RE: are we really afraid?

RE: are we really afraid? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 9:59:43 AM)
General point. Before we go any further can I just state, as far as I am aware, Islamic terrorist aren't about the destruction of the west, that is something Bush has decided they are after. The terrorists want the US and its allies out of the middle east and Islamic territories.

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:03:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen We could all be as one, if the policies made any damned sense. I dont think many dissented from the Afghanistan invasion - thats where AQ were, so there we went. All the problems and disunity only started with the invasion of Iraq, which regardless of the dodgy intelligence dossiers flying about to justify it, we all knew was not where the AQ threat was - although regrettably and all too predictably, thats where it is now. E LOL You should have been in Fresno. They protested the attack on AQ because it was our (American) fault that we got blowed up so we deserved it. I think most of the protestors were left over protestors from Viet Nam that took their grandkids to help them. I even saw them throwing things at military vehicles and the troops because of their beliefs.

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:03:27 AM)
I was one of the few that vocally opposed the Afghanistan invasion. For one I was concerned about BBC reports concerning an oil pipeline deal that fell through just prior to 9-11 that the Taliban nixed. I was also concerned that there would be no real change in governance style and the plight of women and children would worsen for our interference, and it seemingly has. The Taliban are still thriving in this country, and we cannot even control the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is not an easy country to control because it is largely decentralized and the power structure is tribal. I do not see how we can win that conflict without permanent occupation.

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:07:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen We could all be as one, if the policies made any damned sense. I dont think many dissented from the Afghanistan invasion - thats where AQ were, so there we went. All the problems and disunity only started with the invasion of Iraq, which regardless of the dodgy intelligence dossiers flying about to justify it, we all knew was not where the AQ threat was - although regrettably and all too predictably, thats where it is now. E Sounds like you are trying to use the definition of Common Sense. The problem with common sense is that it isn't common. It is based upon the life's experiences of those that profess to use it.

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:10:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I was one of the few that vocally opposed the Afghanistan invasion. For one I was concerned about BBC reports concerning an oil pipeline deal that fell through just prior to 9-11 that the Taliban nixed. I was also concerned that there would be no real change in governance style and the plight of women and children would worsen for our interference, and it seemingly has. The Taliban are still thriving in this country, and we cannot even control the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is not an easy country to control because it is largely decentralized and the power structure is tribal. I do not see how we can win that conflict without permanent occupation. I believe that there are two basic types of war. Religious (which I believe the "war on terror" is) and Economic (which is also an element of the war on terror). I belive it is religious that has it roots back into the 1930s (long before American Imperialism) Egypt and some islamic fundamentalists.

seeksfemslave -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:14:34 AM)
Rule said about G Bush He has no conscience. He does not give a fuck. He sat in that school on 9/11 with a brick stone face, but behind the stones was the anticipation. Would his minions do as he had commanded? Would his plans be executed without a hitch? He was in that school to provide himself with an alibi. Let yourself down there RULE. An unworthy post. No supporter of G Bush me. With regard to the US division over Viet Nam. That only came about when things went wrong. What a surprise. I remember the Gulf Of Tonkin incident when US fighter jets sank some wooden ships. Treated like heroes the pilots were AND the treatment handed out to Sen W Morse who opposed the war from the start. Free expression of political division is healthy !

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:16:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I was one of the few that vocally opposed the Afghanistan invasion. For one I was concerned about BBC reports concerning an oil pipeline deal that fell through just prior to 9-11 that the Taliban nixed. I was also concerned that there would be no real change in governance style and the plight of women and children would worsen for our interference, and it seemingly has. The Taliban are still thriving in this country, and we cannot even control the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is not an easy country to control because it is largely decentralized and the power structure is tribal. I do not see how we can win that conflict without permanent occupation. I believe that there are two basic types of war. Religious (which I believe the "war on terror" is) and Economic (which is also an element of the war on terror). I belive it is religious that has it roots back into the 1930s (long before American Imperialism) Egypt and some islamic fundamentalists. American Imperialism is an extension of British Imperialism... and isn't it funny we had to bribe our "coalition' with promises of oil and contracting deals when we went into Iraq? Neo-Colonialism is about corporate interests, because if it was not about that we would not be there. We would not give a rat's ass about the region if it were not about the republican G.O.D. (Guns. oil, and drugs... where you find oil and drugs you will find American guns)

