Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 101 to 109 of 109
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Two questions for you. 1) How do you 'know' that they know what you stated underlined above? 2) What is the law that you are using to make the conclusion that it is considered profiling?
    The Department of Justice issued guidelines to all the federal agencies back in 2002 on what did and did not constitute racial profiling. One of those guidelines was the number of people from a particular background that could be stopped. I can't find it now because I am writing a presentation for a conference, but it made the papers a few years ago.

    Assuming what you say is true...isnt that what makes our country great...freedom from discrimination? Shall we have martial law?
    There is nothing wrong, in time of war, with singling out people from a hostile country for further scrutiny. (This may be the major point of dissention. I believe we are in a prolonged state of war. I believe the war against fanaticism is this generation's Cold War. You may not. )There must be a process for this, and as outlined in the Constitution, our rights cannot be taken away without due process. However, the government should take measures which they believe legitimately make us safer within that process. That our government must go through this process is what makes this country great.

    How is it 'dodging' if its a legitimate concern? I am not saying that we CANT but that its likely not to give us the 'bang for the buck' so to speak when it comes to costs (violating freedoms). The 'problem' is that we don't want terrorists to gain entry to our mass transit. I don't see how we are dodging it?
    Again, I don't see how its a violation of our freedom to take the practical measure of scrutinizing people of certain ethnicities if it is clear that ethnicity is a important component of identifying potential killers. Citizens have an obligation to help the government protect its fellow citizens. If that means I might be stopped a few times more than the next fellow because I have a beard and am dark complected (which I do), then so be it. I lose no freedom from helping my government do its job. Indeed, the Brits seem to rather to have lost a bit of freedom by not being able to ride the tube or walk around safely. To me, I'd prefer the threat of being stopped by our security apparatus over the threat of being blown up. There is no perfect freedom, and indeed, there can be no freedom without security. All of our founding fathers and founding political philosophy agreed on this point. The discussion should focus on how much freedom we are willing to give up given the threat to our security. You may argue that the danger to our security is worth whatever freedom you think you are losing, and that ok. I simply disagree.

    Interesting quote to choose. Isnt it said another way... "when you aren't ready, you just have to suck it up!" My question is...why aren't we ready? Why are we reactive instead of proactive. Don't we have the greatest minds in the country working on these issues? Have these things not been thought of before? As far as Sec. Rumsfeld...he doesnt come across as someone that contingency plans (and I base that on how we have prosecuted this war thusfar.)
    Great question. Ask Jimmy Carter who allowed Islamic terrorists to take our citizens hostage without nary a repecussion. Ask Reagan, whose response to Navy officers being hanged in Lebanon was silence, or whose response to the death of over 200 Marines in Lebanon was to leave. Ask Bush the first who allowed Hussein to stay in power after invading a foreign country on our watch. Ask Clinton, who did nothing when our troops were killed and defiled in Somalia. Did nothing when our citizens were killed in the first World Trade Center bombing. Nothing when our embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania. Nothing when our Naval ship was bombed in Yemen. Ask Clinton, who did not allow our security agencies (CIA, ATF, FBI) to share information regarding islamic terrorists. Mohammed Atta was a known terrorist from Al Qaeda, but the agencies were not allowed to share information so that he could be tracked inside the United STates. The Clinton government considered it a violation of our "freedoms" if the CIA, a foreign spy agency, were to share information with the FBI, and internal investigations agency. Ask why the person who ordered the reinterpretion of this policy, Jamie Gorelick, is on the very 9-11 Commission that is investIgating what went wrong with 9-11! That these events factor into our decisions regarding security blows my mind. Taken from a historical context, we are indeed at war, but since they happened over a 30 year period, it allows the anti-war people to take every single issue out of the historical narrative and make acqusations about how 9-11 was Bush's fault or how the Tube bombings somehow have something to do with Blair's decision to go into Iraq. The reaon the Islamic terrorists make quote Michael Moore and George Galloway is because it gives them the rhetorical and political cover to continue their war. They can bomb the Tube, quote some British MP, and then sit back and watch society implode on itself with political finger pointing. When Bin Laden first bombed 9-11 one of the reasons he gave was that the West was occupying sacred Islamic soil. Not only Saudi Arabia, but Al Andalus, better known as Southern Spain. What many of us fail to see as that this war is just a contiuation of a longer historical conflict. There can be peace, but it must not be through concessions. The fanatics want the very soil you are standing on and they have historically killed as many people as it takes to do it. They have tried to take European countries on many occasions, and almost succeeded twice. This conflict is just a continuation of that long history. Again, peace can be had, but we must root out the fanatics who silence their people into submission. RIght now, Islamic people fear their fanatics more than they fear us. Thats why they can walk around unemcumbered in western society. That has to change.

