|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
RichardAwesome wrote:
Given they claimed the attacks on the Twin Towers, I don't see how we could've been too hasty at all. A swift response was what was called for. Call us cowboys if you want. It's better than rolling over like the Spanish did when their trains were bombed.
Care to explain your comment on the Spanish? I assume it's the usual bullshit propaganda about the 2004 election? Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
RichardAwesome wrote:Given they claimed the attacks on the Twin Towers, I don't see how we could've been too hasty at all. A swift response was what was called for. Call us cowboys if you want. It's better than rolling over like the Spanish did when their trains were bombed. Does it take a lot of effort to claim responsibility? I'm surprised that more groups didn't try to take credit (from their perspective) for it. And "rolling over"? If they were "legitimate" negotiations between two political bodies, would you still have considered it "rolling over"? Spain is a country that got a clear view of the cost of their actions and decided to cease those actions as a way to save the lives of their people. And as far as I know, it has worked. It's American stubborn arrogance that we'd keep doing things on principle that lead to the deaths of our people. How can we even pretend to value life when we continue to do things that have proven to cost lives? It's right up there with continuing to fight a war simply because "people have died for it already". Yeah, so we keep fighting it and keep getting more people killed. Real intelligent reasoning, there.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Rikaelus wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Given they claimed the attacks on the Twin Towers, I don't see how we could've been too hasty at all. A swift response was what was called for. Call us cowboys if you want. It's better than rolling over like the Spanish did when their trains were bombed. Does it take a lot of effort to claim responsibility? I'm surprised that more groups didn't try to take credit (from their perspective) for it. And "rolling over"? If they were "legitimate" negotiations between two political bodies, would you still have considered it "rolling over"? Spain is a country that got a clear view of the cost of their actions and decided to cease those actions as a way to save the lives of their people. And as far as I know, it has worked. It's American stubborn arrogance that we'd keep doing things on principle that lead to the deaths of our people. How can we even pretend to value life when we continue to do things that have proven to cost lives? It's right up there with continuing to fight a war simply because "people have died for it already". Yeah, so we keep fighting it and keep getting more people killed. Real intelligent reasoning, there. I don't believe the United States recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
RichardAwesome wrote:I don't believe the United States recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government. That's their choice. "Legitimate" is a matter of perspective. If we refuse to negotiate with a group because we choose to see them as not being "legitimate", then that's simply us not wanting to negotiate. And if they want to negotiate and we'd rather drop bombs, what does that make us look like to the world? Warmongers who'd prefer victory through war rather than attempt peace through negotiation. Talk about sacrificing the moral high ground.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008
Posts: 1,509
Points: 2,004
|
See the problem with all of this arguing is that history builds a pretty good case that there is really only one effective way of stopping a terror group.
If you do nothing, but don't concede. They just continue to operate and pester you. (ex Isreal)
If you give in, the are emboldened and continue to use terror for any little demand they want. (ex. Isreal)
If you retailiate, the turtle until attrition kicks in, then resume. (ex Isreal)
If you obliterate them, no problem. (ex. Romans, Allies after WW2, Japanese during the early 20 century) of course thats not an option anymore.....
Don't pick on richard becuase of the dogs comments...you know what he meant. Im not Jewish, but I'm not a supporter of abandoning them like Rik appears to be. The Jews HAVE GOT to have suffered the most grief out of all peoples throughout history. But they also have to be some of the strongest because they have put up with alot of shit for 3000 years or whatever. Don't abandon them...not because they couldn't survive....but because of the shit storm that will happen when one of those arab states decides its going to try and kill teh bulldog, and the isrealis feel cornered. Those states are going to find they have grabbed on to a bolt of lightning....
Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:]
See the problem with all of this arguing is that history builds a pretty good case that there is really only one effective way of stopping a terror group.
If you do nothing, but don't concede. They just continue to operate and pester you. (ex Isreal)
If you give in, the are emboldened and continue to use terror for any little demand they want. (ex. Isreal)
If you retailiate, the turtle until attrition kicks in, then resume. (ex Isreal)
If you obliterate them, no problem. (ex. Romans, Allies after WW2, Japanese during the early 20 century) of course thats not an option anymore.....
