Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on September 27, 2004, 10:33:09 AM
-
An analogy I hadn't considered, but one with merit, IMO.
Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal
Friday, September 24, 2004
By Powl Smith
Pundits these days are quick to compare the fighting in Iraq (search) with the American loss in Vietnam (search) 30 years ago. Terms like "quagmire" evoke the Southeast Asian jungle, where America's technological advantages were negated and committed Vietnamese guerrillas wore down the U.S. will to fight.
People love to draw historical analogies because they seem to offer a sort of analytical proof—after all, doesn't history repeat itself? In fact, such comparisons do have value, but like statistics, it's possible to find a historical analogy to suit any argument. And Vietnam's the wrong one for Iraq.
In fact, World War II is a far more accurate comparison for the global war we are waging to defeat terrorism. Both wars began for the United States with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy. We had many faint and not-so-faint warnings of the impending Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor (search), not least the historical precedent of Port Arthur in 1904, when the Japanese launched a preemptive strike against Russia.
We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents about Al Qaeda (search) and Islamist terrorism (search) (the East Africa embassy bombings (search) in 1998; the USS Cole bombing (search) in 2000), but in 2001 as in 1941, we lacked the "hard" intelligence requisite to convince a country at peace that it was about to pitched into war.
Historical apologists say that the Japanese were "forced" to attack us because we were strangling their trade in Asia. Sound familiar? American foreign policy in the Middle East is responsible for the anger and rage that has stirred up Al Qaeda, right? In fact, there is a crucial similarity between the Japanese imperialism (search) of 50 years ago and Islamic fundamentalism of today: both are totalitarian, anti-Western ideologies that cannot be appeased.
As Japan amassed victory after victory in the early days of the war, America and our allies could see that we had a long, hard slog ahead of us. Americans understood there was no recourse but to win, despite the fearful cost. This was the first and foremost lesson of World War II that applies today: Wars of national survival are not quick, not cheap, and not bloodless.
In one of our first counteroffensives against the Japanese, U.S. troops landed on the island of Guadalcanal (search) in order to capture a key airfield. We surprised the Japanese with our speed and audacity, and with very little fighting seized the airfield. But the Japanese recovered from our initial success, and began a long, brutal campaign to force us off Guadalcanal and recapture it. The Japanese were very clever and absolutely committed to sacrificing everything for their beliefs. (Only three Japanese surrendered after six months of combat—a statistic that should put today's Islamic radicals to shame.) The United States suffered 6,000 casualties during the six-month Guadalcanal campaign; Japan, 24,000. It was a very expensive airfield.
Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the populations that support them have to be convinced they can't win. This is a bloody and difficult business. In the Pacific theater, we eventually learned our enemies' tactics—jungle and amphibious warfare (search), carrier task forces, air power—and far surpassed them. But that victory took four years and cost many hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal—one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.
For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.
Lieutenant Colonel Powl Smith, U.S. Army, is the former chief of counterterrorism plans at U.S. European Command and is currently in Baghdad with Multi-National Forces-Iraq.
-
Well said....the problem with most on this board is that they somehow deem the objectives in Iraq as in some way, easy or quick.
Perseverence and resolve along with an iron fist in a velvet glove will win out in Iraq and other middle eastern countries.....the reality of freedom amongst the common man, woman and child will forever change that part of the world....it just won't happen within a single political season and that fact, drives the dribble by many on this board.
-
wow good read...thanks for the post
I've allways thaught that coparing vietnam was a poor comparison to Iraq. Type of warfare, insurgency, casualties; to me they are completly diff.
-
Drivel, drivel.
Dribble is what you do with a basketball.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Drivel, drivel.
Dribble is what you do with a basketball.
-SW
I hate to disagree, but I refer to the inate ability of all of my children to yes, dribble.
Merriam Webster: to let saliva trickle from the corner of the mouth : DROOL
It is simply the wet substance which leaks from the mouth, usually caused by the opening of one's mouth and uttering sounds rather than coherent speech.
I hear ya though....sorry for the confusion:)
-
Well, you were right about dribble though. It's a requirement to have a full frontal lobotamy to post on this board, dribble is usually the primary result of the lobotamy.
-SW
-
Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal—one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.
Interesting comparison which only holds water if Iraq becomes a jumping point to then take out Syrai, Iran and to some degree Saudi Arabia, et-al, otherwise your whole analogy falls apart and the Iraq comparison to Vietnam is a better fit, with I hope and pray has a better outcome.
To be honest if your analogy were to be the case then, we would be occupying Iraq and there would be little effort or care to turn Iraq over to it's people. That is why I think this is more a liberation like Vietnam was supposed to be rather than a stepping point like Guadalcanal.
