...Here we go again.......

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by babj615, Apr 10, 2007.

  1. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,189
    33
    48
    At the risk of offending some....

    POSTERBOY?

    Those who share your opinion of not wanting to deal with Iraq or Iran or Syria etc..etc... and would rather just turn a blind eye.....

    ...are probably the very SHEEP referred to in this post

    As Mugdava points out, WAR is never 'GOOD'....

    And I will add, it is sometimes 'necessary'...

    Better to fight them there, than to fight them here.....


    :wink: :wink: NOT a Sheep!!! :wink: :wink:
     
  2. charmincarmens

    charmincarmens New Member

    126
    0
    0
    Anti War

    You anti people out there will never wake up,till it happens on your DOOR STEP,and it will,soon.
     

  3. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    Oh boy...

    First, yes, political corruption is not monopolized by one party, but currently Republicans are creating scandles like they are going out of style. They are corrupt in ways that are creating lasting damage to the sepration of powers and destorying most basic level of good faith that makes government possible. Yes, Democrats are responsible for gun control! I admit it. I will become concerned when there is actual risk of any gun control legislation passing. Gun control is not my first priority in a candidate, and convienient for me is that Indiana Dems tend to be more conservative and don't/can't suppor gun control.

    Frankly, if you buy the whole "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" line *you* are the sheep. Iraq and Saddam Hussien had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban and Al Qeada in Afghanistan did. Bush and Rumsfelt tried to get Afghanistan done on the cheap with not enough troops and relying on war lords so they could exploit the fear of the American people and move on to attack Iraq, which Bush was talking about already back in the 2000 debates. BTW, I blame Democrats in letting him get away with it, including Hillary Clinton. The job wasn't taken care of in Afghanistan, Bush's promises to the Afghans were not kept and Bin Laden was not captured, nor was Aiman Al Zawahiri.

    Iraq was a stable country and not friendly to Islamic extremism, since the extremists hate secular dictators, like Hussien. Our military kicked butt in the invasion, of course, but then the only government institution the DoD thought to secure was the ministry of oil. The Iraqi military and other institutions were disbanded or allowed to fall apart or come under control of religious factions while Bush stood by. Tens of thousands or maybe over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, over 3000 US soldiers are dead, tens of thousands more have been wounded, probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been wounded and more displaced. Baghdad is turning to rubble and what is there to show for it? Iraq is now an unstable war zone open to influence from Iran, incidents of terrorism around the world have increased (but the Bush administration has stop counting) and North Korea still has nuclear weapons.

    How are we safer? How are we any safer when the 9/11 Commission's list of security concerns still have not been anywhere near adequately addressed? We are hardly less vulnerable then we were six years ago. Thankfully, the terrorists don't tend to be too bright or terribly creative. Otherwise we would have small bands of terrorists massacring families in their homes at night in small towns through out the country, suicide bombers, attacks on undefended municiple sites, such as chorline tanks in waste water treatment plants, water lines, gas stations. It would been extremely hard to stop small groups of people with light weapons and home made explosives and it would be extremely terrorizing. Attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Somolia, Ethopia, Syria, Saudi Arabia with our formidible military would do nothing to prevent anything like what I described or even another 9/11 style attack. They used a truck bomb the first time, they could do that again. Years went by between the first WTC attack and 9/11. Just because six years have gone by without a big domestic terrorist attack is meaningless. If you think the US military can defend you against domestic terrorism, you are dreaming.

    Our government needs to stop messing around in other countries, stop supporting dictators and we need to break our addiction to oil. Only desperate people blow themselves up or join sleeper cells for suicide missions. The Muslim world has its own problems and needs to deal with its own problems, but the US needs to stop adding to those problems. When we do we will stop being a target. American kids who commit school shootings are no different from Islamic terrorists. They feel picked on, betrayed, alienated and mad as hell and they have someone to blame and nothing to live for. It doesn't matter if they are justified or their perceptions are correct, they know what they feel and they feel righteous.

    The military is a hammer, but not every problem is a nail, not even close. Violence is some times necessary but it is never redemptive and it always has its costs to those who employ it.

    Human gathered intelligence and law enforcement stop terrorism. If foreigners are un-willing to cooperate with American agents, an armored unit is not going to be able to make up the difference. Open your eyes, people.
     
