When would you go to war?

[j0nes 0]

This question is directed at those who DO NOT support current U.S. policy in Iraq or Afghanistan.

At what point would you (as President) commit U.S. troops to some objective?

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

This question is directed at those who DO NOT support current U.S. policy in Iraq or Afghanistan.

At what point would you (as President) commit U.S. troops to some objective?

Knowing that the perpetuators of 9/11 came from terrorist camps and bases in Afghanistan, I would have declared war on Al Qaida and The Taliban over there and sent the bulk of the 180,000 troops there, not Iraq... We'd about damn sure have gotten OBL then.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Darius11 12]

I have no problem with the war in Afghanistan.

When you are attacked you have every right to protect your land and your citizens.
However once you become the invader and the one starting the war then you are at fault and should not except any sympathy from anyone.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Knowing that the perpetuators of 9/11 came from terrorist camps and bases in Afghanistan, I would have declared war on Al Qaida and The Taliban over there and sent the bulk of the 180,000 troops there, not Iraq... We'd about damn sure have gotten OBL then

Ding ding ding... we have a winner....

And we would still have the rest of the world behind us in our righteous indignation. We would probably have most of Al Queda in prison at this point.. at least the ones who were not buried in caves or somewhere else in Afghanistan.. or the tribal areas of Pakistan.

[ColdDuck 0]

I could not disagree with you more.

How is a president, or any world leader for that matter supposed to tell his people that we will wait until we are attacked before we will react?

Switzerland may be able to adhere to that policy, but the U.S. cannot and should not.

"Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?"

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I could not disagree with you more.

How is a president, or any world leader for that matter supposed to tell his people that we will wait until we are attacked before we will react?

Switzerland may be able to adhere to that policy, but the U.S. cannot and should not.

So it is safe to assume that you believe that the US should attack whomever they wish with no true provocation? It is clear that N. Korea is a threat and a far greater threat than Iraq could had ever been. Yet, the government would not even dare attacking N. Korea as they do have an army that would put a major hurt on the US. And how about Iran? No chance of our government going into Iran.
I was all for going into Iran in the late 70's and 1980. So I joined up. But as it turned out we gave support to Iraq all the while trading hostages for arms with Iran.
Going into Iraq was a major blunder and goes against the principles of our country. Attacking Iraq did nothing for the US but drain resources that could had been used to weed out the real threat and by doing so put the US on the same level of the very faction that DID attack us. It also bolstered even greater hatred toward the US. Nothing will really change in Iraq. As soon as the US leaves, and we will sooner or later, the country will fall back into the hands of warring tribes and this blunder will be for nothing at all.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is clear that N. Korea is a threat and a far greater threat than Iraq could had ever been. Yet, the government would not even dare attacking N. Korea as they do have an army that would put a major hurt on the US.

The army doesn't worry us nearly as much as those nukes do.

[ColdDuck 0]

Not at all. What is a "true provocation" by the way?

But, I do believe that as the lone super power, and a member of the UN security council, this country needs to stand up and say that the Irans and the Iraqs of the world cannot be allowed to build WMD programs.

You can argue that Iraq was not an immediate threat to this country. That may be true to a point. I disagree with you about Iran however. Unless President Ahmadinejad is bluffing about his intentions someone will be going into Iran very soon. The big question is: who will be the first to take the bait and attack Iran?

I believe Iran's intentions are aimed at baiting Israel into launching a first strike against Iran, thus causing more instability in Iraq and throughout the entire Middle East. Unfortunately President Ahmadinejad and his regime's ideology is not representative of the Iranian people. But, they "elected" the guy, they unfortunately have to deal with the consequences of his extreme views.

What principles of our country in your opinion did we violate by removing Saddam Hussein?

"Insurance should called In case shit happens, if shit don't happen shouldn't I get my money back?"

[shropshire 0]

America is a clear and present danger to Iran... so , by your logic, they have a perfect right to attack the USA first.....

P.S How many new WMDs were manufactured in the US of A this very day?


Yeah but then Bushites say But we're America, we're the good guys.. we wouldn't actually do anything bad like invading another country... Whoops... sorry... we just did

What's good for the goose.........

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

America is a clear and present danger to Iran....

Bullshit. We are no more of a "clear and present danger to Iran" than I am a "clear and present danger" to the guy who would come up to me and rob me at an ATM and stick a knife in my gut.

