RE: War on Terrorism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

ModeratorEleven -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/12/2006 10:51:20 PM)

I thought it was "Rambette."

XI



Petruchio -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 12:53:44 AM)

As someone who has actually been overseas, I am saddened that invading Iraq has actually weakened the war on terrorism. As one man explained: "Hussein hated bin Laden even more than he detested the Bush's and he would not allow al Qaida to operate within the borders of Iraq. Hussein stood with the rest of the world forming a fence to keep al Qaida at bay. Then Bush Junior invades Iraq and stomps the fence flat. Bush Senior was smart enough to smack Hussein back into place and leave him in power, knowing that breaking up his control of Iraq would lead to chaos. Bush Junior wasn't that smart."



MistressJenny270 -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 1:21:48 AM)

Bush Jr. wasn't, isn't, and never will be that smart. For someone who got his daddy to get him out of the army, he has no right what so ever to tell the troops what they should and should not do. I heard once that when we invaded Iraq during the Gulf War there was a man who had Hussein in his cross hairs and he couldn't get permission to shoot. To hell with getting permission, I would have pulled the trigger anyway. "Oopps! My finger must have slipped!" You know what I mean? Then all we would be having to worry about now is catching that psycho bin Laden. Rules are meant to be broken and I would have shot Sadame right between the eyes if I were the one who had the gun and he was in my cross hairs. That was a very tough day for that fellow. But, then again, like I said, that's what I heard happened. You never know unless you were there yourself.



JohnWarren -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 5:12:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressJenny270

No offense sir, but who says they are faking it. I know I am on this site, but I am also a firm believer in the Bible, and I am not wanting to bring religion into this. But, just as my opinion as I do have a right to state it, the book of Revelations tells of the future, right? I interpret it to say that CHINA is going to be this world's biggest ally or their biggest enemy. It is merely up to the individual countries to decide which path they want to take. Ally or Enemy?


Now, I never said they were faking it. What I did say was:
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren
And just how do they get here? China hasn't even the shadow of a blue water navy. They haven't even been able to deal with the "Province in Rebellion" in almost half a century and that border is within artillery range of the mainland.


Of course, you know that they fought a war against VietNam in 1979 and got their heads handed to them by that country. Instead of the bible, I recommend you read Defending China by Gerald Segal.

I lived in China as a Visiting Scholar and was able to see the country at close hand. Aside from a huge population, China's debits far outweigh their assets. Command and Control is primitive and their tactical doctrine is pure industrial age. Mao's program of breeding up the population and the "one-child" rule that Deng instituted to deal with the result has left them with severe sexual imbalance that will only get worse in future years. The current upswing in production is concentrated in a few areas, making them very vulnerable to strategic bombing and has created great unrest in the countryside which traditionally has been the source of revolution.

As for the book of revelations, people have been waving that around for over 1500 years and it hasn't happened yet.



JohnWarren -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 5:24:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Petruchio

As someone who has actually been overseas, I am saddened that invading Iraq has actually weakened the war on terrorism. As one man explained: "Hussein hated bin Laden even more than he detested the Bush's and he would not allow al Qaida to operate within the borders of Iraq. Hussein stood with the rest of the world forming a fence to keep al Qaida at bay. Then Bush Junior invades Iraq and stomps the fence flat. Bush Senior was smart enough to smack Hussein back into place and leave him in power, knowing that breaking up his control of Iraq would lead to chaos. Bush Junior wasn't that smart."



I fully agree. I opposed the war from the moment Shrub started suggesting it. However, the OPs thesis is that now that we've destroyed a country's government and it's infrastructure, our approach should be to cut and run. This was pretty much the approach of the Allied powers in WWI and that approach produced Hitler. After WWII, we stayed and now Germany and Japan are peaceful allies.

Now, I'm not saying that will happen with Iraq, but there is an ethical obligation to try.

Personally, I'd split it into three countries. After all "Iraq" isn't really a country, rather it's a bunch of lines drawn on maps in Whitehall.

The Kurds would probably be staunch allies and they have extensive oil holdings. The Turks would scream bloody murder but after all they didn't support the war so they don't get a vote. The Shiite section would probably either ally itself with Iran or join that country. That's not great but really wouldn't do much to increase the power of a country that already hates us but is also getting close to a tipping point. (that's another thesis completely) and the Sunni could be supported by the Saudis.