  4. mugdava

    mugdava Premium Member

    427
    3
    18
    Now that I'm a newly reformed democrat, Is it too late to vote for John Kerry! :roll: Silly rabbit trix are for kids!
    _______
    mugdava
     
  5. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    1,791
    10
    38
    nice posterboy! so many people get so excited about supporting the troops, they forget that:

    WARS ARE FOUGHT TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL OBJECTIVES.

    and in all these years i haven't been able to determine what the political objective is in being in iraq. it's not spreading democracy and capitalism. don't believe that for a second!!! the cubans are commies and the canadians are socialists. we're not attacking them.

    remove a dictator... just for being a dictator? there sure are plenty of other dictators we seem to leave alone.

    improve iraqi citizens' lives? why not improve mexican citizens' lives? they're way closer!

    remove a threat to us citizens? IRAQ? they can't attack israel. the israelis would kick their arse. and they'd only need 2 desert eagles and a galil to do it!! how exactly was iraq going to attack US citizens on our soil? they couldn't hit sand, let alone europe with any of their missile technology.

    this type of action (attacking US citizens) is only done by terrorists. the terrorists who went about their business well away from a maniacal dictator who beheaded his own citizens for speaking out against him. no terrorists would put up with that threat. not as long as they could be treated as kings and speak freely in sunny afganistan.

    i'm telling you, this whole thing is a chess match. we have to get our rook in iraq and our bishop in iran. that way when china comes to take all the oil, we can snag their queen.

    cause lord knows... if the US had to go pawn for pawn with china, fighting for the oil to the death... we'd lose. they out pawn us three to one. five to one when you consider that they'd have no trouble sending the women to fight.

    support the troops!!!! let them live in the lap of luxury!!!! HERE. where they don't get shot. let them eat cake in the barracks!!!! lets pull the troops out and spend ten times...TEN TIMES the money we're spending on the war to improve the VA hospitol system. THAT would be support for the troops. ever been in a VA? oh man... if everybody that had a made in china "support the troops" sticker on the back of their car sent that money to the VA instead, THAT would show real troop support.

    attack on our door step? you're telling me that if some country tried to invade our shores by boat we wouldn't be able to fend them off? i'm saying they'd be lucky to get a boat full of troops within 50 miles of land. are the iranians going to fly a few hundred thousand troops and parachute them into the country to attack us? maverick and goose (god rest his soul) would never let that happen.


    but letting the troops die in some desert for nothing will never be viewed as "support" by me.

    "support" means keeping them out of harms way, fell fed, well trained, well equipped, and well housed unless they're needed to PROTECT US FROM A REAL AND PRESENT THREAT.

    we haven't done anything to eliminate the threat of terrorism in this country. and i'm not convinced in any way that there's a relationship between having a war in iraq and securing the mainland. more dead soldiers and a safer america? i'm having a hard time with that. seems like we need our troops alive if anything ever did happen in this country.

    right now i can draw a great parallel. during our own revolution, we didn't line up and fight a napoleanic style war with britian. we'd have lost in a week. we fought guerilla style. we very much were terrorists to the british troops. but we won. cause we didn't have much to lose.

    right now, we're the british and "they" (whoever it is exactly that we're fighting) are the colonists.

    we're in iraq and have all the tanks and laser guided multiple launch rocket systems and gps guided radio controlled airplanes. we have the best troops in the world, bar none, "fighting the war". but we can't see the enemy. we don't know who or what we're looking for. we won't know if we're winning or losing until we decide what winning and losing is.

    is it a democratic and stable iraq? iraq hasn't been stable since pre-hebrew times, and has never been the home to democracy. who's going to teach these people what democracy is? the 20 year old guy from nebraska with an m-16?

    who are we fighting really? the iraqis'? seems pretty easy to go find all the iraqis' and let 'em have it. the insurgents? who are we to determine which one of those insurgents is the iraqi version of george washington. the one that actually will rally his people behind him and usher them into this gilded age of democracy.

    i'm sure cornwallis would have loved to capture the radical insurgent known as george washington.

    i'd be the first guy on normandy. the first guy on midway. we knew who we were fighting. we knew why we were fighting. we had a plan. and the plan was working.

    what about "and the nations that harbor them". wasn't there a terrorist cell in hamburg? does that mean we should have a war with germany? i mean, you'd hope they'd just surrender the third time around, but how would invading germany, a country that harbored terrorists benefit our security?

    bottom line. it's a worldwide guerilla war. you fight it effectively with good intelligence information and small special forces units. you put 4 seals (or one marine) against 20 terorrists? consider the war on terror won. you just have to let the marine know where the terrorists are. that's the part we can't figure out and that's why we can't end terror.

    the part where a few thousand of america's finest never see mom again is a tragedy at best.
     