    I would actually prefer we figure it out first before we throw caution to the wind and have to try a couple things out before we can get it right. Being from the military, we didnt start by saying...lets complete an amphibious landing and THEN figure out how we will secure the beach and setup our supply lines.
    Before we invaded Normandy, the US Marines conducted a little known exercise. A run-through, to see how well the D-day invasion would go. Over 1,500 Marines died on that mission because the exercise was botched. According to your argument we should have just scrapped D-day. Losses are a part of war. Its called a 70% solution. Its much better than a 0% solution, and if you wait for a 100% solution, well then, you are the United Nations.

    We do? We can just go into deficit spending for 10-20-30 years and then....what? I'm not sure what you mean by unlimited resources?
    Since you love freedom so much, what is it worth to you? We are the richest country in the world. We have 12 carrier groups that individually are more powerful than any navy in the world. We have 12 Amphibious Groups that individually are stronger than almost any Carrier group in the world. Our economy is strong, and our country currently spends more money on lipstick than all the countries in the world combined, spend on education. Its not a matter of resources, its a matter of priorities. This was also the same argument that faced Reagan and his huge deficits he accumulated fighting the Communists. A temporary surge in the economy wiped out those deficits in a few years. Success and prosperity will wipe out any deficit accumulated by the gains made killing our enemies.
  2. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #102  
    "Again, I don't see how its a violation of our freedom to take the practical measure of scrutinizing people of certain ethnicities if it is clear that ethnicity is a important component of identifying potential killers. Citizens have an obligation to help the government protect its fellow citizens. If that means I might be stopped a few times more than the next fellow because I have a beard and am dark complected (which I do), then so be it. I lose no freedom from helping my government do its job. Indeed, the Brits seem to rather to have lost a bit of freedom by not being able to ride the tube or walk around safely. To me, I'd prefer the threat of being stopped by our security apparatus over the threat of being blown up. There is no perfect freedom, and indeed, there can be no freedom without security. All of our founding fathers and founding political philosophy agreed on this point. The discussion should focus on how much freedom we are willing to give up given the threat to our security. You may argue that the danger to our security is worth whatever freedom you think you are losing, and that ok. I simply disagree."


    - nunoste

    superbly stated, nunoste. This is precisely my stance on this issue.
  3. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #103  
    "Ask Clinton, who did nothing when our troops were killed and defiled in Somalia. Did nothing when our citizens were killed in the first World Trade Center bombing. "

    - nunoste


    EXACTLY. t2gungho, when we were discussing the question of who we were to profile and on what basis before september 11th - the FIRST wtc attack gave us a pretty good idea who we were dealing with here. THAT was our first hint. on THAT basis, i would have started profiling certain those of arab ethnicity.

    yeah, i hear everyone`s emphasis on preserving constitutional freedoms -searching everyone, behavior, random checks - all of that is well and good, but i still believe we need to look at the ethnicities from which the radicals originate from FIRST and FOREMOST. nunoste is stating the case beautifully, and i could not agree more with the points he is making.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I don't get it? If we search everyone, how is randomness applicable or relevant (sometimes I don't see the obvious so forgive me.)
    Each tool I mentioned has it's purpose. Profiling, is a narrowing tool. Electronic sensors (metal, & explosive sensors) would be for everyone. Random more detailed searches are the wild card element....etc....

