Question for the board-

[igloo]

Originally posted by normalnoises

I don't give up my rights for anyone and for any reason... TORRIES

Don't like it... Kill me.

*burns the flag..... Literally.*

You are a tired scene

[dnice35]

Originally posted by normalnoises

PLEASE GO FUCK YOURSELF MAGGOT!!

how about I go fuck your daughter? you know she'd like that you old bastard.

[mr mahs]

nOrmal heyy nOOrmal

What is your answer there, Ben GAY???

????Normal seriously, all kidding aside what can you contribute to solving this terrrorism promblem we have???

I mean really what else is coming out of your corner then blame America first?? This so called lit obviously states that we created our promblem but what does that solve?? See how silly you people sound "What has Sadam done to us"? "Bush is the real threat" always looking at the cup half empty, ball of negativity, a minus to any operation, useless... get my point? The left always bitch and point out flaws with no answers...

What is your answer to 3k people dying in NEW yORK????

[kramadas]

Originally posted by mrmhs

nOrmal heyy nOOrmal

What is your answer there, Ben GAY???

????Normal seriously, all kidding aside what can you contribute to solving this terrrorism promblem we have???

I mean really what else is coming out of your corner then blame America first?? This so called lit obviously states that we created our promblem but what does that solve?? See how silly you people sound "What has Sadam done to us"? "Bush is the real threat" always looking at the cup half empty, ball of negativity, a minus to any operation, useless... get my point? The left always bitch and point out flaws with no answers...

What is your answer to 3k people dying in NEW yORK????

NOt that I'm trying to answer for anyone else on here, but to fight the terrorism problem, I say we fight the terrorists. The fight against terrorism will not benefit by the US giving people more reasons to want to join Al Queda.

The reason 3k people died was because of terrorists. Again, I might be wrong here, but tell me ONE instance in the last 20 years where Saddam has said he wants to attack the US, or has shown ANY signs of using WMD's against the US. I know most ppl answer this with "well, whos to say he won't", or "do you want to wait till he does"...well, I'm sorry, but I don't think its fair to wage war on a WHOLE country on the pure speculation that he MIGHT use WMD's on us sometime in the future.

I've asked that question before, but never got an answer.

[dnice35]

Originally posted by raver_mania

NOt that I'm trying to answer for anyone else on here, but to fight the terrorism problem, I say we fight the terrorists. The fight against terrorism will not benefit by the US giving people more reasons to want to join Al Queda.

The reason 3k people died was because of terrorists. Again, I might be wrong here, but tell me ONE instance in the last 20 years where Saddam has said he wants to attack the US, or has shown ANY signs of using WMD's against the US. I know most ppl answer this with "well, whos to say he won't", or "do you want to wait till he does"...well, I'm sorry, but I don't think its fair to wage war on a WHOLE country on the pure speculation that he MIGHT use WMD's on us sometime in the future.

I've asked that question before, but never got an answer.

you know he did try to assasinate one of our presidents, even though Bush I's term was over, he is still our ex-president like it or not, so when you try to kill one of our presidents its not something you can take lightly.

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

NOt that I'm trying to answer for anyone else on here, but to fight the terrorism problem, I say we fight the terrorists. The fight against terrorism will not benefit by the US giving people more reasons to want to join Al Queda.

The reason 3k people died was because of terrorists. Again, I might be wrong here, but tell me ONE instance in the last 20 years where Saddam has said he wants to attack the US, or has shown ANY signs of using WMD's against the US. I know most ppl answer this with "well, whos to say he won't", or "do you want to wait till he does"...well, I'm sorry, but I don't think its fair to wage war on a WHOLE country on the pure speculation that he MIGHT use WMD's on us sometime in the future.

I've asked that question before, but never got an answer.

Raver,

(1) The arguement that by attacking Iraq will increase the chance of terrorists attacks is ridiculous. Al-Qaeda is going to try and hit the US irrespective if we attack Iraq. Are you saying that if we don't attack Iraq, the probability of a terrorist attack against the US will diminish???......seriously, this is a ridiculous arguement to be used for being against the war in Iraq

Of course, AL-Qaeda will try and time attacks to coincide with a US attack on Iraq, to look like it is a Muslim vs West fight....will they get some recruits in the short term---maybe......

But over the long term, it will also give most second thoughts about war versus the US...this includes wannabe jihadists, terrorists, and nation states and their regimes.....

(2) Technically (and especially for those who love the U.N.) we

are still at war with Iraq since 1991, since Iraq has not adhered

to the ceasefire agreement

(3) He tried assassinating a US President

(4) Would you have supported a pre-emptive attack in Afghanistan before 9/11????

(5) How about in Yemen before the Cole bombing?

(6) How about in Germany before the Nazi's unleashed their attack?

(7) Japan before Pearl Harbor?

In any of those situations, would you have launched a pre-emptive strike without a smoking gun..