And we could walk out, flags flying.



Gauge -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 7:53:15 AM)

Since this is a politically charged discussion (argument) you must excuse my lack of political knowledge but I will give a perspective as I see it.

Why start the war on terrorism? Because 19 terrorists crashed four airplanes on US soil and killed nearly 3,000 people. We were attacked. Now, I might agree that we need to address the hungry and poor in our own country but we really didn't start this war on terrorism... they did.

Sadly the focus recently has been on the war in Iraq. It is a war that was started based on bad intelligence and has been perpetuated by lies. Bush has included Iraq in the war on terror but most anyone can see that this was something else entirely. However, we went in there and took apart their government and we have an obligation to fix what we fucked up.

As for a woman running things better than a man? Politics is politics and as much as I would like to believe that the White House could actually be run like the TV show Commander In Chief, that just isn't the case. Any president would have had to answer the attack on the US no matter what their gender.

I cannot buy into the idea that a woman president would be better than a man because a man thinks with his dick. Women are just as treacherous and deceitful as a man can be.



UtopianRanger -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 8:44:46 AM)

quote:



And just how do they get here? China hasn't even the shadow of a blue water navy. They haven't even been able to deal with the "Province in Rebellion" in almost half a century and that border is within artillery range of the mainland.


Thanks John. Not only do you have to have the craft to transport ''boots on the ground'', but far more important.... you need logistical infrastructure/support systems to re-supply/maintain any type of combat maneuver/operation - The PLA has neither.

China knows that the real coup de grace has nothing to do with their advantage in expendable manpower vis-à-vis a military conflict, but rather Americans continued dependence on cheap goods and all the greedy pseudo-aristocrats that run these corporations, who’s willingness to sell their souls for a dollar.


The PLA is very smart.... they're using our own secret weapon against us very effectively - Capitalism


- The Ranger



Petruchio -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 12:44:11 PM)

quote:

China's debits far outweigh their assets.


One interesting fact: China has become our single largest creditor, owning so much of our 'paper' that if they quickly sold it off, they could plunge our economy into havoc. They have, of course, 'promised' not to do that. (I once taught economics, so pardon any dripping sarcasm you might detect.)

I have an additional concern. Right now, their power tools and many other products are junk, but so was Japan's during the 1950s. With every hi-tech task we outsource, with every factory we have built there, we are teaching them, bringing them into the modern age.



valeca -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 1:02:31 PM)

quote:

Now, I might agree that we need to address the hungry and poor in our own country but we really didn't start this war on terrorism... they did.


So, they just randomly picked a country out of a hat and that was that, huh? No prior motivation? Random chance was it?

How about that. And here I was thinking there was oodles of history on both sides, before that point, leading to the violence and thousands of unecessary deaths in both nations. Silly me. What was I thinking...



Gauge -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 1:21:15 PM)

quote:

So, they just randomly picked a country out of a hat and that was that, huh? No prior motivation? Random chance was it?

How about that. And here I was thinking there was oodles of history on both sides, before that point, leading to the violence and thousands of unecessary deaths in both nations. Silly me. What was I thinking...


Sarcasm is not your strong suit. Where in the hell did you get from my post that I thought it was a random thing? The attack was on US soil, that was a clear declaration of war against the US. It is basic and simple. Before you try to blast me again, perhaps reading my post would be prudent.



JohnWarren -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 1:36:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Petruchio

quote:

China's debits far outweigh their assets.


One interesting fact: China has become our single largest creditor, owning so much of our 'paper' that if they quickly sold it off, they could plunge our economy into havoc. They have, of course, 'promised' not to do that. (I once taught economics, so pardon any dripping sarcasm you might detect.)

I have an additional concern. Right now, their power tools and many other products are junk, but so was Japan's during the 1950s. With every hi-tech task we outsource, with every factory we have built there, we are teaching them, bringing them into the modern age.



I was speaking of social and techological "assets" rather than the more conventional bookkeeping terminology. However, I'll mention the old banking axiom that so many lenders discovered back in the 80s and 90s: "When you owe a 100 thousand dollars to a bank, it owns you; when you owe 100 million, you own it."

I don't like the Chinese government and I really don't like companies like Walmart that are licking ass over there. However, what began this particular stream was the notion that China was a threat because they had a large army.