Also, even though you quote people that say "For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win." I am sure this was felt by many people during Korea and Vietnam as well. I would think every war we have entered, this line would fit. Only problem is that we didn't really win in Korea or Vietnam for many reasons that go beyond this thread.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Well, you were right about dribble though. It's a requirement to have a full frontal lobotamy to post on this board, dribble is usually the primary result of the lobotamy.
-SW
Check 6 kinda slow these days?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Drivel, drivel.
Dribble is what you do with a basketball.
-SW
in my Marriam Webster's, the word dribble is actually in the definition of drivel.
On point:
Guadacanal seems like a good comparison to take some lessons from. At the very least, it's as good as Vietnam (it certainly feels better). The only problem is that LTCOL Smith doesn't take Vietnam into context.
In the 60s, Vietnam was part of the greater struggle against the Soviet Union. This was a struggle against a fundamentally anti-western culture that lasted for decades (instead of years like the war against Japan) and had its share of victories and losses.
If you're willing to make that strategic concession, then Vietnam looks better and better. It's tacticly similar because we're fighting a mostly home grown insurgency and we are limiting ourselves to a defined target set with specific munitions. It's politicly similar because we have a growing anti-war movement and an enemy that's willing to exploit it, and we're worried that moving out will only hand the region over to that enemy.
What's the lesson in this analysis? In Vietnam we lost, but the USSR was eventually defeated because of efforts elsewhere. This doesn't mean we should leave Iraq, but in a worldwide effort against a fundamentalist threat, we should have a broad effort to defeat that threat wherever we may find it. What's different? The players change. In the last half of the 20th century, our allies were those threatened by the USSR. In the 21st century, our allies are those who feel threatened by radical Islamic terrorists.
-
Following me around now? Maybe I can make one of them cool "Ripsnort has a crush on me" avatards so I can feel importent.
-SW
-
That's odd Preon, a lot of dictionaries appear to have drivel as a definition for dribble and vice versa. My English professor was very vehement about dribble being drool while drivel was inane babble.
-SW
-
SW, professors can be extremist too.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131398
P.S. Sabre, I SWEAR it's not my intention to hijack your thread by following the drivel thing or posting the teacher thing. Comparing Iraq to historical experience is a very useful exercise.
-
To be honest if your analogy were to be the case then, we would be occupying Iraq and there would be little effort or care to turn Iraq over to it's people. That is why I think this is more a liberation like Vietnam was supposed to be rather than a stepping point like Guadalcanal.
A good point Mars! One thing though; we were not liberating Vietnam, we were trying to prevent the eastern block from 'liberating' it :D
-
A good point Mars! One thing though; we were not liberating Vietnam, we were trying to prevent the eastern block from 'liberating' it
LOLH Edbert. Ok we were trying to reliberate it.
-
Some good points, Preon (about the article, not about drivel...or dribble, or whatever). Either analogy has some aspects that can fit the situation. The question is which one to follow to best insure defeat of our enemies? In the case of Vietnam, the public lost sight of what the point of our intervention was. There is certainly a danger of that happening with Iraq as well, since the constant drumbeat from opponents of the Iraqi war is that it is a distraction from the war on terror (in itself, a poor moniker; a better one would be, “war against radical Islam”). However, unlike the Vietnam War, we made a conscious decision to take the fight to Saddam, a major sponsor of terrorism, with the clear goal of defeating him and replacing his tyranny with democracy. And, like the many campaigns of WWII, it is but one campaign along the road to stamping out this evil.
As for Mars’ comment about occupation and Guadalcanal as a stepping stone, remember this: The US and the Western Allies liberated huge areas during the campaigns of WWII, turning over to them (including most especially the subjugated peoples of Germany and Japan) full self-governance at the earliest possible time. This was something on the order of 7-10 years in the case of Germany and Japan. As far as being a stepping stone, again it is critical to remember why we want democracy in a liberated Iraq. It is to act as a beacon of hope to other oppressed people in the Middle East, and to show that Islam need not fear freedom, or live in the shadow of the West. Not all the battles of this new war will be fought with smart bombs and bullets. Indeed, the turn-around of Libya came about without the use of direct violence against that nation. Make no mistake, Iraq is a stepping stone to victory.
-
Justifying why we went into Iraq does not make the comparison more correct.
We liberated the territories in WWII from an occupying country. In Iraq we overthrew the current government thus taking over their country. All the more this does not make Iraq more like Guadalcanal.
Also not one of the liberated countries in WWII would have stood against us as we pursued Japan. Do you really think that the Iraqi people would let us use their country to go after Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia? I hardly think so.
Also there were many places that we just skipped over in the pacific during WWII because they were not strategic areas needed to press the war on Japan. Liberation was an after thought to their strategic importance.