    With that mind you will see each tool that I laid out in post 15 & 95 and see how being used together...all of them...it then becomes a lot more challenging for a terrorist to plan and execute their plans compared to we have...errrrr I mean....don't have now.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/11/2005 at 10:59 PM.
  5. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #105  
    "To say that we cannot profile because we don't have the properly trained personell, to me, is a simple dodge of the problem. Like Rumsfeld says, "you go to war with the Army you've got, not the one you wish you had." This is a long term war. The most important aspect of which is to change our mentality in how we deal with a culture that at best is ambivelant about the blind hatred of the more fanatic amongst them. Once our approach has changed, we can work on the mechanics on the fly. We have unlimited resources to do this. What we currently don't have is the cultural resources to be successful. Until then, we will be giving credence to arguments like, "we aren't properly trained" and "but not all terrorists are Arab". Tick tock, tick tock"


    i cant help but applaud your points here, nunoste. you are RIGHT on the money!!!!
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    The Department of Justice issued guidelines to all the federal agencies back in 2002 on what did and did not constitute racial profiling. One of those guidelines was the number of people from a particular background that could be stopped. I can't find it now because I am writing a presentation for a conference, but it made the papers a few years ago.
    Fair enough (although what the DOJ thinks is constitutional or not constitutional is another matter. )

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    There is nothing wrong, in time of war, with singling out people from a hostile country for further scrutiny.
    Is this just your opinion or do you think this is what the courts would say now? I ask because of the Koramatsu case from the japanese internment camps.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    (This may be the major point of dissention. I believe we are in a prolonged state of war. I believe the war against fanaticism is this generation's Cold War. You may not. )
    In understand the argument that we are at war but its not against all fanaticism is it? Isnt it really against Islamic fundamentalism?

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    There must be a process for this, and as outlined in the Constitution, our rights cannot be taken away without due process. However, the government should take measures which they believe legitimately make us safer within that process. That our government must go through this process is what makes this country great.
    Couldn't agree more.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Again, I don't see how its a violation of our freedom to take the practical measure of scrutinizing people of certain ethnicities if it is clear that ethnicity is a important component of identifying potential killers.
    Well wouldn't we all agree that you should be innocent until proven guilty? If that principle were to be applied to this idea of profiling then it doesn't seem consistent? If we are profiling...then we are assuming that everyone is looks like an Islamic fundamentalist is 'guilty' per se.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Citizens have an obligation to help the government protect its fellow citizens.
    Agreed...but only within the bounds of the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    If that means I might be stopped a few times more than the next fellow because I have a beard and am dark complected (which I do), then so be it.
    You seem to be comfortable with it but I don't think that is really evidence on how 'profiling' is not an infringement on a person's rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    I lose no freedom from helping my government do its job.
    Like I mentioned, you don't see it as a loss of freedom to be discriminated against and 'prejudged' on the premise that you're guilty first and only innocent after we have searched you, but I don't think that is enough to prove that the government should be able to profile.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Indeed, the Brits seem to rather to have lost a bit of freedom by not being able to ride the tube or walk around safely. To me, I'd prefer the threat of being stopped by our security apparatus over the threat of being blown up.
    And I am sure if you put a Hobbesian choice to everyone, then most would agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    There is no perfect freedom, and indeed, there can be no freedom without security. All of our founding fathers and founding political philosophy agreed on this point.
    What does this mean? Are you saying that freedom cannot be absolute?

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    The discussion should focus on how much freedom we are willing to give up given the threat to our security. You may argue that the danger to our security is worth whatever freedom you think you are losing, and that ok. I simply disagree.
    I think, up to this point, that we shouldnt be given up our freedoms. And I know that this may sound contradictory to but I actually support Lincoln's decision to suspend the habeas corpus. I reconcile that with the fact that we aren't (at least yet) faced with that type of circumstance (i.e. Civil War).

