Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 165
  1. g.711's Avatar
    Posts
    550 Posts
    Global Posts
    571 Global Posts
       #101  
    Looking to some examples of the past we can see the future.

    Vietnam Negotiated a peace - Results the North destroyed the Southern government years of killing.
    Korea Negotiated a peace agreement results 50 years later they are still threatening the world.
    Germany WWI Negotiated a peace Results WWII

    If we ARE at War then we should stop fooling around and GO TO WAR and get the job done and damn the Politically Correct talk.
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Yes? And your point is? That millions should give up our principles in fear of thousands? That we should become like them to resist them? That is exactly what they would have us do. What is worse, that is what our leadership would have us do.

    The question is not whether or not we are at war but how we are to fight it.
    That is the point.....many cannot even answer the question that we are at war. As you can see with the posts I was replying to......

    Only then can we address, let alone ask, the questions that follow....
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/10/2006 at 09:20 PM.
  3. #103  
    That's right. You go to war, the outcome is surrender, not brokered "peace", which is just another word for "give me a chance to rest and rearm.".

    You kick the other guy's *** until he says "uncle".

    The other thing about WWII - Japan and Germany were forbidden to re-militarize. That is why they were able to move beyond their violence and grow and prosper.

    The same goes for Hizbollah (which is just the names for a bunch of terrorist in Lebanon).

    If today's lucky break (yes, we got lucky that those airline bomber were stopped) doesn't reinforce that some crazy MF want your head (republican, democrat, black, white, christian, jew, agnostic, etc.), then I feel sorry for you. As the qoute goes, "You are so mercifully free from the ravenges of intelligence."
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711
    Looking to some examples of the past we can see the future.

    Vietnam Negotiated a peace - Results the North destroyed the Southern government years of killing.
    Perhaps. One can make a good case that the govenrment of the the South destroyed itself. One can make a good case that we should not have expended our blood and treasure to prop up a corrupt government.
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711
    Korea Negotiated a peace agreement results 50 years later they are still threatening the world.
    In fact, to this day, there is no "peace agreement" in Korea, merely an "armistice."
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711
    Germany WWI Negotiated a peace Results WWII
    Yes? And what else would you have had us do? The problem was not so much that we signed a treaty but the treaty itself. Was it too punitive or not punitive enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by g.711
    If we ARE at War then we should stop fooling around and GO TO WAR and get the job done and damn the Politically Correct talk.
    Would God that it were that simple. Do you really believe that GWB is deterred by PC talk? Is there any extreme to which he would not go if he could identify a target?
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711
    Looking to some examples of the past we can see the future.

    Vietnam Negotiated a peace - Results the North destroyed the Southern government years of killing.
    Korea Negotiated a peace agreement results 50 years later they are still threatening the world.
    Germany WWI Negotiated a peace Results WWII

    If we ARE at War then we should stop fooling around and GO TO WAR and get the job done and damn the Politically Correct talk.
    That's kinda silly isn't it.

    Stop buying "war" talk. It's standard International policing that's required.
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That's kinda silly isn't it.

    Stop buying "war" talk. It's standard International policing that's required.
    Like the kind in Rwanda?
  7. #107  
    No. The bad guys were clearly identified there (standing at street corners, drunk, and wielding machetes).

    Infiltration and detective work, in many countries, is required to thwart a group of 20, living in the civilian population, like the rest of us, plotting to blow up things surreptitiously. Not an army brigade or cruise missiles or helicopter gunships.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That's kinda silly isn't it.

    Stop buying "war" talk. It's standard International policing that's required.
    I agree it isn't the standard war, we are most definitely and positively at war. This doesn't bode well for the democrats b/c of their perceived weakness with the military. You are as guilty as the conservative here, 'policing' talk is code word for 'this isn't a war' which is a talking point of the dems. The difference is war is going on and policing would do nothing.
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec
    The other thing about WWII - Japan and Germany were forbidden to re-militarize. That is why they were able to move beyond their violence and grow and prosper.
    True, and that got kicked off by the marshall plan..
    One of the main lessons learned after WWI where they fined germany into bankrupty as payback for WWI but in the end it gave opportunity for Hitler to get into power and start WWII.

    Simply winning a war isn't enough, you should rebuild the economy and take away they cause of the aggression..