  6. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,817
    31
    48
    After Virginia Tech, we will see exactly the relation between Democrat political control and gun control.
     
  7. Angel

    Angel Guest

    70
    0
    0
    I am afraid most ppl are forgetting that going to war in Iraq cost us capturing bin Laden. We could have done this and possibly finished off al Qiada (sic?) in Afganistan, but no, we had to let him go so we can fill up Bush friends pockets.

    Before you say BS, remember we went through a depression, yet the oil companies have done better than ever year over year like there was no recession. I paid $1/gallon with Clinton and I am paying about $3/gallon now with Bush.

    I was watching this documentary about shootouts and during the Tora Bora incident they were setting up a base camp to block bin Laden and company from passing through Southern Afganistan. The base had 2 special forces personel and the ppl who were doing all the training and strategic stuff were reserves and National Guardsmen. The National Guard guys were saying this was the special forces mission to train the Afgan soldiers and plan the stuff but they said "they are busy, in Iraq" .

    Let's put it this way, my bro just came back from his second tour in Iraq with spec ops and the whole family who voted republican (expect wifey and I) are regretting voting for Bush.

    Wife is a democrat, I am too cynical to be either.

    On that note, here is an interesting article about how gun control may not make it during the elections

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/17/schneider.gun.control/index.html
     
  8. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    Interesting article, but I think gun control is definitely on the table again. Got a phone call from a pollster tonight representing PSA something or other who spent a half hour or so soliciting my responses to a bunch of leading questions. Started out pretty general but then got very specific and it seemed the questions were very much intended to gauge support for Clinton vs Obama vs Edwards and support for Rudolf Giuliani.

    Anyhow, gun control was big in the survey and there were at least a half a dozen questions attempting to gauge support for more gun control in light of the Virginia Tech shootings and specifically for Hillary's restrictive proposals and call for another AWB.

    Naturally, I suggested to the pollster that the students and faculty at Virginia Tech had already been deprived of their right to bear arms and a potential means of defending themselves from attack and that further deprivations were not needed.
     
  9. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    Yes, yes, gun control is lead by Democrats. I am not arguing that Dems are not responsible for gun control but there are a hell of a lot more issues than gun control, and at least a few of them are more pressing at this point in time.

    If you vote for Republicans (or a third party that always loses) based solely on gun control you may end up with only the right to bear arms. Personally, I think separation of powers is pretty darn essential and I don't want out troops dying in a war that is not making us safer and is only lining the pockets of big corporations with ties to the White House. I think the right to free speech and privacy are pretty important too as is an election system that I am confident actually works the way it is supposed to and is not being gamed. I want a government that can respond effectively to a major natural disaster and prevent as much damage as possible. I want a government that has a sane fiscal policy so my kids aren't paying for past run away spending and have a chance at a viable economic future. I want secure ports and I want other nation's governments and foreigners to trust the US and help us gather intelligence on terrorist organizations. I want a Dept of Justice that is not a political extension of the White House. I want transparency. I want an energy policy that doesn't continue to damage the earth, make oil companies richer and keep our country addicted to fossil fuels. All these things are more important to me then whether or not I can carry 10+1 or 12+1 in my pistol or own an MP-5 for less than the cost of a small car.

    You are more likely to die in a car accident or from a medical condition (I hope you have good insurance) than be attacked by someone with a gun. I love guns, I think people should be able to carry a gun to defend themselvs if they chose, but man, there is more to life, there are other important issues.
     
  10. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap New Member

    27
    0
    0
    I dunno, anyway you look at it, it is a tough situation with no easy answer on either side. International politics is best summed up by this...

    You get drug to some restaraunt with a girlfriend/wife. For argument's sake, we'll make it one of those holistic/vegan type places where you can order a bowl full of alfalfa sprouts, and they'll give you the evil eye for even asking about meat. They don't even have chips and salsa because US corn subsidies make it impossible for the native mexican farmer to make a decent wage or something like that. Now, to make your girlfriend/wife happy, you have to order SOMETHING. The whole menu sucks, but you're stuck deciding what the least sucky item would be.

