Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 172
  1. #41  
    I too think she made the wrong choice in how her sentiment was released, but hindsight is 20/20. The Jane Fonda issue is more than a tired one, but it seems like some right-wingers still want to pull it out of the closet like it's a current event. Not like we have other things to worry about, like a government sending our soldiers to war over false pretense where the reconstruction was grossly understimated, with no end in sight. Or defending our borders, or expanding homeland security beyond color codes and changes in procedure... I suppose not though. Some people are going to whine endlessly about the remarks from decades ago of a mildly influential Hollywood star concerning an already heavily controversial war. It's a tired card to play at best.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    I too think she made the wrong choice in how her sentiment was released, but hindsight is 20/20. The Jane Fonda issue is more than a tired one, but it seems like some right-wingers still want to pull it out of the closet like it's a current event. Not like we have other things to worry about, like a government sending our soldiers to war over false pretense where the reconstruction was grossly understimated, with no end in sight. Or defending our borders, or expanding homeland security beyond color codes and changes in procedure... I suppose not though. Some people are going to whine endlessly about the remarks from decades ago of a mildly influential Hollywood star concerning an already heavily controversial war. It's a tired card to play at best.
    She remains a prime example of unpunished treason. But you're right...I've come to believe that what she did pales in comparison to what is leaving the lips of some politicians these days. (**** Durbin, please pick up the Jihadi courtesy phone for your message of thanks.)

    What false pretense did we go to war over? That Saddam was a dangerous dicatator? That we had to effect change in the Middle East in order to maintain our security?

    As far as the color code deal...what would YOU do? How would YOU inform the American people of a threat? That is, without compromising the methods and sources involved in collecting sensitive information.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    ...(**** Durbin, please pick up the Jihadi courtesy phone for your message of thanks.)
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We went to war in in Afghanistan to displace the Taliban, which was providing shelter and support to Al Queda. But that wasn't a big enough example.
    Fair enough...not very debatable.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    went to war in Iraq in order to fundamentally change the region that spawns Islamic terror. Bush was quite clear on that, as much as the fixated on WMD crowd would have it.
    Wow...I have never heard Bush give that reason ..."to fundamentally change the region that spawns Islamic terror". It sounds (from your post) like you advocate invading a sovereign country because its in the region of somewhere that has unrest. If you do, thats fine I guess, but its bordering the line of being illegal under international law. The pre-emption argument (if you choose to use it) requires us to reasonably believe that the country we attacked was about to attack us. I guess it could be debatable (I don't think so) that Sadaam was going to attack us with WMD.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Take a look at a map. Where is Iraq? Right in the center of the ME. Who ran Iraq? A tin horn dictator. Saddam proved an excellent example that the status quo for the past 30 years or so isn't acceptable. Asad needs to be sleeping with one eye open now, as do the mullahs in Tehran.
    Well see now you are point to something that Bush reasoned on why we needed to go to Iraq. 'Sadaam the bad dictator had to be removed from power'. Yeah, he was bad but when this reason was given, it was also accompanied with removing WMD's (only until after we found none did Bush just use the dictator argument.)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What has happened in the past four years or so? Afghanistan, holds free elections.
    Which is great.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Libya surrenders TONS of chemical weapons. Syria withdraws from Lebanon. Iranian students continue to organize. The mix has been changed in a way the Jihadis didn't anticipate.
    Connect the dots on these for me...are you assuming only because we invaded Iraq that all these things occurred? Or are you simply saying that it was one of many reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Free elections in Iraq.
    Another great consequence but it has to maintain itself without US occupation.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    There are challenges yet, and more blood and treasure to be paid. (I've lost two friends in Iraq.)
    Without a doubt. The million dollar question is how much more. Do we even know? What is our litmus test? How can we define success if we don't have a clear finish line?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    But if Bush hadn't acted decisively, they would have been emboldened and things would be much worse. Have we been attacked since 9/11? Do you think that's because they don't want to, or can't?
    Again, you seem to be making an assumption that all this occurred (or hasnt) because of the invasion. No one on T/C can really say for 100% if we have been attacked. Most of us don't have that kind of security clearance (I feel pretty confident since 9/11 that at least one attack has been thwarted).