Don't pick on richard becuase of the dogs comments...you know what he meant. Im not Jewish, but I'm not a supporter of abandoning them like Rik appears to be. The Jews HAVE GOT to have suffered the most grief out of all peoples throughout history. But they also have to be some of the strongest because they have put up with alot of shit for 3000 years or whatever. Don't abandon them...not because they couldn't survive....but because of the shit storm that will happen when one of those arab states decides its going to try and kill teh bulldog, and the isrealis feel cornered. Those states are going to find they have grabbed on to a bolt of lightning....
I think the fact that Israel was your example to all three methods pretty much demonstrates that people have just always wanted them dead. If we get in the road of that, they'll want us dead, too. Compared to them we're a child nation. The last thing we need is to be pulled into their perpetual religious war that's lasted for century on top of century on top of century. Given the history of that war, it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that we've had jihads declared upon us by the more radical Islamic factions who see our siding with Israel as just another stage of the crusades. Sick thing is, the reason they keep dying is for the same damn stubborn arrogance we tend to demonstrate. They think they have a religious right to the land. They've suffered for hundreds of years because of that. If they just left, nobody else would die. A piece of land is not worth the number of lives that have ended there.
|
|
|
Rank: You're gonna stick that where?
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 12/20/2007
Posts: 449
Points: 312
Location: Cheesehead
|
Seems to me that your foreign policy would consist or running away from conflict. The US should do that in Iraq. Israel should do that. Spain did that. Man, just think what could have been if we would have done that in 1776.
Do not eat the contents of this post.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 11/6/2007
Posts: 1,341
Points: 15
Location: Portland
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:] BadHorsie wrote:
Not sure of your use of the word "jurisprudence", but Clinton tried to take Bin Laden. The FBI nor the CIA would certify that Bin Laden was responsible for certain actions (like Somalia (Black Hawd Down)), allowing the US "basing rights" to go after Bin Laden. Clinton wanted to send in military task forces to get Bin Laden, but the Republicans laughed at him stating that Bin Laden was a towel head wearing camel jockey in the middle of the desert and not capable of harming the U.S.
If this is what you mean when you use the word "jurisprudence" with regards to your saying that Clinton wouldn't take 'him', then you are exactly right.
Yea, Jurisprudence meaning that they would not move on capture until the evidence was good enough. And I doubt "the republicans" had much to do with it. Which ones are you referring to? The west Rochester Republican mothers club? I hear they are a bunch of bitches.... A president doesn't need congress approval for military manuevers....at least not for 90 days. So nobody kept Clinton from doing anything except his advisors and himself. Don't try and blame some nebulous "others" for holding him back. Look, hindsight is 20/20....I think Clinton did the right thing by not going after him because he didn't have enough informations or a crystal ball.... My point is that Dick was saying that Bush should be held to the fire because he didn't act fast enough or capitalize on an opportunity when he didn't have enough information either. It was the same situation....just different bombs and different targets.
Untrue.
And I said Somaia - Black Hawk Down, but I meant the bombing of USS Cole.
But yeah when not in time of war, a President needs permission to carry out certain things, like assassinations and such. At the time, the house and senate were Republican controlled. Even Bush had to go before Congress to get permission to attack Iraq, and did so with false pretenses and misinformation. But all that is another matter.
Clinton tried to go after Bin Laden, and will tell you he failed and didn't do enough and that is his regret, and Clinton will tell you the same thing. So you saying Clinton was right for not doing that when Clinton himself said he was wrong, is funny.
And Dick is right too. Bush had plenty of information. They knew where Osama Bin Laden was for the entire EIGHT MONTHS Bush was in office before 911. In fact, they knew when Clinton was in office still. Clinton pressured the Saudi's into giving up Bin Laden, and the Saudi's thought after the Cole bombing that Bin Laden was a "hot potato" and that's why Bin Laden moved to Afghanistan. Then after 911, Bush gave Bin Laden TWO MONTHS of a head start before sending troops into Afghanistan.
But then for Bush, it wasn't about getting Bin Laden. After all, the Bin Laden family supported and gave Bush and the Bath party several million dollars in the past for Bush's failed oil company ventures. Else he would have more than 20 thousand troops in Afghanistan right now. Instead, the bulk of the troops (some 150k?) are in Iraq and have been in Iraq to get the "real threat - Saddam (did nothing to us) Hussein". If you support John McCain and/or George W. Bush, please click here.“I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.” - Ben Bernanke
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
K_Buz wrote:Seems to me that your foreign policy would consist or running away from conflict.