But in Iraq, after the weapons of mass destruction excuse fell through the administration turned it into, A Liberation of a of Country from a Crazed Dictator. The world is full of crazed dictators it is not the USA's role to liberate them.
I also question Iraq's link and role in terrorism, which many people have taken as gospel without a whole lot of proof. Why did Bush push so hard on the WMDs if the invasion was really necessary in the War against Terror?
Why didn't bush just say we are going to invade Iraq because it is instrumental in the War against terror?
My guess is because going into Iraq was not instrumental in the war against terror. I would think we would have been better served by putting more people on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and capturing Osama instead of poorly manning the border and letting Osoma escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan.
I think after the whole fiasco about WMDs that people would require more proof and less hearsay in these matters.
Let's face it, if Bush required better proof and relied less on hearsay before going into war we would not have invaded Iraq in the first place. But I digress.
"It is to act as a beacon of hope to other oppressed people in the Middle East, and to show that Islam need not fear freedom, or live in the shadow of the West. "
Pushing the communists out of Vietnam and establishing a democracy was supposed to do much the same thing against Communism. Your quote above makes Iraq more Vietnam like than Guadalcanal. We did not take Guadalcanal to bring democracy we took Guadalcanal to launch planes from it.
You make it sound like this is the first time we tried to put a Democracy in the Middle East and that you expect this to work. I think Iran and the Shaw is a perfect example of how hard this is to do and how quickly these countries can turn against us.
For god sake, we practically put friggin Saddam in power and look how fast he turned on us.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Why didn't bush just say we are going to invade Iraq because it is instrumental in the War against terror?
Because the liberals would have ranted and raved what they did in 1991...'Blood for Oil!!!'....meanwhile, $50 a barrel for oil today on the NYSE, hey! I thought gas was going to get cheaper!?! Oh, thats right, Corporate execs are profiting more...wait...I hear something!>>>>
http://blackhelicopters.com
-
one big hole in the analogy.
the comparison to the 2 wars starting with a sneak attack, is accurate I guess but kinda goes awry after that.
a more accurate comparison would be if after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor we attacked attacked China. after all we just sit idly by after being attacked. we must make China answer for Japans attack on our fleet.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Well said....the problem with most on this board is that they somehow deem the objectives in Iraq as in some way, easy or quick.
Perseverence and resolve along with an iron fist in a velvet glove will win out in Iraq and other middle eastern countries.....the reality of freedom amongst the common man, woman and child will forever change that part of the world....it just won't happen within a single political season and that fact, drives the dribble by many on this board.
Your right and the problem with this board is the same problem with todays society in general.
Everyone expects immediate gratification. Its gotta be Right now. As if someone is supposed to wave some sort of magic wand and make everything just so
And nobody is willing to show patience or perseverence.
We've been in Iraq what? a little less then a year?
We were in germany and Japan how long?.
Its amazing the loss of resolve since 911
Amazing the short attenton span we have.
9/11 is not unlike that of 12/7/41 And that marked the beginning of our war then just as 911 has marked the beginning of this war now.
The War is not over. Afghanastan and Iraq are but two battles in a war that is going to continue. That HAS to continue.
-
would you care to make an attempt to explain exactly how the Iraq war and the 9/11 attacks are related?
-
Iraq is not like vietnam its more like beruit. I agree with the last sentence though.
No matter what prewar, wats done i done.
>For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.
My 2.5 schillings.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
would you care to make an attempt to explain exactly how the Iraq war and the 9/11 attacks are related?
Not really, since you don't care to listen.
Besides, no one ever said the reason to go into Iraq was that Iraq was directly or indirectly responsible for the attacks of 11 September 2001.
Aww, what the HELL, just so you can ignore or deny anoy or all of this, here goes.
The reasons for going into Iraq were many and varied. The ENTIRE WORLD freely acknowledges that Saddam Hussien has long been seeking to aquire nuclear capablity, along with other weapons. The UN even agreed that Saddam Hussien was repeatedly and continually in violation of any number of UN resolutions, not the least of which were those which were conditions of the CEASE FIRE of 1991 (there was no real peace treaty, the war never officially ended). And Saddam Hussien was well known for his support of terrorism. He was vocal and public about it. Even to the point of publicly paying terrorists and their families. Do a search on "Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror", and see any number of multiple links between Saddam Hussien and terrorists and acts of terrorism around the world.
Oh, and to tie this all in with the attacks of 11 September 2001, Bush said shortly after those attacks, " ANY country that supports or harbors terrorists will be subject to regime change". Saddam Hussien's Iraq pretty much fits the description of a country that harbors or supports terrorists.
But of course you will ignore or deny any or all of those reasons. I would expect nothing less.