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What did we do after Khobar Towers, the World Trade Center, the Cole attack? We sent law enforcement officers. What did that get us? 9/11.
    So youre saying that our response to each of those incidents enabled terrorists to take control of those planes and crash them into the buildings? And, using the same line of logic, since law enforcement officers werent effective after the World Trade Center bombing, then why don't we use this military juggernaut that has been so successful over there here American soil?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We are in a struggle for cultural survival. It seems many don't understand that. Either we moderate the culture of radical Islamic fundamentalism, or one day they'll smack us with something that will make 9/11 look like a cake walk.
    This seems reasonable but I think where most people disagree is HOW we get there.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    As far as Jane goes, she could have protested all she wanted here. The second her *** set foot in Hanoi she was a traitor. Had I been in charge then she would have had airplanes to shoot at the day she posed
    LOL, no doubt in my mind.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #46  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We went to war in in Afghanistan to displace the Taliban, which was providing shelter and support to Al Queda. But that wasn't a big enough example.

    T2: Fair enough...not very debatable.

    1911s: You'd think so, wouldn't you? Go back and research who was saying what in 2002. Be sure to use the word "quagmire" in your search.
  6. #47  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    went to war in Iraq in order to fundamentally change the region that spawns Islamic terror. Bush was quite clear on that, as much as the fixated on WMD crowd would have it.

    T2:Wow...I have never heard Bush give that reason ..."to fundamentally change the region that spawns Islamic terror". It sounds (from your post) like you advocate invading a sovereign country because its in the region of somewhere that has unrest. If you do, thats fine I guess, but its bordering the line of being illegal under international law. The pre-emption argument (if you choose to use it) requires us to reasonably believe that the country we attacked was about to attack us. I guess it could be debatable (I don't think so) that Sadaam was going to attack us with WMD.

    1911s: Your reference to "soverign country" indicates to me that you haven't caught up to reality. We aren't fighting a nation-state here, though they are part of the mix. We are fighting a religon based idealogy bent on domination. Lines drawn on a map have little relevance to the war we're engaged in. And why does the preemption argument have to be based on WMD? Aren't airliners slamming into our icons enough for you?

    And don't hand me the tired, "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" line. I don't give a damn if he did or didn't. He supported terrorism. Terrorists were training in his country. (Google Salman Pak. Maybe you'll get a chance to look at the airliner they had there to train terrorists on how to hijack an airplane.) He paid $25k to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers. He used poison gas on an ethnic minority within his own borders. He sponsored rape rooms, and shoved people in to shredders. Nitric acid baths. And the point is that is pretty much SOP for Damascus and Tehran. Taking Saddam out and placing 150,000 of Americas finest on their doorstep put them on notice that the days of indictments and courtrooms, tempered with a few cruise missles to divert attention from a sex scandal, are gone. We will put boots on the ground and run you into a hole.

    Regarding Bush's statements, here's a snip from his 2002 SOU:

    "Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. (Applause.) So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it. (Applause.)

    Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world".
  7. #48  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Libya surrenders TONS of chemical weapons. Syria withdraws from Lebanon. Iranian students continue to organize. The mix has been changed in a way the Jihadis didn't anticipate.

    T2: Connect the dots on these for me...are you assuming only because we invaded Iraq that all these things occurred? Or are you simply saying that it was one of many reasons?

    1911s: Khadafi himself has said he abandoned that program because he didn't want the Americans to come after him. Do you think the people in Lebanon would have started speaking out so loudly were it not for American intervention in the region? There is no "assumption" here. The exercise of raw American power has been the agent of change in that region. It is still a work very much in progress, but would you agree that things are different, and that the status quo was unacceptable?
  8. #49  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Free elections in Iraq.

    T2: Another great consequence but it has to maintain itself without US occupation.

    Occupation, or assistance? I think we're well along the way to making that transition. Last week an Australian hostage was freed...by Iraqi troops. They are getting better, the Jihadis are getting increasingly desperate. But they can always look to our 5th column for words of comfort, and draw support from the fact that we have people in this country that believe that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, and that George Bush is their enemy.
  9. #50  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    There are challenges yet, and more blood and treasure to be paid. (I've lost two friends in Iraq.)