The US should do that in Iraq.
Israel should do that.
Spain did that.
Man, just think what could have been if we would have done that in 1776. Hardly. But there are wars worth fighting and wars not worth fighting. Revolutionary War: Worth it Civil War: Not worth it - just let the fuckers secede WW1: Worth it WW2: Worth it Korean War: Worth it Vietnam War: Not worth it Desert Storm: Worth it Operation Enduring Freedom: Worth it (just wish we would have stayed focused) Operation Iraqi Freedom: Not worth it (ousting Saddam good, everything else bad) More generic: War on Drugs: Not worth it War on Terror: Term too general and misused to say Cold War: Stupid in every possible sense, but that's what fear does Protecting Israel: Not worth it Threatening North Korea: Not worth it Threatening Iran: Not worth it
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 6/14/2008
Posts: 666
Points: 1,416
Location: San Diego
|
The civil war was not worth fighting? You mean the war that transformed a collection of states into a singular country that came to dominate the world stage for at least a century?
The cold war? The most usefull war (imo) all of history? A war that garnered unsurpassed technological and social advancements that cost almost none of the lives that a "hot" war would have?
Now something to remember, Israel is not a nation that makes the USA seem like a child nation. The nation of Israel is not even a hundred years old. Mind you they wouldn't have made fifty without the USA constantly backing them up. I doubt they'll see a hundred if the USA does withdraw support. Israel has opperated as the bratty younger brother of the school bully. Able to get away and do what it wishes without the fear of reprisal that most nations would face, especially in that area of the world. Or do you think most nations wouldn't retaliate to the air-bombings of some of their most high tech facilities?
History will always make it easy to judge a war as being "worth it" or not. I think this is a pasttime best left to overweight marsupials. A war that can be seen as difficult to justify in the beginning is rather a war that can be described priorly as being "not worth it." Iraq fits this bill, and Iraq occured directly by the actions of the Bush administration and the acts of treason they enacted to get the path they wanted to occur.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
ahhhh_crap wrote:
The civil war was not worth fighting? You mean the war that transformed a collection of states into a singular country that came to dominate the world stage for at least a century?
Were not the states of the North and the states of the Souths, themselves, united? It's definitely an admirable thing that they united after the war, but there was obviously some level of unity for all of the South and all of the North to join forces against each other.
Quote:The cold war? The most usefull war (imo) all of history? A war that garnered unsurpassed technological and social advancements that cost almost none of the lives that a "hot" war would have
What technological and social advancements, except those related to weapons technology and defense against those same weapons?
Quote:Now something to remember, Israel is not a nation that makes the USA seem like a child nation. The nation of Israel is not even a hundred years old. Mind you they wouldn't have made fifty without the USA constantly backing them up. I doubt they'll see a hundred if the USA does withdraw support. Israel has opperated as the bratty younger brother of the school bully. Able to get away and do what it wishes without the fear of reprisal that most nations would face, especially in that area of the world. Or do you think most nations wouldn't retaliate to the air-bombings of some of their most high tech facilities?
They would and they should. We shouldn't protect Israel from the consequences of their actions. As for the origins of Israel sure, as an actual nation it's young. But it's a nation based on the geographical "Land of Israel" - more or less - which has existed in concept for thousands of years; since the book of Genesis, though not by the specific name of "Israel". So when I say they're too stubborn to give up their land, the value they place upon it goes back much longer than the actual country of Israel.
[quoteHistory will always make it easy to judge a war as being "worth it" or not. I think this is a pasttime best left to overweight marsupials. A war that can be seen as difficult to justify in the beginning is rather a war that can be described priorly as being "not worth it." Iraq fits this bill, and Iraq occured directly by the actions of the Bush administration and the acts of treason they enacted to get the path they wanted to occur.[/quote]
You needn't have history deem a war worth it, though it certainly helps. Wars of today can be easily judged as such by looking at very recent events.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/1/2008
Posts: 1,647
Points: 2,558
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA
|
Rikaelus wrote:Quote:The cold war? The most usefull war (imo) all of history? A war that garnered unsurpassed technological and social advancements that cost almost none of the lives that a "hot" war would have
What technological and social advancements, except those related to weapons technology and defense against those same weapons?