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Great question. Ask Jimmy Carter who allowed Islamic terrorists to take our citizens hostage without nary a repecussion. Ask Reagan, whose response to Navy officers being hanged in Lebanon was silence, or whose response to the death of over 200 Marines in Lebanon was to leave. Ask Bush the first who allowed Hussein to stay in power after invading a foreign country on our watch. Ask Clinton, who did nothing when our troops were killed and defiled in Somalia. Did nothing when our citizens were killed in the first World Trade Center bombing. Nothing when our embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania. Nothing when our Naval ship was bombed in Yemen.
    Good points but I don't see it how it gets Sec. Rumsfeld off the hook for what he said. From your response, it seems to indicate that because all the past administrations did a poor job, then it should be ok for this one. I don't think that is a very good argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Ask Clinton, who did not allow our security agencies (CIA, ATF, FBI) to share information regarding islamic terrorists. Mohammed Atta was a known terrorist from Al Qaeda, but the agencies were not allowed to share information so that he could be tracked inside the United STates. The Clinton government considered it a violation of our "freedoms" if the CIA, a foreign spy agency, were to share information with the FBI, and internal investigations agency.
    And it was all Clinton's discretionary choice?

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Ask why the person who ordered the reinterpretion of this policy, Jamie Gorelick, is on the very 9-11 Commission that is investIgating what went wrong with 9-11!
    Are you saying that he ordered it or that he just interpreted the policy or both (because I thought you said Pres. Clinton above.)

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    That these events factor into our decisions regarding security blows my mind. Taken from a historical context, we are indeed at war, but since they happened over a 30 year period, it allows the anti-war people to take every single issue out of the historical narrative and make acqusations about how 9-11 was Bush's fault
    Hopefully you aren't confusing me with someone that is anti-war and I (nor many people commenting on this board have said that 9/11 was Pres. Bush's fault).

    [QUOTE=nunoste]The reaon the Islamic terrorists make quote Michael Moore and George Galloway is because it gives them the rhetorical and political cover to continue their war. They can bomb the Tube, quote some British MP, and then sit back and watch society implode on itself with political finger pointing. When Bin Laden first bombed 9-11 one of the reasons he gave was that the West was occupying sacred Islamic soil. Not only Saudi Arabia, but Al Andalus, better known as Southern Spain. What many of us fail to see as that this war is just a contiuation of a longer historical conflict. There can be peace, but it must not be through concessions. The fanatics want the very soil you are standing on and they have historically killed as many people as it takes to do it. They have tried to take European countries on many occasions, and almost succeeded twice. This conflict is just a continuation of that long history. Again, peace can be had, but we must root out the fanatics who silence their people into submission. RIght now, Islamic people fear their fanatics more than they fear us. Thats why they can walk around unemcumbered in western society. That has to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Before we invaded Normandy, the US Marines conducted a little known exercise. A run-through, to see how well the D-day invasion would go. Over 1,500 Marines died on that mission because the exercise was botched. According to your argument we should have just scrapped D-day.
    Actually according to my argument, we should have thought out the little known exercise before losing 1,500 Marines. It seems you are making a big leap first.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Losses are a part of war. Its called a 70% solution.
    You phrase it like our 'losses' of american lives are just numbers and that a 70% solution is 'acceptable'.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Its much better than a 0% solution, and if you wait for a 100% solution, well then, you are the United Nations.
    You are framing the argument as either/or (0% or 100%, you decide) and arguably it's really not like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Since you love freedom so much, what is it worth to you? We are the richest country in the world. We have 12 carrier groups that individually are more powerful than any navy in the world. We have 12 Amphibious Groups that individually are stronger than almost any Carrier group in the world. Our economy is strong, and our country currently spends more money on lipstick than all the countries in the world combined, spend on education. Its not a matter of resources, its a matter of priorities. This was also the same argument that faced Reagan and his huge deficits he accumulated fighting the Communists. A temporary surge in the economy wiped out those deficits in a few years. Success and prosperity will wipe out any deficit accumulated by the gains made killing our enemies.
    It's not that I am against spending money for security, it's a matter of priorities. We are spending millions a day in Iraq yet virtually no money is being spent to secure our own borders.