-
OK last things first "Bush says so" is not a valid reason for war.
yes we freely acknowledge that he was seeking chemical and nuclear weapons, in the 80's we were selling him raw materials, weapons and intelligence, so we had a good idea what he was interested in.
the idea that we went because he defied the UN is somewhat amusing since the UN has called this war illegal. you can't support someones laws by breaking them.
the support of terrorism may be true (the direct support of terrorists is something I hadn't heard, I had heard that he gave support money to the families of suicide bombers,) though I've heard of no instances where he supported any attacks against the US.
his issues with other countries or UN requirements are an issue for the UN or country involved, it's not ours. we are not the worlds police force, it is neither our right or responsibility to decide who should be in power in other countries or what they do as long as it doesn't concern us. If he commits attacks against the US or supports those who do, then it is definitely our business and in urgent need of response (as in Afghanistan), but this is just taking away manpower and resources that could be used in the war on terror.
when launching a war on terror I think it is reasonable as a citizen of this country (who's best interest, whether he choses to admit it or not, Bush is paid to look out for), to expect those we elect to take care of direct threats to our own country, next take care of social and economic issues in our own country, pay off the debt, and then if you have any money left over they can go play around at trying to tell the rest of the world how to live.
-
In case you missed it, we declared war on terrorism. Something that has become necessary for the very survival of the free world. Given the continuing escalation of terrorist acts, it is no longer an option to wait for them to attack. Especially given that they are seeking ever more powerful weapons to use.
No, you are wrong. The UN did NOT call this war illegal. Koffee did, and he does not quite have the power to make such a declaration on his own, now does he? No he does not.
Any serious reading on the subject of terrorism will show direct links between Saddam Hussien and terrorists. And between Saddam Hussien and terrorists who have committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. its foreign interests, and its citizens.
Uh, in case you missed it, we had to lead the coalition to remove him from Kuwait. Further, it fell upon the U.S. to keep him in his cage. Got any idea what we spent over the 12 years between the original war and the eventual invasion? Do you realize and understand that the U.S., at the request of the UN and any number of countries, maintained a huge military presence to keep Saddam in his borders? Easy for the UN to tell us how to spend our money and how to deploy our troops, for any length and in any strength they choose. They sure as HELL ain't paying the bill.
Oh, and by the way, the UN and the Saudis asked us to stay and keep Saddam in control, but UBL attacked the U.S. because we had troops on Saudi soil. So you can thank the UN for their part in 11 September 2001. Funny how all that works if you pay attention, ain't it? See, the UN, the Saudis, Quatar, and Kuwait all asked the U.S. to maitain a massive military presence in the region to keep Saddam in his cage. But when the U.S. was attacked because of that presence, the UN felt that we should stay but not finish the job and get it over with. Quatar, and Kuwait welcome us with open arms, and the Saudis didn't REALLY want us to leave, but it was okay for us to leave after we took Saddam out of the picture.
-
While we are at comparisons, compare the number of civilians in Iraq today, with the civilians on Guadalcanal during the years 1941~1945.
Compare the physical size of the landmass of Iraq, and that of Guadalcanal.
Compare how many people even knew about a place called Guadalcanal in 1942, let alone had the means to get there if they wished, with the same criteria today regarding Iraq.
Compare how many people (local civilians) actually cared wether it was Japanese or American planes using the island for a base, with how many people call Iraq home, and care about who is in power there.
The point being, Guadalcanal was a relatively uninhabited, itty bitty little isand in the middle of a big ocean that no one cared a hoot about except those with a need to project airpower, and those very few (comparatively speaking) civilians who lived there.
Iraq is a modern nation, with millions of people, and a huge economy.
When the US and the Japanese were fighting over Guadalcanal, the two forces were relatively similar in manpower, spending power and weapons technology, the people fighting the Americans in Iraq now arent even in the same city, let alone ballpark. (figuratively speaking that is, no doubt they are infact in the same city/ies)
What about respective terrain types of Iraq and Guadalcanal?
Comparing the two military campaigns is ludicrous.
About the only common factor is US military involvement.
If you really are looking for a historic precedent, I reckon the USSR/Afghanistan would be a lot closer to the mark, strategically and tactically, though perhaps dissimilar in the reasons.
-
If only Iraq had aircraft carrieres that could sunk.
-
and if the US invaded switzerland during wwii that would be like Iraq. Even if that happened, victory is essential, in any battle. All Nixon did was plan an acceptable retreat. Nixon was brilliant.
-
Guadalcanal was an operation with a clear military objective. Iraq had no military objective, rather a political one: regime change to one that is pro-US. The problem there is that while a military objective can be won militarily, a political objective can't. Unless you go for the whole imperialist colonial thing.
So the comparison is really daft. Vietnam is a lot closer than Guadalcanal, but again it isn't correct.
