Printable View
That's the thing about suicide attacks, they end up dead. The key is that more don't decide to do the same. The war in Iraq leads to just the opposite. I am by no means a pacifist, the afghan war was comepletely justified. I support any war which is in America's interest, this one is not. I am surprised they didn't plant WMD in Iraq, but I quess they surmised (quite rightly) that the risks if they got caught were unacceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
I am in agreement with some of what you said. I do not really know if the Iraq war is "in America's interest" or not. None of us know, yet - but Sadaam was a ruthless dictator, and I'm not crying any crocodile tears about his departure ?? and neither are most of his victims and other citizens of Iraq (and neighboring nations). The main thing is that we should learn from our past mistakes, so that we can move forward to see the day that a better government is in place there and in nations in similar, or worse, states of dictatorship and oppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by andruejaysin
Your last sentence gives the impression that that the Bush administration, if they reckoned they could get away with it, would have planted evidence of WMD in Iraq. Again, I do not know if GWB would have done this had the odds of success been in his favor - although in any circle of politicians there will always be some that, given the opportunity, would operate in this fashion. Even if they HAD found actual substantial evidence, some people would have accused them of wrongdoing. This leads me to think that Bush was quite positve that WMD were there.
I would be surprised if no WMD existed in Iraq, given the character of Sadaam. He either hid them, destroyed them, or hadn't been sucessful in getting them. One thing for sure is: he wanted them.
reading the history of the afghan war, it seems that it was less a case of the US giving help to the underdogs after the soviets invaded, and more a case of the soviets invading because of the activity of the US intel services already going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
it can be argued that our actions in afghanistan and pakistan put the soviets on edge (after all, it was right next door to them geographically), thus goading them into invading.
you're gonna' spank the dog that bit you when you're the one who got him all worked up in the first place?
you don't have any pets, do you?
I am not making excuses for the U.S. getting involved in Afghanistan, before the Soviet invasion, but I do not think that the Russians were "goaded" into invading. They would have gotten around to it, eventually. So your accusation that the U.S. got Afghanistan "worked up" does not hold. Bin laden and his cohorts were very pissed off that the U.S. didn't provide actual soldiers to repel the Soviet invaders. I believe that Reagan did the right thing by not going to war with the Soviet Army, regardless of what the future taliban and al quida wanted at the time. His biggest mistake was helping them, training them in military maneuvers, allowing them to establish a theocratic dictatorship, and giving them economic aid. TQuote:
Originally Posted by phareye
BTW, the method of dealing with dogs that bite the hands that feed them, in the traditions of my ancestors, was to shoot, not "spank", them ?? not too long ago these animals served purposes other than being a lapdog: they ??worked?, and were cared for, I??m sure, very humanly ?? but in a kennel, or doghouses, rather than in the house ?? and sometimes they could not be domesticated enough to be trusted around children, or adults. One of my great grandfathers raised collies, or border collies, which are very good with sheep, as well as other jobs. Another ancestor had full sized dachshunds (used to hunt badgers), and (probably) other breeds. And no, I do not currently own a dog, or any other pet, but hope to in the future. I don??t expect I??ll have ever need to take any drastic measures with it for it??s conduct, lol. I actually wish that more humans were as trustworthy, and useful, as most dogs are.
Correction:Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
I meant, .......that the U.S. got the Soviet Union (NOT Afghanistan) "worked up" does not hold.
Actually, no, I didn't. I believe the country would have been better served had he won, but I vote for no one unless I believe they have earned it. Last time none of the candidates met that criteria. Kerry voted for a war he knew to be a mistake, because it was polling above 50%. That says more about his character than I ever could. Bush actually thought the war was a good idea, that says more about his judgement than I ever could. I will not vote for someone unless I have confidence in both their character and their judgement, which often leaves me without a candidate to vote for. You would no dought be shocked to know who I voted for, (as a write in, obviously).Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
my reading doesn't indicate that bin laden or any other anti-soviet agents wanted american troops on the ground to repel the soviets. like the american revolutionaries didn't want french soldiers on the ground; they just wanted the equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
reagan DID in effect go to war w/ the soviets. we supplied arms, money, and intel. the US wasn't directly engaged w/ the soviets, but we did everything short of putting troops on the ground.
i see "helping them, training them in military maneuvers, allowing them to establish a theocratic dictatorship, and giving them economic aid", to quote you, as tantamount to goading them on then getting pissed when they bite back. this is another example of the mentality that has gotten the US into so much hot water over the years: let's do what helps us the most now, regardless of how it will affect the next administration, much less future generations".
