Are we really "At War"?

Simon9

Expert Member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
532
Media
0
Likes
161
Points
263
Location
Princeton (New Jersey, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
"War" is always a convenient excuse to expand the powers of government. That's why we have so many.

Did we need to go into Iraq? If there was a reason, no one to my knowledge has made that argument. Iraq was apparently not a major player in Al Qeida or other terrorist networks. Hussein wasn't equipped to attack the US (even though he sometimes implied he could). The intel that Bush and previous administrations relied on here and abroad was faulty.

So we've removed a dictator that everyone agrees was a world-class scumbag. And now Iraq can enjoy a democratic process. Goody for them. And it's "only" cost us a few thousand lives and God-knows how many billions. Let's see what they actually vote for and what kind of society it produces.

Do we "owe" the Iraq people a different government/society from what they've evolved? I personally don't think so. I think it arrogance on our part to try to do so.
 

brainzz_n_dong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
226
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
Dr Rock said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainzz_n_dong
Are your beliefs about the world pretty much summed up by: Nobody is qualified in any instance/matter to hold the moral high ground, which in turn means nobody is available to judge the moral low ground.

correct

Quote:
Therefore, if someone wants to do something totally amoral (eradicate an entire nation worth of people) then nobody has the standing to criticize it on any grounds?
not what i said, you knee-jerking clown. I said that the positive consequences of dissolving the state of israel would far outweigh any negative ones. I don't believe that should involve slaughtering people who currently live there - although i can't pretend i'd shed a tear if the whole of the middle east wiped itself out through internecine genocide, as it happens.

Gee, forgive me for taking something you said out of context you
triple-lutz-sowcow-off-the-dishwasher-nothing-but-net belly dancer.
I know you'd never do that yourself. I don't doubt you'd not care if Isreal, the rest of the mid-east, or (pick a country...or two) were wiped out as weren't you the one championing earlier this year how much sense it would make to wipe out several billion people to "correct" our population "problem"?

*************

GBO, yes I intended to sit down and write maybe a paragraph and instead turned it into a term paper :D That's what happens when you don't have to get up and go to class, do projects, have group meetings, etc., for four weeks (yaaaah).

Yes, we have some wide areas of overall agreement and if we had to sit down in a room and iron out a policy if we are nominated to be co-presidents I think we could. Wouldn't that be a hoot? :)

I'd say that pre-emptive action should be one military option always on the table. I do not love it just because I'm a conservative. I just see the value in having it for the times when you have knowledge available - the best knowledge that your intel can provide - that suggests without a doubt you are about to be attacked. The enemy merely possessing the ability to execute an attack isn't grounds enough. If so, then we'd have attacked the Soviets, the Chinese, the N. Koreans, et al, a long time ago.

If you took it to a man-on-the-street level, then any person you meet could theoretically kill you, so if you're "all pre-emptive, all the time" you would indeed have to kill them...which is the argument I believe you were making (without quoting or re-reading your threads as I'm typing fast cause I have to run soon - so I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth).

But, change the dynamics a bit and put yourself in the situation where you are sitting in your house, the front door is knocked down, and a man is standing there. If you happen to have your gun in your hand, do you at least point it at him or hold it down at your side and wait to see what he does next? What he does next might render you unable to defend yourself at all - you might be wounded or dead. Perhaps not perfectly transferrable to a terrorist or terrorist-state view, but where I'm coming from.

Even though I've defended Bush's war in Iraq, most of my defense is couched in the sense of "we're there" and the best way out is through, not backing out, based upon consequences of both actions . I wasn't part of this forum in 2002/03 during the run-up to the war nor did I spout off anywhere about my war views. Being the son of a former military man, I have a deep abiding respect for the usage of military might, but also can see that it doesn't cure all that ails the world. We are fighting a ground war I would not have begun, but neither would I have turned a blind eye towards Saddam. He showed enough over time to be like that man who has burst down your door - do you trust him or do you at least draw your pistol and keep an eye on him?

Anyway, good talking with ya and I'll catch you later.


Steve
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
brainzz_n_dong said:
...Being the son of a former military man, I have a deep abiding respect for the usage of military might, but also can see that it doesn't cure all that ails the world. We are fighting a ground war I would not have begun, but neither would I have turned a blind eye towards Saddam...
I am the son of a military man (my father was in the Coast Guard, and got drafted into Naval service. He piloted a boat carrying Marines off the main ship onto Iwo Jima.) My brother was a military man (he was on a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam, and in some pretty hot battles.) I am a former Marine, fortunately no combat time, but with a combat-ready unit in the First Marine Division. I do have a deep abiding respect for usage of military might, but at the current time, I have nothing but loathing for the commander-in-chief. He is a coward, he is a terrorist, and he has no shame whatsoever in sending 2000+ (at least to date) servicemembers to unwarranted deaths in a country where we have no business being involved in an armed conflict OR a war. He lies, he violates innumerable federal laws, and he has no respect in any form for American citizens.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
If a man kicked in my door then he has initiated an attack. Any act I do to him would be retaliatory. Iraq was not kicking down our door, they weren't even looking at our door suspiciously. But Iraq really isn't the crux of my point. My point is that the Bush administration defends themselves by saying "Leaking this information makes it harder to defend the US against attacks, it is aiding the terroists." Which may be true. Because what he is talking about is a potential attack from a potential enemy. Being able to spy on everyone at all times would help the government protect us from attack, but so would imprisoning us all, and killing us all. Its like saying: "By taking of your chains, and padding, and going outside without your helmet you made it harder for me to ensure that you never fall down and get hurt."