Possibly the best fit would be the British Invasion of Iraq in 1917. There's a lot of similarities: the stated mission of the invaders being liberation from an oppressive regime; the expectation of being welcomed with open arms; the decent into political chaos; air strikes on civilians; attacks on troops; the besieging of Najaf and Fallujah; the Guantanmo/Abu Ghraib style of imprisonment & abuse; the moderate Shiite leader staying neutral; the radical leader with a private army. It goes on.
There's differences too, of course, but it's a better fit.
I suspect Lt Col Powl Smith just wants (or is under orders) to draw a comparison to something the US won rather than something they lost. Such is the way of propaganda. As for the greater TWOT=WWII analogy - well, oh dear.
-
Sadaam has clear and irrefutable ties to Hamas and other groups, Abu Nidal lived there and was on Saddam's payrol for a very long time. He was funding and equiping terrorit training camps for years. Our current foe, Al Zawahiri (sp?), went to iraq when he fled Afghanistan, ever wonder why? Some will say it was so he can continue to fight against US imperialism, but if that were true why leave Afghanistan? The only answer is that there are more civilians to hide among and increase the likely hood of 'collateral damage'. What a guy eh? That thinking sorta epitomises a terrorist if you ask me.
Regarding the subject of Iraq=Guadalcanal...only time will tell. I think dead is right regarding the won vs lost statement too. If we win it then guadalcanal is pretty close, if we lose it then Vietnam does fit well. The author's point was that the difference between winning and losing is in the hands of the electorate. Had the candidate for POTUS from the challenging party in the elections during WWII said stuff like "this crappy little island is not worth the sacrifices of 6,000 US children" (pet peeve of mine is calling the soldiers/sailors/airmen 'kids'), or saying that we should withdraw, then Guadalcanal would more accurately describe what we have today.
-
A Question for the Bush guys.
If we don't go after the other countries in the area, who are worse than Saddam, whom also harbor terrorist and unlike Saddam actually have the capability to deliver WMDs, was Iraq justified and really part of the war on terror.
If we don't go after the other countries in the area, does it make you ask the question, why arent we going after Syria and Iran?
-
Originally posted by mars01
A Question for the Bush guys.
If we don't go after the other countries in the area, who are worse than Saddam, whom also harbor terrorist and unlike Saddam actually have the capability to deliver WMDs, was Iraq justified and really part of the war on terror.
If we don't go after the other countries in the area, does it make you ask the question, why arent we going after Syria and Iran?
First, one at a time, all in due time.
And second, despite how much Iraq was an unfinished job needed to be finished, look what has happened. Makes it hard to say we'd be able to do it, considering the fact that the amount of cooperation is shrinking every day, and the will to stay the course at home is being destroyed by the current generation of Fondas and Cronkites, not to mention the original generation of Fondas and Cronkites.
Nevermind the fact that part of the desired effects of Afghanistan and Iraq is the possibility of peaceful regime change, or at least regime change without military intervention.
Oh, how soon it is forgotten that Saddam did have missles he was not suppposed to have, because they had more range than they were supposed to. Realize that we had a presence over there at the invitation of several countries and the UN. Were we supposed to wait until Saddam could have hit large parts of our military presence with nukes before we did anything?
There is no doubt that Iran, Syria, and North Korea need to be dealt with. The problem is getting the support at home and abroad needed to do it. Everyone freely admits how bad Saddam was and what his intentions were, but no one wanted anyone to do anything about it. What makes you think they'll want anyone to step up and deal with the others?
-
one at a time is fine with me. shouldn't we start with the countries that are more involved in our problems though?
for example most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, however we seem to like that gov't no matter how many of their citizens fly planes into our buildings.
as I see it Bush is acting like some school yard punk. he took a shot to the nose and his pride is hurt, but instead of going after those who caused his problem he just looks around for a guy he knows he can beat up and starts in on him, to make an example of him.
he tries to look tough, and thinks working this kid over will teach the others a lesson. unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. since he went after who ever he knew he could beat, instead of someone involved in the attack against him, he just looks like an unstable punk who is lashing out in a desperate attempt to impress people of his toughness.
-
“for example most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, however we seem to like that gov't no matter how many of their citizens fly planes into our buildings.”
Capt, from your about statement, do you believe Bin Laden was acting as a proxy for the Saudi government? I.E, ordered by the “Saudi government” to fly planes into our buildings? Or if that’s to broad a statements for you, ordered to kill as many Americans as possible? I’m getting the sense from your argument that you believe we should invade the Saudis, because “most” of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi.
If we were to follow your logic a bit further, how many non-Afghans citizens did we find fighting in Afghanistan? Does the fact that citizens from other Muslim countries were fighting us there imply any and all said countries must be attacked?
All the 9/11 terrorists were in fact Muslim, not “most”, were they not? Should we attack every Muslim country because all the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim?