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:18:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Rule said about G Bush He has no conscience. He does not give a fuck. He sat in that school on 9/11 with a brick stone face, but behind the stones was the anticipation. Would his minions do as he had commanded? Would his plans be executed without a hitch? He was in that school to provide himself with an alibi. Let yourself down there RULE. An unworthy post. No supporter of G Bush me. With regard to the US division over Viet Nam. That only came about when things went wrong. What a surprise. I remember the Gulf Of Tonkin incident when US fighter jets sank some wooden ships. Treated like heroes the pilots were AND the treatment handed out to Sen W Morse who opposed the war from the start. Free expression of political division is healthy ! I agree. I think Rule was upset because Bush took 5 minutes to compose his thoughts (knowing that he was going to address the nation) while not paying attention to school

SirKenin -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:19:03 AM)
I am not at all partisan. I do not care for Republicans or Democrats (incidentally, in one test I took I was labelled as a conservative liberal. Go figure). In fact I am a self professed centrist. I do not take sides. I do not place blame for 9/11. I just do not put up with bullshit, and it seems that is the only thing that comes out of Crappy Dom's mouth. He demonstrated a complete lack of taste and respect for yesterday. He considers anyone that does not agree with him wrong, no matter what facts they present (Mercandbeth for example) and he demonstrates a complete lack of taste, respect and knowledge for anything Christian. It is not that he is a Dem. I could care less. I would blast him just the same if he was a Republican. He consistently demonstrates his ignorance and I have no qualms in telling him so. If I caught a Republican doing what he did yesterday I would have blasted them too. It is a day to remember the fallen. Not a day to sit there like a little kid and point fingers. That does not make you intelligent. It makes you a goon. I blasted someone on another message board for the same thing, and I have no idea what his affiliation is. I do not care. Show some respect or plug that gaping hole under your nose. Do not use such a tragedy to further your own pathetic agenda (two threads and numerous posts a day, all trumpeting the same crap? Give Me a break). It is sickening. I do the same thing with all this selfishness I see posted. All this "ME ME ME" attitude. My rights. My stand. My this. My that. They demand tolerance and respect (you ever read some of the profiles on the other side?) but they demonstrate none. They give but they do not take. So I get annoyed. I do not mean to get edgy, but if I am already edgy from whatever is going on in My life then I have troubles stopping Myself. On a final note, I vote Liberal because they are the closest thing to centrist that Canada has.. [8D]

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:33:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I was one of the few that vocally opposed the Afghanistan invasion. For one I was concerned about BBC reports concerning an oil pipeline deal that fell through just prior to 9-11 that the Taliban nixed. I was also concerned that there would be no real change in governance style and the plight of women and children would worsen for our interference, and it seemingly has. The Taliban are still thriving in this country, and we cannot even control the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is not an easy country to control because it is largely decentralized and the power structure is tribal. I do not see how we can win that conflict without permanent occupation. I believe that there are two basic types of war. Religious (which I believe the "war on terror" is) and Economic (which is also an element of the war on terror). I belive it is religious that has it roots back into the 1930s (long before American Imperialism) Egypt and some islamic fundamentalists. American Imperialism is an extension of British Imperialism... and isn't it funny we had to bribe our "coalition' with promises of oil and contracting deals when we went into Iraq? Neo-Colonialism is about corporate interests, because if it was not about that we would not be there. We would not give a rat's ass about the region if it were not about the republican G.O.D. (Guns. oil, and drugs... where you find oil and drugs you will find American guns) ok so let me follow this. We are at fault because of the british? OK you gonna explain that to me? We paid bribes? I guess you have proof, because isn't that against the law and did you go to the federal prosecutor with it? Republicans have guns oil and drugs? That doesn't make sense. if you are refering to drug dealers/contails their weapon of choice is the AK-47 because of it's reliability and cheapness. M-16s are expensive