The only way to be "free" from vulnerability is to give up all freedoms and die, because vulnerability is a part of human life.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
GottaBigOne said:
If a man kicked in my door then he has initiated an attack. Any act I do to him would be retaliatory. Iraq was not kicking down our door, they weren't even looking at our door suspiciously. But Iraq really isn't the crux of my point. My point is that the Bush administration defends themselves by saying "Leaking this information makes it harder to defend the US against attacks, it is aiding the terroists." Which may be true. Because what he is talking about is a potential attack from a potential enemy. Being able to spy on everyone at all times would help the government protect us from attack, but so would imprisoning us all, and killing us all. Its like saying: "By taking of your chains, and padding, and going outside without your helmet you made it harder for me to ensure that you never fall down and get hurt."

The only way to be "free" from vulnerability is to give up all freedoms and die, because vulnerability is a part of human life.

This is a perfect a piece of logic as I have seen in a long time.

The reasons for bush to want to spy on us is not so confusing either, it's still financial. Do you have any idea how much money stands to be made from charging people with a slew of senseless misdemeanors that could be discovered from otherwise harmless citizens during these wiretaps? Thus far I have paid nearly $300 for not wearing a seat belt and having my license plate in the front window rather than affixed to the front bumper of the car. I also paid $120 for having the plastic cover on my taillight cracked. It's still there, still working, but there's a crack in it. I could have used that money for fixing it, had the officer seen fit to give me a warning, but we don't get warnings anymore. Funding for the police depertments has been cut across the board, so they are mainly self supporting through their own efforts, which means leaning heavily on the population they are "sworn" to support. Try to get a cop to look for someone who vandalised your car- they're clearly not interested in protecting the rights of citizens. I'm sick an tired of supporting an institution who's primary purpose is earning enough money off of harassing me and it's citizens to keep itself going. Pure bullshit. But that's where we are. bush has been able to slide one lie after another through to the point that we no longer live in a functioning society, and a great chunk of our citizens have no idea what they've sacrificed.

Still, we lust for safety, and are dense enough to believe it can be had. For this lust we have turned in our individuality and any sense of freedom that would make life worthwhile.
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
155
Points
268
Age
69
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
It is called a "pre-emptive" action. Just blow all the fuckers up because they might harm the US and they have oil and/or other shit we want. Solid logic. Illegal, wrong and immoral, but it seems to be working for a lot of the voting public.

And the appropriate people are gettin' rich(er). So fuck off.
 

B_caneadea

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Posts
723
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
163
Location
San Francisco
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
President Shrub is backed by some very clever people who understand the overwhelmingly effective use of fear.
They have convinced a majority of the voters that there are monsters under the bed.
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
155
Points
268
Age
69
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
caneadea said:
President Shrub is backed by some very clever people who understand the overwhelmingly effective use of fear.

Don't you mean "controlled?"

To them, politics is all about manipulation and PR. If you say it loud enough and long enough, it becomes the truth.
 

D_Martin van Burden

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
3,229
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
258
I feel more threatened by what Bush plans to do for the rest of his presidency than the idea that we're going to get attacked on our own soil. Detective Benson from "Law and Order" said that -- in this case -- the terrorists win the War on Terror if we are so consumed in fear, that we start changing our routines, habits, and ways of thinking and doing. Whomever our enemy is -- I lost track a long time ago -- if I'm scared to take a plane, to travel, or to visit foreign lands, then that is when the government should step forward.

What we've got here is an increasing skepticism in the very place it should've never happened, in the Senate. Political leaders are getting dissatisfied with the man, and even if his numbers are starting to trickle back up again, I think people are still wanting answers, are worried about their personal liberties, and are increasingly unconvinced that Bush is really looking out for his countrymen.

At this point, I really don't care what they do with Sadaam. And who's Bin Laden again? False intelligence? All these buzzwords. I had that Benjamin Franklin quote pertaining to liberty and security stuck in my head for a couple of days just to make all the political white noise go away.

One thing Bush has done for me is helped kill that spark of political interest I once maintained a few years ago. He's made me really resentful. And despite his media blitz, I managed to turn off the set almost every time and go do something else.

As of now, I'm just counting down the days before we get him out of office and, hopefully, find a new candidate that can fix his budget -- or even better, restore our image as a compassionate, helpful, and partnership-worthy world power. If anything, I think some of our former allies in the world will start giving us the cold shoulder. And why shouldn't they? We only muscled into a country bringing the "gift" of democracy. But if we keep killing innocent Iraqis at this rate, then who the hell is left over to vote, much less take a damn office?

Just when I thought I could give the man some kudos for admitting that he fucked up a couple of years back, he's using it as an opportunity to push some more tomfoolery through the legislation.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
caneadea said:
President Shrub is backed by some very clever people who understand the overwhelmingly effective use of fear.
They have convinced a majority of the voters that there are monsters under the bed.
Is that, or is it not, the very definition of terrorists?
 

mehgah

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Posts
139
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Location
classified
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Not to mention those who pass you and then go slower than you were going in the first place.

They obviously have a problem driving a car, how can we expect them to help populate the future generation?
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
aloofman said:
The rest of us have not been asked to make any sacrifices. We haven't even been asked to pay for the war that's going on right now. It's all being borrowed.

Well, the investor class has not been asked to sacrifice. Quite the contrary, they've actually been given rewards in the form of tax breaks.

The working class is gradually being forced to sacrifice services (ya know, useless pork like education or health care) in order to fund the war and the tax cuts for the investor class.

SG