He knows that if I become aware of his imminent actions to harm me, I'll do what I can to fuck him up. But his knowing that I'll retaliate if he attacks me does not make me a "clear and present danger" to him.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Slink2 0]

[shropshire 0]

I'll Bullshit , your bullshit. Threatening another soverign state just because it's not playing by your rules is just plain bullying.

Iran isn't the guy coming up to you at an ATM - no threat to rob and hasn't stuck you with a knife, shot ... dropped a bomb ... he's just standing in a queue (waiting to do those things)


Sorry... goto go off to work now ... CYA

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,400]

>Bullshit. We are no more of a "clear and present danger to Iran" than I
>am a "clear and present danger" to the guy who would come up to me
>and rob me at an ATM and stick a knife in my gut.

Bad analogy. Unless, of course, you go around shooting people who carry knives because they might rob you some day.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>Bullshit. We are no more of a "clear and present danger to Iran" than I
>am a "clear and present danger" to the guy who would come up to me
>and rob me at an ATM and stick a knife in my gut.

Bad analogy. Unless, of course, you go around shooting people who carry knives because they might rob you some day.

Well, they also have to look at me funny.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[freethefly 6]

Iraq was contained, but not entirely. Iraq could had been sealed completely. Nothing in, nothing out. Our government has the ability to listen and watch nearly every movement on the planet, IF they were to properly utilize the tools at their disposal. By doing so, though, our own privacy would have to be given up. But, that is another thread. Iraq had no type of weapon that would had come close to hitting anything remotely close to the US. Hell, he didn't have anything that would had even made it out of his backyard. He was not a threat.
Recall the cold war where as the old USSR was a threat and truely provoked the US on a regular basis. In return our government provoked the USSR with equal or greater provocation. We won in the end. We have the largest arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction ever. The result of the arms race. We have the most technologicly advanced government and millitary. In fact we are the most dangerous country in the world soley because of what the government and military has learned and amassed in the cold war years. Also recall the Afghan Freedom Fighters whom the US was so willing to help gain freedom from Russia during the cold war years. Remember what happened when the Berlin Wall came down? Those Afghan rebels were left to fend for theirselves against the Russian millitary. Many of those rebels are the same people who became part of the Al Quida terrorist network. Osama Bin Laden being one of them. Pulling out of Iraq right now would be the same result. Bush did in fact stick this country into a quaqmire with very few ways out. Leave now and turn the entire country of Iraq against us. Stay and more good money and people will go to waste. Truely a mess. Much like Vietnam and the war before it, the Korean war. Unlike Vietnam, which by the way is doing fine and has become more friendly and open, the Korean war is still on. Not over yet, only in a cease fire. The US and N. Korea has been toeing the line for an extremely long time and it is but a matter of time before one strikes the other. The only question there is who will it be. If I had my choice on a country to attack, I would had concerted my resources into a swift and desisive hit on N. Korea and just kept an eye on Iraq. As with Iran, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The government had a great oppertunity to squash Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. We provided minimal support and training. When I was in the IO 80-81 all that one could see was haze grey. It seemed that the entire Navy was afloat in the IO. I was on an LPH and we stayed right off of the beaches of Iran as did many other ships. We had the firepower and with Iraq and the US being very good friends we had the support and Iraq had ours. Instead Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam will his cronies made secret deals with Iran. As far as Israel goes, well, they have it bad. Would not had been a concern if the US would had taken action years back but that is hindsight. Iran has also gotten wiser over the years. The US may see Iran as being a possiable contender in the arena of world power. Any country that posseses an nuclear weapon is a country that now has a say on the floor. For Israel to gather so much attention and focus I have wondered what it really is that gives it so much say. I can see no real way that Israel could ever be a real threat to Iran. Besides of Iran has it's sights set on anything it is the US and most likely would not waste its resources elsewhere. The two main threats to the US has been and remains today is N. Korea and Iran. Iraq was reduced to a sideshow after the gulf war. We abandon the Afghan rebels and got 911' We drew a line in the dirt and got a 50 year standoff with N. Korea.
The principle to do what is right and be an example to the rest of the world.By going into Iraq with no proof of WMD's and then consistently changing the reason why is inconsistent with anything that may be right.
Now, I have not said that taking out Saddam is a bad thing. I have veiwed Saddam as being a nutcase and a somewhat dangerous person for nearly 30 years. It is how it was done that shakes the foundation on which the principles of our country stands. Lead by being an example. Suppose Mexico has a beef with Canada and needs to go up there and kick some ass. Hey, we had fear of Iraq, right? Suppose they say "If your not with us, then you're against us and we will come after". Pretty much what Bush said. What if? By the US taking this step other countries are now free to attack who they want if they fear that someone MAY have big rock to throw. I fear that the guy who lives up in back of me might have a gun. Heard it from a good source. We have had it out once, The guy is a nutcase, Dangerous, Solely because I may fear him does not give me the freedom to attack him, nor does it give me the right as it is not the right thing to do. If someone points a weapon at you, you now have the right and it is the right thing to do. But you do not have that right because you anticipate him doing such. No one can anticipate exactly when an attack is going to occure. But when you yourself is the attacker that is not being an example.
For the record I fully supported attacking Al- Quida and the Taliban. If I were able I would had joined back in and went.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

America is a clear and present danger to Iran... so , by your logic, they have a perfect right to attack the USA first.....

the key fallacy in comparing Iran and US as players on equal footing is one of them is on record for suggesting the total elimination of another nation. So long as Iran has their current leadership, they can view that moral high ground from their sewers.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

the key fallacy in comparing Iran and US as players on equal footing is one of them is on record for suggesting the total elimination of another nation....

While the other has a track record for selectively elliminating governments in countries it it feels like it. Btw which is which?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[AlexCrowley 0]

After reading certain posts on SC.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

>Bullshit. We are no more of a "clear and present danger to Iran" than I
>am a "clear and present danger" to the guy who would come up to me
>and rob me at an ATM and stick a knife in my gut.

Bad analogy. Unless, of course, you go around shooting people who carry knives because they might rob you some day.

...Or unless they called for an extermination of an entire country and people within that country, and piss the UN off. But the latter doesn't apply, as we know how effective the UN is at enforcing its own resolutions.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[GTAVercetti 0]

well, at least you kept the analogy going.

or something.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[j0nes 0]

Quote

It is clear that N. Korea is a threat and a far greater threat than Iraq could had ever been. Yet, the government would not even dare attacking N. Korea as they do have an army that would put a major hurt on the US.

while the first part of your statement is mostly speculation, the second part is not supported by ANY facts.

I'd guess that the reason the U.S. hasn't steamrolled North Korea hasto do with North Korea's neighbor and Communist Pal...China. You know abotu China, right?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

well, at least you kept the analogy going.

or something.

Look, it's simple, you have to think of the Kurds as darts and the afghani's as shuttlecocks. The sunni's are more like tennisballs. The shiites, well, they are medium sized people with mostly dark hair and beards and mustaches. They are rarely used as projectiles in sporting events. That's just silly.

You can send sc's and tballs over a net with a racket, but a screened paddle or even a solid paddle won't work with darts. Darts will just stick. You have to hold them from the center and throw them, not just hit them with something.

Basketballs are more pushed and thrown. And soccer balls (futballs if you will) get kicked and bumped.

I hope this helps.

Oh, And they all have ballistic coefficients. I think that's important also.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freethefly 6]

***while the first part of your statement is mostly speculation, the second part is not supported by ANY facts.

I'd guess that the reason the U.S. hasn't steamrolled North Korea hasto do with North Korea's neighbor and Communist Pal...China. You know abotu China, right? ***


http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

N. Korea does not expect any help what so ever from China, nor Russia. N. Korea plans total all out warfare. No pussyfooting around.
The US came to be a super power by striking fear into less equipt nations. Some can say all they want about N. Korea not having the ability to take on the US. A more than 50 year stand off shows that they will not nor ever back down. The longer the wait the higher the stakes. They are building and have been building for all this time. Any military strategic planner knows that time is your worst enemy as it gives your enemy the ability to shore up its strength.
N. Korea's Kim Jong is in fact a mad man. Completey insane, but not stupid. He will, however, not hesitate using any weapon at his disposal if he feels that the outcome would be of his favor.
N. Korea has been the main threat since the ceasefire began.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

as we know how effective the UN is at enforcing its own resolutions

WMDs per UN = 0
WMDs per Administration = imminent threat of attack.

If the UN is ineffective in the enforcement of its resolutions, how can it be possible that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
Seems to me the ineffective label belongs elsewhere.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

This question is directed at those who DO NOT support current U.S. policy in Iraq or Afghanistan.

At what point would you (as President) commit U.S. troops to some objective?

When the evidence is pristine. Nothing less.
For example: Cuban missle crisis: We went to the UN with rock solid proof. See these pictures? They were taken this morning. These white things that look like missles? They are missles. Move them or we will turn your shit upside down.
Thats how you do it.
FWIW - I support the efforts in Afghanistan and I am really upset we have diverted our attention from it.