    T2:Without a doubt. The million dollar question is how much more. Do we even know? What is our litmus test? How can we define success if we don't have a clear finish line?

    1911s: Do we know what the cost will be if we don't continue? Manhattan disappearing under a mushroom cloud? Attacks on our schools by dozens of Jihadis?

    The nature of the war we're involved in does not allow for your litmus tests and finish lines. We can only do things to enhance our security, there are no guarantees. In Iraq we will have achieved that goal when a stable government is in place, and the butchers in Syria and Iran can no longer send their henchmen to create mayhem within that country.

    And here's a question...what would YOU have had us done in the wake of not just 9/11, but of the first WTC bombing, the Embassy bombing, the Cole, etc, etc.?
  10. #51  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    But if Bush hadn't acted decisively, they would have been emboldened and things would be much worse. Have we been attacked since 9/11? Do you think that's because they don't want to, or can't?

    T2: Again, you seem to be making an assumption that all this occurred (or hasnt) because of the invasion. No one on T/C can really say for 100% if we have been attacked. Most of us don't have that kind of security clearance (I feel pretty confident since 9/11 that at least one attack has been thwarted).

    The Jihadis have to defend their movement in their neighborhood. Our success in Iraq is forcing them to concentrate there.

    Are you aware that one of the reasons the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor is because they read our press, and didn't think we had the stomach for a fight? The Jihadi has been laboring under that same impression for a long, long time. They acted on it, time and again, and each time we reinforced that belief with impotent at best, incompetent at worst, acts. Imagine what the reaction would have been had we not launched such a global (remember, we're fighting this war EVERYWHERE, at once) and powerful response to this most heinous attack.

    Back later...I actually have to do some of the work they're paying me for!
  11. #53  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What did we do after Khobar Towers, the World Trade Center, the Cole attack? We sent law enforcement officers. What did that get us? 9/11.

    T2: So youre saying that our response to each of those incidents enabled terrorists to take control of those planes and crash them into the buildings? And, using the same line of logic, since law enforcement officers werent effective after the World Trade Center bombing, then why don't we use this military juggernaut that has been so successful over there here American soil?

    1911s: No. Don't be obtuse. I'm saying that our limp response EMBOLDENED them. Read what they wrote and you'll agree.

    You seem to have a difficult time understanding that each tool at our disposal has its uses and limitations. Law enforcement does have a role within the confines of the US. Outside those borders it is a diplomatic, intelligence and ultimately a military game. We didn't use that last option, and our enemy thought us weak.
  12. #54  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We are in a struggle for cultural survival. It seems many don't understand that. Either we moderate the culture of radical Islamic fundamentalism, or one day they'll smack us with something that will make 9/11 look like a cake walk.

    T2: This seems reasonable but I think where most people disagree is HOW we get there.

    1911s: Yes. They are divided into two camps. The status quo crowd that brought us to this point, and those that recognize that dramatic change is needed.
  13.    #55  
    Just read an article where the mujadeen heroes marked a group of kids on bicycles in Iraq to blow up. Several died and one remained screaming with one of his legs gone from the kneecap down. Sickening. More Iraqi's need to stand up to these thugs. If that happened here in the South, there would be Bubba law, with vigilantes everywhere.
  14. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Your reference to "soverign country" indicates to me that you haven't caught up to reality. We aren't fighting a nation-state here, though they are part of the mix. We are fighting a religon based idealogy bent on domination. Lines drawn on a map have little relevance to the war we're engaged in.
    You seem to be making the argument that Iraq is not a sovereign country? (or maybe your not addressing it at all?). Lines on a map might not bother you but since what we do and how we act is in relation to the entire world, I at least think its important that we act diplomatically. Its difficult to make a legal (or rational) argument why we should be able to go into any country we want simply because there might be terrorists there? The rationale from there seems to be that we can go into any country we want to get terrorists...international law does not support that idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    And why does the preemption argument have to be based on WMD? Aren't airliners slamming into our icons enough for you?
    Although that was horrific to watch...your missing a step in your analysis. In order to claim that we can invade Iraq (or any other sovereign country) based on preemption, then you would have to make the claim that Iraq sent the planes into the buildings (the attacks would be what you are preempting). If you are claiming that, then please post a link for me to read showing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