    It may seem unnatural but by helping Germany and Japan after WWII with the marshal plan we have shaped the counties (and allies) as they are now..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I agree it isn't the standard war, we are most definitely and positively at war. This doesn't bode well for the democrats b/c of their perceived weakness with the military. You are as guilty as the conservative here, 'policing' talk is code word for 'this isn't a war' which is a talking point of the dems. The difference is war is going on and policing would do nothing.
    It's an issue of semantics. The threat revealed this week in Britain will be solved by FBI, CIA, Scotland Yard, Pakistani intelligence, local police and Interpol. Not by GI's.

    Call it what you will. Police action is closer to reality than war.

    Unless you imply that our troops in Iraq or our proxy troops in Israel had a role in unearthing this plot ...
    Last edited by aprasad; 08/11/2006 at 05:45 AM. Reason: spelling
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #111  
    All medulla oblongata, all the time.
  12. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    All medulla oblongata, all the time.
    A useful and productive post.
  13. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    It's an issue of semantics. The threat revealed this week in Britain will be solved by FBI, CIA, Scotland Yard, Pakistani intelligence, local police and Interpol. Not by GI's.

    Call it what you will. Police action is closer to reality than war.

    Unless you imply that our troops in Iraq or our proxy troops in Israel had a role in unearthing this plot ...
    Whats your evidence of a police state? I dont see the argument.

    Our proxy troops in Israel are fighting the Irainian and Syrain proxy troops in Lebanon. The 9-11 hijackers were proxy troops of Saudi Arabia, and yesterdays terrorist were the proxy troops of Pakistan......if we use your terminology.
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Whats your evidence of a police state? I dont see the argument.

    Our proxy troops in Israel are fighting the Irainian and Syrain proxy troops in Lebanon. The 9-11 hijackers were proxy troops of Saudi Arabia, and yesterdays terrorist were the proxy troops of Pakistan......if we use your terminology.
    Who is mentioning "police state"?

    I am saying that calling this a "war" on terror is mis-characterization.

    I agree to your description of proxy troops. Another example is the terrorists in Kasmir being proxy troops of Pakistan.

    To repeat: Terrorist cells need detectives, not troops, to stop them.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  15. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    True, and that got kicked off by the marshall plan..
    One of the main lessons learned after WWI where they fined germany into bankrupty as payback for WWI but in the end it gave opportunity for Hitler to get into power and start WWII.

    Simply winning a war isn't enough, you should rebuild the economy and take away they cause of the aggression..

    It may seem unnatural but by helping Germany and Japan after WWII with the marshal plan we have shaped the counties (and allies) as they are now..
    Major difference was Germany and Japan were not sitting on billions of dollars of oil reserves. Not sure how the US can rebuild the economy in a better way than to keep the oil flowing. There are to many differences between modern day Iraq and Japan/Germany after WW2. Neither of those countries had ethnic divisions the way Iraq has now, also, I think the will to fight was removed by years of terrible war in those countries. In addition, the Japanese emperor was not removed. After he signed the peace treaty, very few would have gone agaisnt it.
  16. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Who is mentioning "police state"?

    I am saying that calling this a "war" on terror is mis-characterization.

    I agree to your description of proxy troops. Another example is the terrorists in Kasmir being proxy troops of Pakistan.

    To repeat: Terrorist cells need detectives, not troops, to stop them.
    Your right, you said police action....

    Should the Israelis have sent dectectives after Hezbollah? Should the US have sent dectectives against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan?
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    It's an issue of semantics. The threat revealed this week in Britain will be solved by FBI, CIA, Scotland Yard, Pakistani intelligence, local police and Interpol. Not by GI's.

    Call it what you will. Police action is closer to reality than war.
    I hear those on the left cry "Policing & Intelligence" is the ONLY way. I hear those on the far right say "Send in everything we've got".

    The truth of the matter is that BOTH are needed. To say one out weighs the other and to ignore either one's benefits is to give an advantage to ANYONE who wishes to harm us, be it a sovereign nation or a terrorist group.

    It is funny, I had a guy the other day (self proclaimed left) say nearly everything I have heard here from the left members (it was so close...like word for word....to what Da, Blaze, Barye, etc have been saying lately I actually asked if ever goes to TC)....Bush is using the terrorist threat for a power grab.....we do not need to use the military to go after terrorist....terrorism is a tactic. How do you fight against a tactic?......it needs to be a policing and intel to combat Terrorists... . Something struck me then as odd. I asked him, if he was for the Afg War? He said yes. I ask him if policing and intel was the really the only way to go to fight terrorists? He said yes. I then asked him how would policing and intel actions only have been effective in Afghanistan? After fumbling for an answer, he had to say it wouldn't have. So I asked him then if military force to go after terrorist is an important tool for combating terrorists. He still would not admit it with another comment about Bush.