Petruchio -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 4:43:26 PM)

quote:

I was speaking of social and techological "assets" rather than the more conventional bookkeeping terminology. However, I'll mention the old banking axiom that so many lenders discovered back in the 80s and 90s: "When you owe a 100 thousand dollars to a bank, it owns you; when you owe 100 million, you own it."

I don't like the Chinese government and I really don't like companies like Walmart that are licking ass over there. However, what began this particular stream was the notion that China was a threat because they had a large army.


Yep, I understood what you had said, just adding my 2¢, not changing it.

quote:

So, they just randomly picked a country out of a hat and that was that, huh? No prior motivation? Random chance was it?


Your context is different, but it reminded me of a Jay Leno joke that after invading Iraq to find bin Laden, next he'll invade Mexico.



valeca -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 7:25:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: valeca

quote:

Now, I might agree that we need to address the hungry and poor in our own country but we really didn't start this war on terrorism... they did.


So, they just randomly picked a country out of a hat and that was that, huh? No prior motivation? Random chance was it?

How about that. And here I was thinking there was oodles of history on both sides, before that point, leading to the violence and thousands of unecessary deaths in both nations. Silly me. What was I thinking...


There's the part that suggests they just out-of-the-blue attacked. They were wrong, and misguided, I whole-heartedly agree, however, they did not start it entirely on their own. The second bolded part clarifies the point.

edited to include the words 'entirely on their own'.



Gauge -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/13/2006 10:21:39 PM)

quote:

There's the part that suggests they just out-of-the-blue attacked. They were wrong, and misguided, I whole-heartedly agree, however, they did not start it entirely on their own. The second bolded part clarifies the point.



Perhaps I am missing the point. I think your "clarification" only confuses me more. When I said that the US didn't start the war I did not say there was no prior motivation. What exactly did you expect the US to do? Did you expect us to just sit there and say, "Well, that's OK... you attacked us on our soil and killed thousands... no biggie." Motivation or not, right or not, they attacked us. The result was the war on terrorism.

You asked, "Why start the war in the first place?" I answered. I thought I was clear, concise and to the point. Forgive me if I was not clear.



UtopianRanger -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/14/2006 8:26:25 AM)

quote:


I don't like the Chinese government and I really don't like companies like Walmart that are licking ass over there.


Funny.... I've always considered Wal-mart to be a de facto agent of the Chinese Government. I rarely shop there unless I have to ;}


quote:

I was speaking of social and techological "assets" rather than the more conventional bookkeeping terminology.


I think there are certain advantages and disadvantages with a single party, totalitarian rule.

Other than slave labor, the biggest advantage I see the PLA having, is that the regime speaks with ''one voice'', there's no debate, everyone tows-the-line, if they don't they end up in one of the lau-gyu concentration camps ; }

The same thing can't be said over here; we have many voices, many people saying different things, even within the administration, which should technically have a singe voice! They have a wonderful way of setting up our own competing interests to run against each other. HAR!

The major disadvantage I see the PLA having is the control of information flow. They cannot have free-flow of information and survive -- This one of the reasons why I was seriously disappointed with the way Google caved-in to the PLA -- Very sad!


- The Ranger





JohnWarren -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/14/2006 9:54:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
I think there are certain advantages and disadvantages with a single party, totalitarian rule.


When I was teaching in China, I proposed a comparison of China v US using the US western migration as an example.

Think of all those wagons coming to the Rocky Mountains. There are literally hundreds of ways across the mountains. In China, the leaders pick the route and, if they choose well, everyone arrives in California quickly. If they chose the wrong route, everyone goes over a cliff or freezes in a blizard.

The US approach is everyone choses their favorite route. Some fall over cliffs; some freeze and some make it safely. It's not efficient, but it guarantees somebody is going to make the trip successfully. And, once there, some will go back over the mountains and make a fortune selling maps of the safe route they discovered.

Of course, I was telling this to people who had just come out of the Red Guard era, a great example of a leader leading his population off a cliff.

I didn't say that. It wasn't that far out of the Red Guard era. Accidents could still happen.



MistressJenny270 -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/14/2006 1:09:12 PM)

Like I have said in the beginning of my thread, This war that the President has gotten us into is just stupid. Who said that two wrongs make a right? Our country was built on trusting GOD and we have turned our backs on him. Who are we to do that? I don't go to church, but I am very religious (as that is my right living here in the US). If it weren't for GOD, we wouldn't be a free country. Without GOD we wouldn't be anything.