    I don't agree with our war in Iraq. It was a dumb idea from the get-go, and it was sold to the american public under the wrong pretenses. That being said, our country did decide to go, and now we need to give our soldiers our full support, none of this cut funding BS. While the military engagements are completely different, the politics behind us supporting the new Iraq government look suspiciously like that of South Vietnam back in the day. I'm foreseeing us pulling out but heavily funding the Iraqi police force, with a serious cut in funding down the line leading to another unstable region. (who's bright idea was it to try to 'federalize' 3 completely different peoples that can't agree on ANYTHING? they hate eachother more than us)

    As much as i like my guns, i think the situation in the middle east is far more important as far as elections go. But as much as i don't like the way things are currently, i'm even more afraid of a backpeddling with Iran. If anyone doesn't believe they're aiming for nuclear weapons, then heading straight for israel...they are severely kidding themselves.
     
  11. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    I don't know what Iran's aim is, but no country, no leaders, no matter how crazy they are, wants to get nuked. Israel has nukes, therefore Iran has an excuse to get nukes. Neither country is going to nuke the other because they don't want to get nuked themselves.

    As long as Israel has nukes I don't think anyone has the moral authority to tell Iran they can't have 'em too, especially if the country telling Iran they can't have nukes has nukes.

    I also don't blame Iran for exerting influence over Iraq. We have messed around in the affairs of all Central American countries at one time or other, Grenada and Cuba, and told others to keep out, a policy we called the Monroe Doctrine.

    I don't blame Iran for being uneasy about what is going on with it's neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq, and trying to influence what happens in those countries, especially when a historic enemy (US) is making trouble on its door step. We would and have done the exact same thing, many times, in fact. Iran has shown a lot more patience and restraint then the US ever has exhibited in similar circumstances.
     
  12. Angel

    Angel Guest

    70
    0
    0
    Anybody else see something wrong about a bunch of countries with Nuclear and chemical weapons telling others they are not allowed to have any. Isn't it a bit hypocritical? It's like the bullies in the playground not letting the other kids play. Honestly, who gave US, UK, Russia and France the right to regulate who can have what weapon?

    Afterall, if anyone shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons, it is France. They were testing their nukes in the open way after an International treaty banned them. Did they get any sanctions for polluting a beautiful island with radioactivity? (and so conveniently that island was in someone elses backyard)

    And on the note of Iran going after Israel, yes it is nuts and sad but last I checked I was paying taxes for the benefit of this country, when did I start financing Israel's defense? Let Israel defend themselves. I don't want my brother sent to die for their sake or for Halliburton's sake.
     
  13. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    I don't know when we started, but for the last few decades the US government has been giving Israel about $3 billion, which, not uncoincidentally approximately equals Israel's yearly military budget.

    For a group of people claiming they want a safe haven, their own homeland so they can defend themselves, there is something deeply perverse about establishing that homeland on someone else's homeland and in the process pissing off the rest of the neighbors. Any historic claims aside, it is just not smart or safe. In fact, it seems extremely counter productive. But hey, thats just me.
     
  14. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    Well, certainly not every politician aligned with the Democratic Party is anti gun, but the anti gun Democrats do seem to dominate the air waves and push the agenda. I will agree that there are a lot of other issues, however I believe that where a candidate stands on gun control says a lot about where they stand on individual freedom and personal responsibility and that is why it is such a deal breaker for me.

    Either you trust the vast majority of folks to be responsible and do the right thing or you think you know best and that they need to be controlled for their own good. For me that was at the core of the differences between Reagan and Clinton and between the two parties. Unfortunately in recent years the Republican party leadership has strayed from their traditional values and Bush is certainly more radical and reactionary than conservative.

    We need people of good character who we can trust to make good decisions on our behalf in Washington regardless of their party affiliation. We need representatives who support the bill of rights, protect the freedoms of all Americans and work toward a society where we are all equal under the law and everyone has an opportunity to pursue happiness.
     