caitlyn -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:35:20 AM)
It's not that other factors aren't worth considering. They have value and can have a huge impact, when applied on top of military strength. Looking at Poland in 1939, they certainly had everything they needed to resist the Germans, other than a modern army. History gives many examples of similar scenarios. A little closer to home, we can examine Vietnam. Certainly there was massive discontent in America, which had a huge impact of the policies of the United States. All that was built on top of heavy casualties suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese. It serves as an excellent example of a powerful intangible that came in to play, because of military might. America could win each individual battle, but lost so many men doing it, so as to make the entire affair seem Pyrric. Does anyone honestly believe that protests at home would have had as strong an impact, if casualties had been very low? Which takes us to Iraq/Iran, and what has been "won" by the terrorists (we need a new term, as in truth, the west may be the terrorists in some minds). Any death is tragic, obviously, but the stark truth is that the casualty count isn't high enough for that intangible to have any meaning to a wide number of people. This may sound bad (bet I get flamed for this), but more Americans die on the highways in Houston every month, than die in Iraq. Again, that isn't meant to justify any death ... it only illustrates that the "terrorists" do not have sufficient military might to add meaning to their intangibles. If Iran (for example) pushed the issue tomorrow, the United States military would simply move in and crush them. Again, not to justify it ... only to explain it for what it is. So, no, I don't see these terror groups and winning anything, They haven't won and will not win. They are left with few options. The greatest card they have is to disrupt the oil supply to the west. This action would very much piss off all the fellow Muslim states that are making a fortune off oil. I don't like what the west is doing in the Middle East, but can't be objective and say that I see a "winning strategy" in anything done by the other side.

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:44:52 AM)
Take out a world map and look at it. Consider the placement of troops, do you see a pattern emerge? Where there are oil and drugs we usually have troops near by, or we vocally want to do away with governments that do not want to play ball with corporate interests. It perhaps is a bit unfair to name it the republican God, because democrats are complicit also, but republicans talk about "God" so much it just makes it a little more entertaining to say it that way.... Yes, we took over for colonial governments in several regions after WWII, most notably for the French after they left Vietnam. Now you may not agree with my analysis of this, but there it is... and as far as bribes, um, what would you call it, splitting the spoils of war? Either way it doesn't sound very nice or altruistic to me.

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:44:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn It's not that other factors aren't worth considering. They have value and can have a huge impact, when applied on top of military strength. Looking at Poland in 1939, they certainly had everything they needed to resist the Germans, other than a modern army. History gives many examples of similar scenarios. A little closer to home, we can examine Vietnam. Certainly there was massive discontent in America, which had a huge impact of the policies of the United States. All that was built on top of heavy casualties suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese. It serves as an excellent example of a powerful intangible that came in to play, because of military might. America could win each individual battle, but lost so many men doing it, so as to make the entire affair seem Pyrric. Does anyone honestly believe that protests at home would have had as strong an impact, if casualties had been very low? Which takes us to Iraq/Iran, and what has been "won" by the terrorists (we need a new term, as in truth, the west may be the terrorists in some minds). Any death is tragic, obviously, but the stark truth is that the casualty count isn't high enough for that intangible to have any meaning to a wide number of people. This may sound bad (bet I get flamed for this), but more Americans die on the highways in Houston every month, than die in Iraq. Again, that isn't meant to justify any death ... it only illustrates that the "terrorists" do not have sufficient military might to add meaning to their intangibles. If Iran (for example) pushed the issue tomorrow, the United States military would simply move in and crush them. Again, not to justify it ... only to explain it for what it is. So, no, I don't see these terror groups and winning anything, They haven't won and will not win. They are left with few options. The greatest card they have is to disrupt the oil supply to the west. This action would very much piss off all the fellow Muslim states that are making a fortune off oil. I don't like what the west is doing in the Middle East, but can't be objective and say that I see a "winning strategy" in anything done by the other side. By definition War is politics with bloodshed Politics is war without bloodshed

meatcleaver -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:46:33 AM)
There is no doubt the US could win any standing army or should be able to with their military technology but to crush Iran and any other state will only leave a failed state which will create a different threat all together. Where do drugs come from? On the whole, failed states. Where is terrorism created? Failed states. A British general said on TV the other day, the west is fighting today's wars with yesterday's tactics and just displacing problems.