    I will give you an example. I heard the other day (I haven't found a link to the story yet) that one of the minutemen did an experiment where he walked across the border from Mexico to Arizona with a black suitcase that had stickers on each side indicating that it was radioactive. When he got to the U.S. side, he had someone pick him up and drive him to the capital of Arizona where he walked up to the capital steps and set down the briefcase. Obviously he was trying to make the point that if he could do that, then any 'terrorist' could do the same.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Fair enough (although what the DOJ thinks is constitutional or not constitutional is another matter. )

    Is this just your opinion or do you think this is what the courts would say now? I ask because of the Koramatsu case from the japanese internment camps.
    Korematsu actually upheld the government position and has never been overturned, as far as I know. In my opinion, right now, internment would be an overreaction. The intelligence we have on the Arab Muslim community is far better than what we had in the Japanese community. In retrospect, the interment of the Japanese was unjustified, but I don't think the intelligence of the time necessarily made internment an injustice to society at-large. Japanese were also not the only ones interned. I'm sure plenty of Italians and Germans were interned that is was retrospectively unnecessary.


    In understand the argument that we are at war but its not against all fanaticism is it? Isnt it really against Islamic fundamentalism?
    I think the Muslim community fears the fundamentalists more than they fear the American government. I think we are at war with all fanaticism, but the Buhddist and Amish fanatics seem to be sitting this one out.

    Well wouldn't we all agree that you should be innocent until proven guilty? If that principle were to be applied to this idea of profiling then it doesn't seem consistent? If we are profiling...then we are assuming that everyone is looks like an Islamic fundamentalist is 'guilty' per se.
    Nobody is convicting anyone of the crime of being Arab or Saudi or a member of an known Islamic hate group. However, the government should have the discretion, in times of war, to detain persons they deem to be a member of the enemy. Remember, most of these people, before 9-11, weren't exactly quiet about their hatred of the West. They would have conventions about overthrowing the US government in the middle of Chicago. In times of war, it is only practical that when someone has proclaimed to be an enemy of the United States, to take them at their word for it.

    You seem to be comfortable with it but I don't think that is really evidence on how 'profiling' is not an infringement on a person's rights.
    I'd prefer that we didn't need these measures and being stopped by a police officer because of my skin color or beard makes me nervous, but we are at war. The wider public seems to not get that or at least seems to want to forget. Arguing against profiling is a Sept. 10th argument, and one i might be sympathetic to.

    Like I mentioned, you don't see it as a loss of freedom to be discriminated against and 'prejudged' on the premise that you're guilty first and only innocent after we have searched you, but I don't think that is enough to prove that the government should be able to profile.
    Nobody is prejudging you. If a cop stops you because you have a broken tail light, and you have drugs sitting on your seat, the action of stopping you for the tail light was not a prejudgement of you, but a signal to the cop that something might be amiss. If nothing was amiss, you're on your way.


    What does this mean? Are you saying that freedom cannot be absolute?
    It cannot be absolute. I do not have the freedom to take your life any more than you have the freedom to take mine. Absolute freedom would give me that discretion, and you as well. Thats Locke and Hobbes' dilemma.

    [QUOTE]I think, up to this point, that we shouldnt be given up our freedoms. And I know that this may sound contradictory to but I actually support Lincoln's decision to suspend the habeas corpus. I reconcile that with the fact that we aren't (at least yet) faced with that type of circumstance (i.e. Civil War).[/I]
    Me too.

    Good points but I don't see it how it gets Sec. Rumsfeld off the hook for what he said. From your response, it seems to indicate that because all the past administrations did a poor job, then it should be ok for this one. I don't think that is a very good argument.
    The point is, you cannot wait until you have the perfect army before you go to war. When we went into Baghdad, a few people tried to use the lack of armor on the Humvee's as an argument that the war wasn't planned correctly, but Rumsfeld was saying that when war is upon you, you cannot wait for ideal circumstances. You have to go to war with the Army you got.

    And it was all Clinton's discretionary choice? Are you saying that he ordered it or that he just interpreted the policy or both (because I thought you said Pres. Clinton above.)
    Jaime Gorelick, a Clinton appointee, reinterpreted the law so that agencies could not exchange information. This was a new interpretation meant to reflect the views of the Clinton administration.