-
Originally posted by mars01
A Question for the Bush guys.
If we don't go after the other countries in the area, who are worse than Saddam, whom also harbor terrorist and unlike Saddam actually have the capability to deliver WMDs, was Iraq justified and really part of the war on terror.
If we don't go after the other countries in the area, does it make you ask the question, why arent we going after Syria and Iran?
We will Mars....that is if Bush is re-elected.
Assaulting other nations which support terror can be accomplished in ways other than direct military confrontation.....for instance....the reality of Iraq and resolve by our nation to put down the insurgency and to promote a free and elected goverment in Iraq fires a meaningful salvo across the bow of Syria, Iran, NK and others.
The biggest oversight of the Bush Administration in going into Iraq, was the lack of support from our so-called allies....I believe they felt, while not being fully supportive publicly, our allies would have at least lended a hand rather than to fully stand up against us.
Big diff in my book from saying no thanks, we're not interested to actively opposing us in every single effort made.
We stand against what happened to US interest and civilians from Beirut to 9/11....I hope we continue to do so until the backs of those wishing us harm are broken.
Imagine turning on the news like so many of us did the morning of 9/11, to view a mushroom cloud over a major US city....to what would we blame this happening to anything other than apathy and a lack of character to do what must be done at whatever cost to protect our nation.
To feel good inside over a false peace while a sitting US president shares cigars and sherry with Europe, will not guarantee our peace and safety this time either.
-
Originally posted by Rude
To feel good inside over a false peace while a sitting US president shares cigars and sherry with Europe, will not guarantee our peace and safety this time either.
Who is Sherry? Don't you mean Monica?
-
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!
-
Posted by Mars
If we don't go after the other countries in the area, does it make you ask the question, why arent we going after Syria and Iran?
Response by Rude
We will Mars....that is if Bush is re-elected.
I don't think it is that simple. We aren't being attacked by countries -- we are being attacked by a group of religious fanatics from a variety of countries, including the USA.
If country X attacked us, then yes, do what is necessary. The connection between Saddam and terroists was tenuous at best. Probable cause is insufficient evidence to convict.
This problem will not be solved by the US. A final resolution will occur if and only if a united front is presented by the affected nations. Collectively, we can solve the problem. Without the support of the rest of the world, we are making matters worse, not better.
curly
-
This problem will not be solved by the US. A final resolution will occur if and only if a united front is presented by the affected nations. Collectively, we can solve the problem. Without the support of the rest of the world, we are making matters worse, not better.
Yeah I agree with this. This is one resone I think, in light of Bush's misrepresented WMD threat, that Iraq was a mistake and a bad waste of men and resources. All of which could have been put to use against the true terrorist threats.
You have to agree Syria, Iran and North Korea are walking a fine line.
-
The good Colonel's analogy and conclusion is flawed on several counts. First off Iraq WAS nothing to do with the war on terror. It was unfinished business. It needed a conclusion. It got one. Al Qaeda were holed up in Afghanistan.
Guadalcanal was more like Afghanistan. The first target.
But right now Iraq is part of the war on terror as a result of the invasion. It has attracted many of the fanatics. I wonder how many of the suicide bombers are actually Iraqi? On top of which Saddams well funded henchmen are behind much of the terror. Their aim is to get back in power by making Iraq ungovernable and the Allies to get out just like Vietnam. Make no mistake Saddam could be put back in power if a Baathist coup succeeds.
So at this stage it's pointless arguing the merits of WMD's or the reasons for the war. Leave that to the historians. The situation right now has to be sorted and it's going to be a long and bloody business. But in the end what is needed for Iraq is for it to become a relatively stable Arab country like Egypt or Morocco. That would be good but it will take time and effort.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Yeah I agree with this. This is one resone I think, in light of Bush's misrepresented WMD threat, that Iraq was a mistake and a bad waste of men and resources. All of which could have been put to use against the true terrorist threats.
You have to agree Syria, Iran and North Korea are walking a fine line.
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
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Capt, from your about statement, do you believe Bin Laden was acting as a proxy for the Saudi government? I.E, ordered by the “Saudi government” to fly planes into our buildings? Or if that’s to broad a statements for you, ordered to kill as many Americans as possible? I’m getting the sense from your argument that you believe we should invade the Saudis, because “most” of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi.
If we were to follow your logic a bit further, how many non-Afghans citizens did we find fighting in Afghanistan? Does the fact that citizens from other Muslim countries were fighting us there imply any and all said countries must be attacked?
All the 9/11 terrorists were in fact Muslim, not “most”, were they not? Should we attack every Muslim country because all the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim?
all very good points and I agree with every one of them. now, keeping your points in mind, can you explain to me again why we are in Iraq?
honestly, I don't think we should attack the Saudis. the point is that if you can justify the Iraq war you can use the same route to justify an invasion of Saudi Arabia, and you'll get to that justification a lot sooner.