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:46:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Take out a world map and look at it. Consider the placement of troops, do you see a pattern emerge? Where there are oil and drugs we usually have troops near by, or we vocally want to do away with governments that do not want to play ball with corporate interests. It perhaps is a bit unfair to name it the republican God, because democrats are complicit also, but republicans talk about "God" so much it just makes it a little more entertaining to say it that way.... Yes, we took over for colonial governments in several regions after WWII, most notably for the French after they left Vietnam. Now you may not agree with my analysis of this, but there it is... and as far as bribes, um, what would you call it, splitting the spoils of war? Either way it doesn't sound very nice or altruistic to me. ok now you got it back to opinion and not a statement of fact Thanks

caitlyn -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:46:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver General point. Before we go any further can I just state, as far as I am aware, Islamic terrorist aren't about the destruction of the west, that is something Bush has decided they are after. The terrorists want the US and its allies out of the middle east and Islamic territories. And you know this how? Please offer us a list of terrorists that you know well. Some of the leaders of these groups have said point blank that they are out for the destruction of the west. Without any real evidence to the contrary, past what someone "thinks" ... I'm inclined to give them the benefit of doubt and take them at their word.

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:49:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver General point. Before we go any further can I just state, as far as I am aware, Islamic terrorist aren't about the destruction of the west, that is something Bush has decided they are after. The terrorists want the US and its allies out of the middle east and Islamic territories. And you know this how? Please offer us a list of terrorists that you know well. Some of the leaders of these groups have said point blank that they are out for the destruction of the west. Without any real evidence to the contrary, past what someone "thinks" ... I'm inclined to give them the benefit of doubt and take them at their word. I have to go with caitlyn on this one. Meat, Are you saying they were telling us lies?

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:50:08 AM)
I think we need to add your definitions of these terms to Websters, they have the definitions wrong Main Entry: pol·i·tics [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-"tiks Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction Etymology: Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political 1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government 2 : political actions, practices, or policies 3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices 4 : the political opinions or sympathies of a person 5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics> Main Entry: 1war [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: 'wor Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3 - war·less [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] /-l&s/ adjective [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif[/image] [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif[/image]

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:52:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Take out a world map and look at it. Consider the placement of troops, do you see a pattern emerge? Where there are oil and drugs we usually have troops near by, or we vocally want to do away with governments that do not want to play ball with corporate interests. It perhaps is a bit unfair to name it the republican God, because democrats are complicit also, but republicans talk about "God" so much it just makes it a little more entertaining to say it that way.... Yes, we took over for colonial governments in several regions after WWII, most notably for the French after they left Vietnam. Now you may not agree with my analysis of this, but there it is... and as far as bribes, um, what would you call it, splitting the spoils of war? Either way it doesn't sound very nice or altruistic to me. ok now you got it back to opinion and not a statement of fact Thanks You still have not refuted my "opinion", which by the way there are very few "facts" when it comes to debate.... philosophy 101.. we cannot debate facts, we can only debate opinions.

caitlyn -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 10:52:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver There is no doubt the US could win any standing army or should be able to with their military technology but to crush Iran and any other state will only leave a failed state which will create a different threat all together. Where do drugs come from? On the whole, failed states. Where is terrorism created? Failed states. A British general said on TV the other day, the west is fighting today's wars with yesterday's tactics and just displacing problems. Crushing Japan did not lead to a failed state ... nor did crushing Germany. For a more period example, crushing the forces of Slobodan Milosevic did not lead to a failed state.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875