  15. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    1,791
    10
    38
    i just want to throw it out there for discussion for those that may not know.

    haliburton is no longer a us company. they are headquartered in dubai. do you think haliburton moved to dubai because of the over-abundance of qualified civil,mechanical and industrial engineers?

    or do you think halburton moved to dubai so they could engage in shady deals concerning the drilling and production of middle east oil without having to answer to us authorities or pay US taxes?

    how many US haliburton employees are selling their homes to move to dubai?

    do you think maybe cheney let bush know about this? do you really think that cheney was completely ignorant of these goings on? or do you think he re-assured the haliburton executives that they could adopt this tax evasive and red tape avoidance strategy without recourse?

    what if...the goal of iraq was never to get the oil. the goal of iraq was to keep the oil in the ground, making it unavailable for sale. all the while causing turmoil in an area of the world where turmoil is known to raise the price of light sweet crude. thusly forcing oil prices up. simple question. just wondering?

    how do we give a company that posts record profits an 8 billion dollar tax credit... to go find more oil, when soldiers can't be seen at the VA due to lack of funds. if they'd have sent me a case of beer, i'd have told them, "ALL THE OIL IS IN IRAQ!!!! SAVE YOUR MONEY!!! spend it on made in china FDNY hats!!! the troops that are down a leg feel all warm and fuzzy when they see an FDNY hat as they're waiting outside the VA trying to get a prosthetic.

    As far as israel, i'm personally torn. The bible says the jews own israel. which indirectly means that one of the co-owners of israel is JC. with all the assertions of "true believers" in the political midst, it's easy to see this as a priority. but the jews got booted. and everywhere they went... EVERYWHERE... they were persecuted because of their beliefs. we, as a world, let the jews fend for themselves for atleast 1300 years depending on how you count. some could rightly say that the jews have fended for themselves with varying degrees of success for over 5,000 years. the jews didn't fair so well in the mid-20th century. the solution seemed pretty simple. we'll just go and give the jews israel back. then the jews can all be in one happy place AND it's their native god-given, birth right homeland. problem was all the others currently inhabiting the land. which leads us to the other hand.

    i'd be pretty upset too if russia militarily removed me from my home, with no compensaion for it's value, and forced me into exodus as an american refugee in canada so that the native americans could re-inhabit their homeland. think i'd harbor an anti-russian sentiment? you bet. anti-indian? you bet.

    the jews and the palestinians both want to live in the same place. but they can't stand each other. we tried having the jews in exile. it never worked. we can't really throw the jews to the wolves again, can we?
     
  16. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,817
    31
    48
    "I don't blame Iran for being uneasy about what is going on with it's neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq, and trying to influence what happens in those countries, especially when a historic enemy (US) is making trouble on its door step.."
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    That ignores their aggressive Jihad against the West since Jimmy Carter gave them their jump start in 1979.
     
  17. charmincarmens

    charmincarmens New Member

    126
    0
    0
    You sound like your condoning Iran's actions.Have you not learned yet what they are about? What has Iran done for anyone in that region? But start trouble and supply weapons to kill our troops in Iraq.
     
  18. smores

    smores Guest

    289
    0
    0
    There's an Iranian restaurant down the street from me - their Kabobs are AMAZING :wink:
     
  19. Angel

    Angel Guest

    70
    0
    0
    Dude, where do you think Iran got F-14 fighters? Unlike F-16s, they were all made in USA. Let's not be so naive. US, Russia and Europe supplied both sides of the Iraq, Iran war. Hell, we even gave chemical weapons to Iraq first.
     
  20. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    Sure, Iran has "aggressive Jihad" and we have aggressive corporatism. Many, maybe most, of our foreign interventions have been in the service of securing markets, resources and protecting corporate interests, not Democracy, which is often the propaganda.

    The US has no moral authority to tell any country it can't meddle in its neighbors' affairs in pursuit of its own agenda or seek weapons of mass destruction. At least not until we stop doing the same.

    Our government, especially the current one, is just as much a bad actor on the international scene as any other. Our motives are certainly no more righteous nor are our means.

    We have a lot of happy plaitudes but our actions and motives are just as dirty.

    BigTaco: I say we give Jews a homeland in our country. There is probably a nice location the size of Israel somewhere in the American west that roughly resembles The Holy Land geographically. Hell, they can (re)build their temple! No more settling for just one wall. It can be like Native American reservations, people are free to come and go but on their land, their rules. It would be one Hell of a lot more secure location then their current home.

    That is all assuming it is somehow the business of American to look after various religious/ethnic groups. I don't see people rushing to the defense of the Kurds, who have been squished between the Turkmen, Arab and Persian people for centuries, maybe millennia. Nobody is exactly rushing to save the black African Sudanese from the Arab Sudanese. If you don't have oil and you aren't sufficiently caucazoidal and you are persecuted you are SOL.