[QUOTE=phareye]my reading doesn't indicate that bin laden or any other anti-soviet agents wanted american troops on the ground to repel the soviets. like the american revolutionaries didn't want french soldiers on the ground; they just wanted the equipment.
reagan DID in effect go to war w/ the soviets. we supplied arms, money, and intel. the US wasn't directly engaged w/ the soviets, but we did everything short of putting troops on the ground.i see "helping them, training them in military maneuvers, allowing them to establish a theocratic dictatorship, and giving them economic aid", to quote you, as tantamount to goading them on then getting pissed when they bite back. this is another example of the mentality that has gotten the US into so much hot water over the years: let's do what helps us the most now, regardless of how it will affect the next administration, much less future generations".[/QUOTE]
Please do not compare these lowlife idiots to the Patriots of the American Revolution. Not only are they in another league, they are not even in the same universe!
OK, so we made a mistake, but the taliban and al quedas' sending of crazed suicidal religious zealots to NY and Washington accomplished nothing for these idiots. There was absolutely nothing we did that warranted the attacks on 9/11, and nobody in their right mind, in my opinion, would think otherwise.
We should have nuked them, and then denied it - in the same manner that the taliban denied that al quada was responsible for 9/11.
The absolute best way to respond to violent people that use craziness against you is to surprise them by out-crazing them. To a certain degree, we DID surprise them with our counterstrike responses and resolve to win - hence the cessation of attacks on American soil.
You don't seem to understand that bin laden and his kind are out to destroy everything that is not Moslem - and think that if it results in the whole world being destroyed, then that is Allah's will - and he will start over. They think that they are on a "mission" for Allah and radical Islamic government.
Any movement that has these homicidal, irrational impulses must be stopped dead in their tracks, before they are able to carry out more destructive actions against everything, and everybody, that they hate - which is most of the world. This is the best thing we can do for "future generations", lest there not be any.
when i finally made it home on 9/11, after having to cut across NJ and work my way up thru Penn. to get back into NY state, the first observation i made was this: knowing that they couldn't launch a full scale attack on the continental US, and knowing what cowboys we tend to be, what better way to kill lots of americans than to have them come to the terrorists turf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
accomplish nothing?
al queda has gotten thousands of americans on their turf, on their terms, and are killing the hell out of 'em.
they have been able to use the war to recruit more members than ever; i mean, just look at how many men they have in the #2 position alone! we keep capturing the "number 2" man in al queda.
can you imagine haw many guys they have filling the #3 slot? it boggles the mind.
you really think bin laden planned the attacks and didn't think, "hmmm... the americans are prob gonna head over here soon, 'cause this is really gonna piss them off"?
bin laden's attacks on the US went as planned, and our response was part of his plan.
he just got the added bonus of the occupation in iraq to use as a recruitment point and training ground for his fu@kin' terrorists.
When an enemy attacks, and you do nothing, they will continue the attacks. If we had responded to the Japs' sneak attack on Pearl Harbor by not going after them they, and their allies, might have won WW II. I disagree with some of the policies, tactics, and strategies of the Bush administration, but least he's doing something. Had we not, there probably would have been more attacks on American soil by now. I know that Clinton would have responded militarily to 9/11, but I wonder how effective his administration would have been, in the subsequent war on terror (that is, if he even declared one), as compared to Bush's efforts.Quote:
Originally Posted by phareye
P.S. I voted for Clinton for his first term, didn't vote in the next election, and G.W. Bush in both of his. I didn't like Gore, and I now refuse to vote for people that are in favor of, or refuse to admit disagreement with, government and private affirmative action job polices based on race. Clinton and Kerry are examples of politicians I would not vote for based on, among other things, this unjust and unfair system. I??m sorry I voted for Clinton. Anybody stupid enough to get caught messing with that Monica pig should not be president. He also did not do enough about terrorist, and military, attacks against U.S. interests, which may have helped set the stage for 9/11.