    There are times and situations that Policing & Intel is the most effective.....the recent plot to blow up 10 planes, all with US destinations with a majority of the passengers probably being Americans, is a perfect example. But there are also times that military might is also needed, be it bombing, missiles, or ground troops. To exclude the possibilities and the advantages of ANY ONE of them, is irresponsible or personal political agenda driven, IMHO.
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Your right, you said police action....

    Should the Israelis have sent dectectives after Hezbollah? Should the US have sent dectectives against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan?
    No. As I have mentioned elsewhere: If a nation is explicitly (Afghanistan) or implicitly (Libiya, Iran, Pakistan) supporting the terrorist organizations, then it is OK to engage them militarily, IF the specific case for military action makes sense strategically.

    Every situation is different and the pro/con of attacking a country cannot be simplified to a few sentences here. But, if the country is supporting terrorists on their soil and refusing to cooperate in the global police action against the groups, then it makes sense to consider attacking them.

    Let me flip this question: It appears that the individuals in this incident were British citizens, doing this on their own (no evidence that Iran or Syria or Libiya or N. Korea were supplying them). Should we have attacked Britain?
    Some of these British citizens were in Pakistan (arrested by their Intelligence services). Should we attack Pakistan?

    Will that fit your need for describing this as a "War on terrorism" (how I hate that simplistic sound-bite phrase)...?
    Last edited by aprasad; 08/11/2006 at 07:26 AM. Reason: spelling
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is funny, I had a guy the other day (self proclaimed left) say nearly everything I have heard here from the left members (it was so close...like word for word....to what Da, Blaze, Barye, etc have been saying lately I actually asked if ever goes to TC)....Bush is using the terrorist threat for a power grab.....we do not need to use the military to go after terrorist....terrorism is a tactic. How do you fight against a tactic?......it needs to be a policing and intel to combat Terrorists... . Something struck me then as odd. I asked him, if he was for the Afg War? He said yes. I ask him if policing and intel was the really the only way to go to fight terrorists? He said yes. I then asked him how would policing and intel actions only have been effective in Afghanistan? After fumbling for an answer, he had to say it wouldn't have. So I asked him then if military force to go after terrorist is an important tool for combating terrorists. He still would not admit it with another comment about Bush.

    I hope that's not me that you are referring to.

    In case of nations giving shelter and help to terrorists and refusing to cooperate with the global "intelligence-action against terrorism" => OK to go to war. But this will be very few and far between. Afghanistan => Yes. Iraq => No.

    In most other cases, when the countries are cooperating in trying to infiltrate and capture terrorists on their soil => "intelligence-action against terrorism"

    We'll eventually win over terrorist groups (it takes only a few, with readily available explosive technologies) by intelligence-actions (infiltrations, surveillance, arrests) than "war" (cruise missiles, troops, gunships).
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  20. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    No. As I have mentioned elsewhere: If a nation is explicitly (Afghanistan) or implicitly (Libiya, Iran, Pakistan) supporting the terrorist organizations, then it is OK to engage them militarily, IF the specific case for military action makes sense strategically.

    Every situation is different and the pro/con of attacking a country cannot be simplified to a few sentences here. But, if the country is supporting terrorists on their soil and refusing to cooperate in the global police action against the groups, then it makes sense to consider attacking them.

    Let me flip this question: It appears that the individuals in this incident were British citizens, doing this on their own (no evidence that Iran or Syria or Libiya or N. Korea were supplying them). Should we have attacked Britain?
    Some of these British citizens were in Pakistan (arrested by their Intelligence services). Should we attack Pakistan?

    Will that fit your need for describing this as a "War on terrorism" (how I hate that simplistic sound-bite phrase)...?

    I agree with your first two paragrahps 100%.

    Ofcourse we shouldnt attack britian, but its very different to Afghanistan, where the governement allowed Al-Qaida a safe haven for their terrorist camps. Pakistan has to do alot more in cleaning up its border areas, and shutting down the terrorist infrastructure that clearly exists their. If they cannot, the US has to do it themselves. I can also see India having a right to attack Pakistan inorder to protect themselves.

Posting Permissions