    Hopefully you aren't confusing me with someone that is anti-war and I (nor many people commenting on this board have said that 9/11 was Pres. Bush's fault).
    No.. sorry if I gave that impression.

    Actually according to my argument, we should have thought out the little known exercise before losing 1,500 Marines. It seems you are making a big leap first.
    We couldn't wait. We were at war. Stalin was on us to put pressure on Germany's Western front for over a year. Over 16 million Russians were on their way to being killed. June was the best time to conduct the invasion because of the tide schedule. What do you propose? Draw up more plans? Have more meetings? Some roundtable discussions? The landing craft were known to be horrible, but they were the best we had at the time. Throughout the war, we were testing new ways to improve the military. Some things worked, some were a disaster (see glider transport planes). But you can't put everything on hold because everything isnt perfect.

    You phrase it like our 'losses' of american lives are just numbers and that a 70% solution is 'acceptable'.
    I have friends at in Iraq and elsewhere, as Im sure you do to. We should always strive for a 100% solution, but its not realistic, as you say below. Your, "but they aren't properly trained yet" argument sounds more like the black and white vew of the world you mention below.

    You are framing the argument as either/or (0% or 100%, you decide) and arguably it's really not like that.

    It's not that I am against spending money for security, it's a matter of priorities. We are spending millions a day in Iraq yet virtually no money is being spent to secure our own borders.
    AMEN

    I will give you an example. I heard the other day (I haven't found a link to the story yet) that one of the minutemen did an experiment where he walked across the border from Mexico to Arizona with a black suitcase that had stickers on each side indicating that it was radioactive. When he got to the U.S. side, he had someone pick him up and drive him to the capital of Arizona where he walked up to the capital steps and set down the briefcase. Obviously he was trying to make the point that if he could do that, then any 'terrorist' could do the same.
    DOUBLE AMEN Securing the borders is yet another touchy feely issue with many of the same crowd who are against profiling. That too should be high on the agenda.

    peace
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Korematsu actually upheld the government position and has never been overturned, as far as I know.
    You are correct. I brought it up because, since that decision, many con law scholars have argued that it would be unconstitutional now.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    In my opinion, right now, internment would be an overreaction. The intelligence we have on the Arab Muslim community is far better than what we had in the Japanese community. In retrospect, the interment of the Japanese was unjustified, but I don't think the intelligence of the time necessarily made internment an injustice to society at-large.
    Are you saying that if your intelligence isnt very good and you make a 'bad' decision than its ok? It seems like it would be more of an injustice if you intelligence was not very good.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    I think the Muslim community fears the fundamentalists more than they fear the American government. I think we are at war with all fanaticism, but the Buhddist and Amish fanatics seem to be sitting this one out.
    I brought that up because you just said 'fanaticism'.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Nobody is convicting anyone of the crime of being Arab or Saudi or a member of an known Islamic hate group. However, the government should have the discretion, in times of war, to detain persons they deem to be a member of the enemy. Remember, most of these people, before 9-11, weren't exactly quiet about their hatred of the West. They would have conventions about overthrowing the US government in the middle of Chicago. In times of war, it is only practical that when someone has proclaimed to be an enemy of the United States, to take them at their word for it.
    True...but when one person (or a group proclaims something) you seem to be willing to transfer that to all people based on how they look (i.e. profiling?)

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    I'd prefer that we didn't need these measures and being stopped by a police officer because of my skin color or beard makes me nervous, but we are at war. The wider public seems to not get that or at least seems to want to forget. Arguing against profiling is a Sept. 10th argument, and one i might be sympathetic to.
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    Nobody is prejudging you. If a cop stops you because you have a broken tail light, and you have drugs sitting on your seat, the action of stopping you for the tail light was not a prejudgement of you, but a signal to the cop that something might be amiss. If nothing was amiss, you're on your way.
    Are you making the argument that if you have something mechanically wrong with your car that a policeman should prejudge you and that it would be likely you've committed another crime? Also, the drug issue comes in only if its in plain view . There is no probable cause to search your car simply because you have a broken tail light?