-
I thought the fight for Gaudalcanal was to save Australia?
Look at Iraq this way, for about fifty years we have manipulated governments and put in puppets, all this has done is backfire. At least we have taken a different approach and are trying to let the people of Iraq decide their fate.
The decision to invade is moot now, we cannot up and leave them high and dry. The elections must be held, this is very important to say the least. If the elections do not happen, it will be looked upon as we are controlling their government and we could lose support of the people. That is why insurgents are doing whatever they can to put a stop to the elections. IMO, countries in the middle east are weary of what might happen if democracy takes root in Iraq. Their people will demand the same, and power could well be lost.
-
he was barely a threat and we had him contained
MARS???
so quick to over look ..many decades of evidence..
Mars...he admitted to having and producing WMDs..The UN-NATO confirmed and was in process of trying to"destryoing/observing
he used them on his own people..how do you contain 10lbs of anthrax..that would kill thousands..or vx gas...
the precursers to all thses wmds are easily hiden and transported..
So..do you say He had no WMDs and No way to make them?..
Didnt you gusy see the Head of his Nuclear Dept handover the bluprints to Nuc wepaons and such to the American gov?..He had them buried in his back yard?
I find it so hard to beelive that the _Pro Soddom people think he was such a dumb guy who could be contained?..LMFAO...hes A STATE SPONSORING terrorist....PROOF POSITIVE?..Prove it Wrong..I will bet $100 to prove me wrong..or I shoudl say.."was"
and you gusy say.."go after worse" ..Ya..lets go Invade Korea rigth now?..sounds smart?...and Libya..Momar must of just gave up his WMDs Program out of the goodness of his heart?...KooomBii ii yaaaa My Lord/////Koombiiyaaaa
Love
BiGB
xoxo
-
Just a thought, why compare to either gudalcanal OR Vietnam? Why not compare it as this author did?
____________________
AMERICA & IRAQ
By AMIR TAHERI
September 21, 2004 -- 'WE'VE lost the peace,' men tell you. We cannot make it stick . . . Europeans, friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bit terly they are disappointed in you as an American . . . [Liberation] stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing: looting. Never has American prestige in Europe been lower."
Another media report from Iraq? No. This was novelist John Dos Passos in 1945, reporting for Life magazine, from newly-liberated Europe.
Dos Passos knew, almost by instinct, what journalists learn in practice: Good news is no news. There was no point in reporting from Berlin on how people were able to sit in the ruins of cafes and speak freely for the first time in 13 years.
Nor was there any point in celebrating the rebirth of a free German press with the first post-Hitler newspaper appearing in a single sheet. Nor again would Life devote space to such mundane subjects as refugees returning home and Europeans starting to rebuild their lives from scratch.
Needless to say, Dos Passos could not have imagined that 50 years later Germany would not only be reunited but would also be a working democracy. And could he have guessed that, thanks to those same "low prestige" Americans, Europe would enjoy the longest period of peace it has experienced in more than 1,500 years of its history?
Because history is never written in advance, post-war Europe could have gone in other directions. One factor, above all, ensured the direction that it took toward democratic reconstruction. That was the American determination to drain the swamps that had bred the evil of war in Europe for millennia. "We are in this for the long haul," President Harry Truman had said, reflecting the sentiments of most Americans.
TO be sure, the American resolve to build a new Europe, and around it a new world system, was not motivated by pure altruism but by enlightened self-interest — the key ingredient of virtually all lasting achievements in global politics.
The Americans realized that all the wars they had been forced to fight during the 170 years of the existence of their nation, including two world wars, had been provoked by undemocratic nations, mostly located in Europe.
Experience had taught the Americans that it was not sufficient to win a war against a despotic power for it to cease to be a threat. To remove the threat once and for all, and thus ensure U.S. security, required the democratization of nations that had been enemies of America at different times.
The American analysis has proved right: Democratic Europe is no longer a threat to U.S. national security.
Now, let us return to Iraq and the Middle East in general.
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush must have pondered the same questions that Presidents Franklin D Roosevelt and Truman had asked in their time. The key question: Where does the most serious threat to America's national security come from?
In the post-Cold War world and with the elimination of the Soviet threat, the answer was clear. It was the broader Middle East region that represented the principal source of threat to the security and national interests of the US and its allies.
Even before 9/11, there was much evidence for this — from the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 to the 1993 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, and passing by the mass murder of 241 Marines in Beirut and the killing of more than a thousand other Americans in dozens of terrorist operations over two decades.