I don't want to get too involved here, but didn't computer technology see major advancement with the Cold War? Computers and weapons technology grew up together.
Granted, my source is the opening words of MGS2. Safety + Peace
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008
Posts: 1,509
Points: 2,004
|
BadHorsie wrote:Giller [GwDR wrote:] BadHorsie wrote:
Not sure of your use of the word "jurisprudence", but Clinton tried to take Bin Laden. The FBI nor the CIA would certify that Bin Laden was responsible for certain actions (like Somalia (Black Hawd Down)), allowing the US "basing rights" to go after Bin Laden. Clinton wanted to send in military task forces to get Bin Laden, but the Republicans laughed at him stating that Bin Laden was a towel head wearing camel jockey in the middle of the desert and not capable of harming the U.S.
If this is what you mean when you use the word "jurisprudence" with regards to your saying that Clinton wouldn't take 'him', then you are exactly right.
Yea, Jurisprudence meaning that they would not move on capture until the evidence was good enough. And I doubt "the republicans" had much to do with it. Which ones are you referring to? The west Rochester Republican mothers club? I hear they are a bunch of bitches.... A president doesn't need congress approval for military manuevers....at least not for 90 days. So nobody kept Clinton from doing anything except his advisors and himself. Don't try and blame some nebulous "others" for holding him back. Look, hindsight is 20/20....I think Clinton did the right thing by not going after him because he didn't have enough informations or a crystal ball.... My point is that Dick was saying that Bush should be held to the fire because he didn't act fast enough or capitalize on an opportunity when he didn't have enough information either. It was the same situation....just different bombs and different targets.
Untrue.
But yeah when not in time of war, a President needs permission to carry out certain things, like assassinations and such.
In an attempt to keep things interesting...and because nobody Cites any bullshit and just spews it out......Gerald Ford says you are wrong... "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." And I admit I was wrong about the 90 days, but the War Powers Resolution does allow him to commit forces to military action abroad...all he has to do is Notify congress 48 prior to the mobilization...no Approval is needed...just notification and then he has 60 days to get a declaration of war. Look it up if you want. So I'm not explicitly wrong on anything I said.....nothing was holding back Clinton from taking him....just as nothing was holding back Bush from taking him other than the fallout from looking like a country that will just take whoever we want anywhere without any respect for supported evidence. Somebody gonna back me up here or is it just me versus the liberals?
Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 11/6/2007
Posts: 1,341
Points: 15
Location: Portland
|
Ya we can't assassinate McCain because we don't like him, but OBL is different. OBL also doesn't hold any political office or oversee the operation of any countr-- nevermind.
You post half truths, and I understand you may not understand it all. Not trying to flame you. But you know I watched this stuff unfold over the years. Like how your kids will question 911 and ask you about it - "How do you know 911 really happened? OBL did it?" (Because you saw it.) You can't watch FOXNEWS and consider yourself up-to-date.
You're obvously younger (no offense intended) and missed something. But no matter what I say no matter how I say it, you'll consider it an attack against you. So I'll just refrain from posting here or reading this thread. Arguing with someone not up-to-date on their facts is pointless anyway.
So I'll just leave you this video (OMG! FOXNEWS even!) to watch (or..not.. up to you) where Clinton talks about how he tried to assassinate OBL and the republicans and the military blocked him and how he needed basing rights and proof OBL was behind certain things, etc etc etc.
Have a nice day!
If you support John McCain and/or George W. Bush, please click here.“I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.” - Ben Bernanke
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
K_Buz wrote:Man, just think what could have been if we would have done that in 1776. That was rebellion against an oppressive government, not invading a sovereign nation looking for resources or however you need to justify our current wars in Afghanistan/Iraq. Back to the original topic:Can anybody find anything new on this resolution? It got one blip on the radar and it seems like now its gone... Last I heard the plan was to kill the resolution by side-tracking it to the Judiciary Committee. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D - MD) had suggested that engaging in a lengthy debate over impeaching Bush in the waning days of his administration is not a productive use of the House's time. What do you think? Is Bush worth our government's time to pursue at this point in the game? Would you rather see them argue about abortion and gay unions some more instead? You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|