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    The point is, you cannot wait until you have the perfect army before you go to war. When we went into Baghdad, a few people tried to use the lack of armor on the Humvee's as an argument that the war wasn't planned correctly, but Rumsfeld was saying that when war is upon you, you cannot wait for ideal circumstances. You have to go to war with the Army you got.
    I agree that you are never ready 100%. The war wasnt upon us...we decided to go to war. There is a difference. Pres. Bush was planning ahead of time to go to war (during the period when the inspections werent doing anything). We could have done better to give our troops what they needed. (I am not even arguing the issue that we didnt have enough troops on the ground).

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    We couldn't wait. We were at war. Stalin was on us to put pressure on Germany's Western front for over a year. Over 16 million Russians were on their way to being killed. June was the best time to conduct the invasion because of the tide schedule. What do you propose? Draw up more plans? Have more meetings? Some roundtable discussions? The landing craft were known to be horrible, but they were the best we had at the time. Throughout the war, we were testing new ways to improve the military. Some things worked, some were a disaster (see glider transport planes). But you can't put everything on hold because everything isnt perfect.
    Good points...but the necessity of going to war with the start at Normandy is COMPLETLY different than our invasion of Iraq (wouldn't you agree).

    Quote Originally Posted by nunoste
    I have friends at in Iraq and elsewhere, as Im sure you do to. We should always strive for a 100% solution, but its not realistic, as you say below. Your, "but they aren't properly trained yet" argument sounds more like the black and white vew of the world you mention below.
    You lost me. I'm not making a black and white argument...just an argument to do better whenever we can (and I think we could have done better without having to make the argument that we have to 'suck it up')

    *Keep up the good points
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. #109  
    With regard to the war being upon us. I think you are judging the decision to go to war outside of the context of the events which precipitated war. The 9-11 attack killed more citizens than the attack on Pearl Harbor and it did so on the American mainland. 9-11 required action beyond just bringing our enemies to justice. 9-11 exposed a severe weakness in our defense against an enemy we already knew existed, but didn't have the political will to do anything about. Throughout the 90's, attacks against American targets had grown in number, in efficiency, in sophistication, and in their ability to kill. Looking at 9-11 separately as an isolated event would not have warranted the toppling of a regime, Saddam, that we simply had a disagreement with. However, placed into the narrative of growing resources and a growing boldness to do harm to American citizens, along with our own complicity by not doing anything for past attacks, forced us to consider what the logical next step would be for our enemies. Given the ease at which 9-11 was carried out, the next step would have to be something on the scale of a nuclear attack. And since 9-11, that view has been justified by the discovery of the Khan nuclear black market being run out of Pakistan which ran through Syria, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and others. The surprising discovery of the nuclear program of Libya was not known before we started to peel away the networks of people working to make a nuclear device.

    After 9-11, we did not know the extent to which these rogue nations had cooperated to manufacture a nuclear device, but we knew that everyone sought the knowledge and material to do so. It would be vastly irresponsible to not do anything about it. However, we had a problem. How can we justify just taking out random countries we knew were seeking these weapons, but didn't have much proof that they were? One solution was to look for a country which was already weak, internationally isolated, and for which there was a legal standard for toppling. Iraq fit that bill. Hussein had a 12 year legal record of violations which were not being enforced, that the US could leverage against Iraq for the access it would take to disrupt the race to construct a nuclear device. Bush knew Hussein couldn't reasonably accept the type of intrusion that would be necessary to have a successful investigation, but it would be worth the blood and treasure to find out.
    The thing is, we only knew what the United Nations and other countries had agreed upon, that Iraq had vast stores of weapons that could potentially be used against us in a 9-11 type attack. In a post-9-11 world, there was no telling how much time we had. For all we knew, this was a dry run for a similar attack with chemical weapons (which by the way were used int eh first WTC bombing. They didn't package the chemicals right though, so the heat of the explosion burned off the chemicals before they could do much harm, surely they would have learned their lesson from that one). It could have been a diversion. The point is the world had changed and we had to do something about it.
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Posting Permissions