    The reason why I used WMD for the preemption argument is because supposedly Sadaam had those and supposedly threatened to use them against the U.S. If that were really true, then it would be a much better argument for invading.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    And don't hand me the tired, "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" line. I don't give a damn if he did or didn't.
    Thats where we seem to disagree. Its important from a legal principle that evidence be shown that he supported and funded that specific attack. If he didnt, then we shouldnt be invading Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    He supported terrorism. Terrorists were training in his country. (Google Salman Pak. Maybe you'll get a chance to look at the airliner they had there to train terrorists on how to hijack an airplane.) He paid $25k to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers. He used poison gas on an ethnic minority within his own borders. He sponsored rape rooms, and shoved people in to shredders. Nitric acid baths.
    Im not saying he didnt and again, I am not saying he was a good guy. But simply that we cant claim preemption on him because preemption requires us to show the world that he was going to attack us specifically.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    And the point is that is pretty much SOP for Damascus and Tehran. Taking Saddam out and placing 150,000 of Americas finest on their doorstep put them on notice that the days of indictments and courtrooms, tempered with a few cruise missles to divert attention from a sex scandal, are gone. We will put boots on the ground and run you into a hole.
    I am not really against getting rid of Sadaam but rather on how and why we do it. Throwing around the preemption argument without establishing the evidence tarnishes the U.S. reputation globally (and you cant ignore that totally because we simply cant police the entire world).

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Regarding Bush's statements, here's a snip from his 2002 SOU:

    "Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. (Applause.) So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it. (Applause.)
    This on its face is not advocating invading a sovereign nation (arguably Afghanistan was not a nation state).

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world".
    Stopping terrorism is great and most support stopping terrorism. However, that doesnt mean we have the green light to go into any nation we see fit to stop it. Imagine if you will a nation state like Germany...what if they were fighting terrorist but werent doing as good as a job as the US would like? Do you advocate invading Germany and doing it for them? Do you think that just because they have terrorists that its an imminent threat to the US that allows us to make a preemptive strike? Do you see where I am going with this?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Khadafi himself has said he abandoned that program because he didn't want the Americans to come after him. Do you think the people in Lebanon would have started speaking out so loudly were it not for American intervention in the region? There is no "assumption" here.
    I think you make a good point but you also seem to give all the credit to these things happening simply because we invaded Iraq. I think that the writing was on the wall. Invading Iraq was just last straw. Having a tough stance on Terrorism in general was probably also a factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    It is still a work very much in progress, but would you agree that things are different, and that the status quo was unacceptable?
    I totally agree but just because the status quo was unacceptable doesnt mean that I advocate potentially violating international law...but I see your point.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16.    #58  
    We've already invaded Iraq, not much we can do about that now whether Saddam had something to do with 911 or not. Do you propose the US leave immediately?

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Thats where we seem to disagree. Its important from a legal principle that evidence be shown that he supported and funded that specific attack. If he didnt, then we shouldnt be invading Iraq.
  17. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Do you advocate invading Germany and doing it for them? Do you think that just because they have terrorists that its an imminent threat to the US that allows us to make a preemptive strike? Do you see where I am going with this?
    Arent we still an occupying force. I mean after WWII, we never left.

    Maybe we should annex all the countries on the North and South American continents, it will solve our illegal alien problems as well as securing our borders.

    Canada will resist initially, but their military will be defeated by the North Dakota National Guard
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  18. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Occupation, or assistance? I think we're well along the way to making that transition. Last week an Australian hostage was freed...by Iraqi troops. They are getting better, the Jihadis are getting increasingly desperate. But they can always look to our 5th column for words of comfort, and draw support from the fact that we have people in this country that believe that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, and that George Bush is their enemy.
    Interesting on your choice of words...assistance indicates that it is done with some sort of 'request'. I don't know if Iraq requested that we invade them but its just an observation.

    I see it more as an occupation. There is no timeline for when troops will be withdrawn, there is no indication that the insurgency is weakening and all signs point to us being in the country for another 2 years or so.

    Iraq insurgency not weakening, top general says
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions