quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

It is rambling to me... whether I agreed with it or not...I wouldn't value anything I had to say for that many posts, much less what someone else says. Although I have to admire the fortitude that goes into all that typing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

EnglishDomNW: There isn't a country in the world that doesn't sponsor terrorism.  Can you say "The Contras", once heavily sponsored by the US?  Or how about NORAID? Cuba? India?  Indonesia? Chile?

Inductive fallacy. 

(1) How many of those “terrorist groups” flew airplanes into buildings to kill thousands of people? BIG DIFFERENCE.
 

quote:


Lets say, for the sake of argument, that all of my posts were on this one thread.  I subsequently tell one of my friends that I have an X + 100 amount of posts on this forum.  Between the time I tell him that I have all of these posts and the time that he comes here to verify my claim, the moderators delete this thread.  In the process of this thread being deleted, my post counter goes down to zero.  My friend sees that I have zero posts, not X + 100 as I originally claimed.  Would my X + 100 post claim make me a “liar”? Remember, he can come back and told me that he found no evidence that I made X + 100 posts on this message board.

Iraq WMD have either been moved out of the country, or have been buried in a section of Iraq that the inspectors have not checked.  Unless we dig up every square inch of Iraqi soil, unless we dig up every square inch of the soil of the surrounding countries as well as Sudan, assuming that he had no WMD in the first place would be completely asinine. 

If Sadman moved the WMD before 2003, and they were moved from locations that our intel had them at, our intel automatically became wrong the moment he moved his WMD. 

So, if you can prove that I made no post in the scenario that I gave you - in purple - then you will have an argument on your claim that there were no WMD in Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Lilmissbossy: In 2002, George W Bush got voted the 3rd most dangerous man in the world.  The only two guys that beat him were Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

I don’t put much faith in the opinions of a bunch of misguided respondents. 

quote:


Lilmissbossy: Try this little test. Ask yourself the following question and answer it to yourself as quickly as you can. "Why did we go to war with Iraq?"

OH OH THAT’S EASY! Pick Me! Pick Me! ***Raises hands***

Not too many people understand the true nature of this war, and that is tragic.  The media makes things worse by being very selective about how it reports things.  This is unfortunate as people need to come up with their own conclusion based on balanced - not slanted - reporting. 

Two Chinese Colonels wrote a book titled, “Unrestricted Warfare”, which is basically asymmetrical warfare.  They explained how a weaker organization could defeat a powerful nation using methods outside of what others think are normal methods - or manners - of war. 

“Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack nby Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military…. This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operations other than military means.. (Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui, 1999).

“Means contrary to tradition”

Tradition:  Threatening nation deploys military to threatened nation.  (Iraq was “not” threatening because their military is not capable, etc)

Tradition:  Threatening nation is directly responsible for visible attacks on threatened nation. (Iraq did not fly planes into the World Trade Center, therefore, attacking Iraq was “wrong”.)

Unrestricted warfare destroys common norms in favor of tactics outside the imagination of those that refuse to see beyond current war traditions.

Person A builds WMD, Person B deploys them.  Person A has everything to lose if his cover is blown.  Person B wants to brag to the world about his successful missions.  Person A turns over WMD to Person B.  Person B sends someone to slaughter thousands of people.  Meaning, Iraq builds the WMD, Al-Qaeda deploys its martyrdom brigade with said WMD and kills thousands of Americans on American soil. 

Iraq has plausible deniability and Al-Qaeda jumps up and down bragging about its latest accomplishment.  They could hide anywhere and attack anywhere.  They are not signatories to international treaties.  The UN Security Counsel does not bound them, nor do they need to consult another nation for permission to launch an attack.

Their elusiveness and fluidity make them hard to pinpoint.  They could take the bullet, unlike an established nation like Iraq.  Both have satisfaction that they struck a blow to the heart of their common enemy.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is unrestricted (asymmetrical) warfare at work. the war god has a new mask and is proudly sporting it. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, a superpower that fails to adopt to a new type of war - a type of war that becomes the norm - soon ceases to be a superpower.

We are locked in a mortal combat with an organization that sees us as a cancer to what they see is the ideal world.  We are in their way.  They are hell bent on re-creating the world, or “saving” us as they would argue.  Their warped version of their religion promises them the land of the infidels.  Their ultimate goal is to unite the world under the terrorist’s version of Islamic Law. 

To those that say that history does not give us precedence, or does not give us a hint as to how we should behave now, there are numerous instances in the past that give us guidance to what we should do now. 

For example, Rome did not fall until her freedmen gave up the will to fight. I am not just talking about someone saying that they don’t feel like fighting because they are tired.  I am talking about a population that REFUSES to see the reasons to why a war should be fought.  The reasons could be arrogance, stubbornness, pure hatred of the warriors, their leaders, the system or way of life, or any combination of these and other reasons not listed here.

Like the Romans, we are at a crossroads.  The Celtic Tribes could have caused the Rome to fall centuries prior to its actual fall.  We keep on fighting and doing what we set out to do after 9/11, we will be doing what the Romans did when they took the fight to their enemies.  This action bought them five more centuries of existence.

Or we could do what the anti war people want us to do, which would be a mistake.  If we do this, two thousand years from now historians will be examining the drastic fall of the west the same way we examine the fall of the Roman Empire.  The dark ages that fallow - after the West falls and the terrorists get their way - would make the medieval period look like a golden age. Remember, to them the ideal life is one that they had in the 7th century. In order to get there, we would have to be culturally be set back by 13 centuries. If this happens, anybody that hopes for “peace for all mankind” could forget about it.  Not only would we be in a perpetual dark age, but we would be perpetually factionalized like the Moors were.
 

quote:



Lilmissbossy:  I bet you either struggle to come up with an answer quickly

No, I did not struggle to come up with the answer because That has been my position.  I saw past the bias of the Communist News Network and the More S#$%TY Nonsense By Communist network and did a little research, matching what I found from historic references. 

But again, I have been rebutting the same point for almost three years now, when it comes to why we invaded Iraq, so I could spit out an elaborate response that nails reality right on the head.
 

quote:


Lilmissbossy:  or you say "to bring democracy to them". 

That was only one of the reasons for our going in.  If you remember the post 9/11 speech that George Bush gave (which, by the way, is a simple outline of an asymmetrical war), you will see that one of the themes was to change the environment that breeds terrorist activities like what was being practiced by Al-Qaeda.  Turning that region into a democratic zone would go along way to eliminating the terrorist fascist threat that we face.

quote:


Lilmissbossy:  If it's the latter, I wonder why we chose Iraq and not China.

Name me five Chinese terrorist groups that are committing murder throughout the world though the use of terrorism.  Name me a Chinese terror group that has successfully commandeered an aircraft and slammed it into a tall building - knocking it down and killing thousands.  If you can answer this question, then you will have a point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

level: you can disagree and still support the troops.

And supporting the troops includes supporting their mission.  The Iraq campaign is one of their missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair
That was only one of the reasons for our going in.  If you remember the post 9/11 speech that George Bush gave (which, by the way, is a simple outline of an asymmetrical war), you will see that one of the themes was to change the environment that breeds terrorist activities like what was being practiced by Al-Qaeda.  Turning that region into a democratic zone would go along way to eliminating the terrorist fascist threat that we face.

quote:

As a person thoroughly schooled in philosophy, with a concentration in logic, Outspoken has demonstrably debunked theories and statements absent of logic and merit.

quote:

No man could produce such responses that illustrate a thorough understanding of the geopolitical circumstance of this "war" and also produce facts to support be ignorant as some have said. I would suggest that you question your own beliefs if someone is presenting an argument that exposes the flaws in your own. To remain strong to debunked theories is as health of breathing your own exhaust. If this sounds unhealth, it is because it is unhealthy.

quote:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

quote:

Person A builds WMD, Person B deploys them. Person A has everything to lose if his cover is blown. Person B wants to brag to the world about his successful missions. Person A turns over WMD to Person B. Person B sends someone to slaughter thousands of people.  Meaning, Iraq builds the WMD, Al-Qaeda deploys its martyrdom brigade with said WMD and kills thousands of Americans on American soil.

Iraq has plausible deniability and Al-Qaeda jumps up and down bragging about its latest accomplishment. They could hide anywhere and attack anywhere. They are not signatories to international treaties.  The UN Security Counsel does not bound them, nor do they need to consult another nation for permission to launch an attack.

Their elusiveness and fluidity make them hard to pinpoint. They could take the bullet, unlike an established nation like Iraq. Both have satisfaction that they struck a blow to the heart of their common enemy.

quote:

As a person thoroughly schooled in philosophy, with a concentration in logic, Outspoken has demonstrably debunked theories and statements absent of logic and merit.

quote:

No man could produce such responses that illustrate a thorough understanding of the geopolitical circumstance of this "war" and also produce facts to support be ignorant as some have said.  I would suggest that you question your own beliefs if someone is presenting an argument that exposes the flaws in your own. To remain strong to debunked theories is as health of breathing your own exhaust. If this sounds unhealth, it is because it is unhealthy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Let's get some updating here on the cost of fighting terrorism. May/June figures. 6,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

The present Israeli offensive. 340+ Arab civilians (Lebanese, Palastinians and UN officials, excluding terrorists or freedom fighters depending on your point of view and Lebanese soldiers). Isreali civilians 8.

Hmm One begins to wonder why there isn't more terrorism.