FangsNfeet -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/14/2006 8:58:52 PM)

quote:

Is it really neceaasry for our troops, family, and friends to be in another country defending someone else when we need our people at home defending us? Who cares if they sit over there and kill each other. We went over there and captured one of the men we had been wanting for a long time. Why do we need to stay. Why can't we just let it cool off for a while and when Osamma thinks that we have forgotten about him, let him come out in the open and go get him? I personally want our troops back home where they belong. they were created to defend our country and they are over in another country and we have nobody to defend us if we were to be struck by a bomb. Remeber Pearle Harbor? What a shame!


1. We still have plenty of National Guardsmen and the Coast Guard here.

2. Why go over there? That's where the enemy is. We where on Defence when 9/11 and Pearl Harbor happened. Offense seems to be working better. We where on Defence the first time The Towers where hit in the early 90's. We decided to make a better defence. Well, both Towers where knocked down.

3. On Peral Harbor, what's your point? The troops where there taking it easy on a Sunday morning. They wern't over seas fighting. There where at there home base on USA soil. When Peral Harbor was hit, I remember the USA going to WAR to fight Germany and Japan. As soon as the troops went there to fight, how many more military attacks where made on USA soil? We took the WAR to them and won. Instead of taking hits, it better to throw the punches. Our actions after Peral Harbor proves that offense is better and our War on terrorism will turn out the same keeping the US and its citizens better protected.



michaelGA -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/14/2006 9:11:10 PM)

why don't we use this kind of aggressive attitude when it comes to "the war on drugs", "The war on poverty", "The war on homlessness" or even "The war on hunger"

for that matter, why aren't we aggresively waging a war on disease or guns or anything "here"

yes, the tragedy of 911 were great, but the USA was slow in responding, went there, failed to do what they went for and drew out the war longer than neccessary.

we need to back off and wait for Bin Laden to fuck up when he thinks it's safe instead of continually wasting time and funds to find him. odds are, he's not even in Iraq. he's probably in some far away country, laughing his ass off at how stupid the USA is...(IMHO)

*waits for the negative feedback on this last statement as it is inevitable*



FangsNfeet -> RE: War on Terrorism (2/14/2006 11:33:02 PM)

quote:

why don't we use this kind of aggressive attitude when it comes to "the war on drugs", "The war on poverty", "The war on homlessness" or even "The war on hunger" for that matter, why aren't we aggresively waging a war on disease or guns or anything "here"


War on Drugs. Is it just me or has anyone been paying attention to the shutting down of tunnels between Mexico and the USA border? Big drug bust are being reported on the news. On the instances that you don't hear about it, does not mean it's not happening. Also on the war on drugs, public schools and TV adds are still educating and trying to get the message accross that DRUGS are BAD.

War on Poverty. Well, what causes poverty in the first place? The education opprotunities and jobs are there. You'll never pick up a city paper that does not have Job Positions availible. However you started out, the persuit for happiness is there.

War on homelessness: For most it's about finding out what is causing the individual to be homeless. Many people simply do not want to move in where they have to follow rules. We're finding to many homless people who would rather not work or obtain more education. They just want the easy way from short stays at place to place to place.

War on Hunger. You can give a man rod but that doesn't make him fish. You can give people seeds but that will not cause them to grow a garden. Look around, there's plenty of food everywhere. Stores, gardens, ranches, lakes, oceans, and such. There's no reason for anyone to be starving. The earth is still over grown with resources for us to eat. However, food drives are done on a regular basis. Meals on Wheels for senior citizens still exist. In the US, the government still hands out food stamps and welfare. Hunger isn't the real problem, it's stupidity.

War on disease. Diseases is being tackled everyday by labs on the corporate and college level. We also have the CDC and disease groups in the military. Look at all the battles we've won over the years. We've invented vacines, antibiotics, and treatments.

War on guns. They're being tackled just like the war on drugs. No matter how much you hear on the news about guns, illegal/underage gun carriers are still a very small minority.


Nothing is perfect but the WARS are being attacked head strong. You're speaking as if Good will one day destroy Evil. Sorry michael but evil is will always be out there. It Goods job to continue to fight it.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875