IT was in the Middle East that Ameri can flags were burned as part of na tional rituals. It was also there that official textbooks taught schoolchildren to hate America and devote their lives to killing "Jews and Cross-worshippers."
There was more. The United States had intervened in the Middle East, including by direct military action. Between 1956 and 2003, when the U.S. led the coalition that liberated Iraq, American forces had seen action in various parts of the Middle East on half a dozen occasions: in 1956 in the Arab Peninsula, in 1958 in Jordan and Lebanon, and in 1987 against the Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf. And in 1991 the U.S. led a coalition to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.
During the same period, U.S. support was a major element in preventing the destruction of Israel by its Arab neighbors in 1967 and '73.
Looking back, it is clear that half a century of American military and political intervention in the Middle East failed to tackle the fundamental cause of the violence, war and terror bred in that region: the absence of democracy.
During the Cold War, the United States could not have built its Middle East policy on the imperative of democratization. Such a policy would have forced the despotic regimes to switch to the Soviet side, thus altering the global balance of power against the bloc led by the United States.
Today, however, such regimes have nowhere to go. The United States is, therefore, in a position to adopt the democratization as the central goal of its policy in the Middle East.
ONCE again, let us recall that what is at issue is not altruism or the inher ent goodness of helping Arab and other Muslim peoples to achieve freedom. The dismantling of despotic regimes and the defeat of the Islamofascist and pan-Arab ideologies that sustain them are essential for U.S. national security.
Americans will not be safe in their homes until and unless the Middle Eastern swamps of despotism and Islamofascism that breed terrorism are drained.
Some might say: Very well, but why start with Iraq? The answer is simple. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was the only country in the region that had invaded two of its neighbors in a decade. It was also the only country ever to be formally at war against the entire United Nations, after trying to wipe a U.N. member off the map.
Saddam's regime had violated 15 mandatory resolutions of the United Nations' Security Council for 13 years, an all-time record. It was also host to 23 terrorist organizations from all over the world.
That regime boasted other distinctions: It was the only one to have used chemical weapons in war since 1916, and the only one to have wiped out the population of one of its own cities in a gas attack.
The United States had recognized Saddam's regime as a threat to U.S. national security long before George W. Bush became president. The Iraq Liberation Act had been passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton after months of debate that concluded with a dire assertion: Saddam was a time-bomb that, if not defused, would one day do irreparable harm to the United States and its allies.
This was how Sen. John McCain responded to those who opposed the liberation of Iraq: "Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows."
In the House, former Speaker Richard Gephardt was even more specific in urging the removal of Saddam from power before he is able to develop weapons of mass destruction: "I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent."
More importantly, Saddam's regime was practically the only one in the region that lacked any internal mechanisms for change. This was not a disease that could be treated by herbal medicine; it needed surgery.
THAT surgery happed in the spring of last year, when a relatively small U.S.-led Coalition army marched on Baghdad, forcing the despot to flee to hide in a hole. The surgery was successful. It was completed at a remarkably limited human and material cost.
The structures of despotism and terror, built over half a century, have been dismantled with remarkable speed. But opponents of liberation, many of them non-Iraqis, have manifested their lack of popular support by having recourse to violence and terror.
Their aim is to prevent the general election scheduled for next January. The reason is clear: They know that free elections and democracy are deadly for the brand of despotic politics that they wish to re-impose on Iraq.
Iraq's liberation has already triggered various reform movements throughout the region. Whether or not these will lead to meaningful change, remains to be seen. Much depends on America's will to stay the course, to do in the Middle East what the U.S. did in Europe.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom peddled by part of the media, the liberation of Iraq has been a brilliant success. What is now needed is to translate that into another brilliant success — this time in building the first democratic Arab state, one that will become a model for the entire Middle East.
A majority of Iraqis believe that this can be done. The next U.S. election will show whether or not a majority of the Americans share that belief.
THERE is no doubt that Iraq, the Mid dle East and the whole world are better places without Saddam and his regime of oppression and terror. But this is only the first phase of a grand strategy whose aim is to help Arabs and other Muslim peoples build free societies. Freedom for Arabs and other Muslims would, in turn, be translated into security for the American people and their allies.
It is this big picture that the Americans must have in mind when they decide whether or not rescuing Iraq from the evil of Saddam was the right thing to do.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
I don't think it is that simple. We aren't being attacked by countries -- we are being attacked by a group of religious fanatics from a variety of countries, including the USA.
If country X attacked us, then yes, do what is necessary. The connection between Saddam and terroists was tenuous at best. Probable cause is insufficient evidence to convict.
This problem will not be solved by the US. A final resolution will occur if and only if a united front is presented by the affected nations. Collectively, we can solve the problem. Without the support of the rest of the world, we are making matters worse, not better.
curly
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.
-
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.
-
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?
:)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 :)
-
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