?

2. Do you really propose that we wait to be attacked and if so, are you willing to lose the lives of your family members as a price for such fair minded behavior on our part?

Listen....I do not for a minute suppose any of this is easy.....as a matter of fact, I'm amazed by the opinion of so many on this board as to how simple they believe a solution to be.

My true thought regarding all of this? We will never see peace on this earth until God's Son returns and brings it with him....mankinds nature is corrupt and incapable of a true and sustained peace among men.....the entire mindset saying that we can actually fix any of this ourselves only displays our arrogance and pride.

In the meantime, I would prefer to be proactive in the protection of our country rather than wait for another 9/11 and all that that will bring with it.

Cyas

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Rude
Two questions for you.....

1. Do you really believe we can secure our own borders to the extent we will be safe from terror being that we are America?

Safe is a relative term.  Yes, I believe we can be relatively safe.  Certainly absolute safety is impossible.

2. Do you really propose that we wait to be attacked and if so, are you willing to lose the lives of your family members as a price for such fair minded behavior on our part?

We cannot attack nations that we think will attack us.  It is immoral.  Certainly I am willing to lose my family (and myself) in the pursuit of freedom.  The alternative is worse.

My true thought regarding all of this? We will never see peace on this earth until God's Son returns and brings it with him....mankinds nature is corrupt and incapable of a true and sustained peace among men.....the entire mindset saying that we can actually fix any of this ourselves only displays our arrogance and pride.

Rude, I personally know you and enjoy your company.  However, we are on a different page when it comes to religion and almost any rational response from me (from my pov) will be insulting to you.  Let me simply say that religion and politics don't mix.  Take a good, hard look at what it's doing the Arabs.

In the meantime, I would prefer to be proactive in the protection of our country rather than wait for another 9/11 and all that that will bring with it.

Cyas

If I had a crystal ball that was 100% infallible, sure, I would agree.   In this country, we don't give up on segments of society simply because they break the law.  If we fail to extend this process to the world, then ultimately, we are the ones who will suffer the greater harm.

curly