You act like the US is indiscriminately picking a nation without any reason.....(do you forget brutal dictator, WMD, supporter of terrorism, still at war with the US, etc)..and we are not waging war on a whole country---the US will be liberating a country...this isn't wishful thinking, but reality (check the same peeps who were against attacks in Afghanistan, and had egg on their face when Afghani's were dancing in the streets)

Pre-emptive strikes is obviously new policy, and a recognized dangerous one...but everyone needs to change the framework of their thinking, and accept the fact that 9/11 changed everything

We can not sit around until the next attack---which unfortunately is the only " smoking gun" that some of you will accept

The U.S. will be targeted again, and again---and the minute Al-Qaeda gets their hands on a WMD, do you really think they will hesitate to use it?.....and where do you think they will get it from?

WMD, terrorists, and rogue states (like Iraq) are the greatest threat to the security of the world....you have to understand that...

And thinking that the US is only worsening the problem by taking pre-emptive action is naive.......and dangerous

Raver--I respect your views...and I am not trying to change your mind....but IMO, the framework of thinking needs to change, and not to means we have not learned the true lessons of 9/11 (I do not subscibe to the blame America crowd)...

Question: Were you in favor of the US war effort in Kosovo?

[underwater]

maybe if we bake some cookies and tapdance across the world while handing out treats and apologies we will not get attacked?

[mr mahs]

IGLOO-

[igloo]

Thank you....

But I respect raver's views...he presents his counter-arguements without the "you are narrow minded" or "you are racist" bullshit..

I expect abnormalnoises to respond with his usual racist, nazi bullshit...

[kramadas]

Originally posted by igloo

Raver,

(1) The arguement that by attacking Iraq will increase the chance of terrorists attacks is ridiculous. Al-Qaeda is going to try and hit the US irrespective if we attack Iraq. Are you saying that if we don't attack Iraq, the probability of a terrorist attack against the US will diminish???......seriously, this is a ridiculous arguement to be used for being against the war in Iraq

Of course, AL-Qaeda will try and time attacks to coincide with a US attack on Iraq, to look like it is a Muslim vs West fight....will they get some recruits in the short term---maybe......

But over the long term, it will also give most second thoughts about war versus the US...this includes wannabe jihadists, terrorists, and nation states and their regimes.....

(2) Technically (and especially for those who love the U.N.) we

are still at war with Iraq since 1991, since Iraq has not adhered

to the ceasefire agreement

(3) He tried assassinating a US President

(4) Would you have supported a pre-emptive attack in Afghanistan before 9/11????

(5) How about in Yemen before the Cole bombing?

(6) How about in Germany before the Nazi's unleashed their attack?

(7) Japan before Pearl Harbor?

In any of those situations, would you have launched a pre-emptive strike without a smoking gun..

You act like the US is indiscriminately picking a nation without any reason.....(do you forget brutal dictator, WMD, supporter of terrorism, still at war with the US, etc)..and we are not waging war on a whole country---the US will be liberating a country...this isn't wishful thinking, but reality (check the same peeps who were against attacks in Afghanistan, and had egg on their face when Afghani's were dancing in the streets)

Pre-emptive strikes is obviously new policy, and a recognized dangerous one...but everyone needs to change the framework of their thinking, and accept the fact that 9/11 changed everything

We can not sit around until the next attack---which unfortunately is the only " smoking gun" that some of you will accept

The U.S. will be targeted again, and again---and the minute Al-Qaeda gets their hands on a WMD, do you really think they will hesitate to use it?.....and where do you think they will get it from?

WMD, terrorists, and rogue states (like Iraq) are the greatest threat to the security of the world....you have to understand that...

And thinking that the US is only worsening the problem by taking pre-emptive action is naive.......and dangerous

Raver--I respect your views...and I am not trying to change your mind....but IMO, the framework of thinking needs to change, and not to means we have not learned the true lessons of 9/11 (I do not subscibe to the blame America crowd)...

Question: Were you in favor of the US war effort in Kosovo?

Thanks man, and I definitely respect your views as well. Hell, its always good to see things from a different perspective, and we can always learn things from each other; as long as views are respectfully given (hell, I used to get super emotional, but have realized that does not solve anything). But anyway, moving on to your points:

1) Agreed. I'm not saying that Al Queda will stop its attack on us if we don't attack Iraq...but I am saying that there could be a huge rise in anti-Americanism if there's a war. This could lead to more people wanting to join terrorist groups such as Al Queda. However, this is mere speculation and seems to hold less and less water the more I think about it (and also from reading that article I posted that seems to imply that the ME/muslim world is starting to lean toward feeling more and more anti-Bush rather than anti-American).

Regarding current terrorists - they're not going to care how much destruction the US lays down on Iraq - they're completely insane and absolute fanatics!

2) NOt well versed about the details of the cease-fire agreement.

3) Ex-president. But is that reason to declare war on a whole country?

4) Against who? Al QUeda - yes of course, because they've declared themselves sworn enemies of the United State, and are terrorists. BUt I would not support a whole-scale bombing campaign...I would support special forces going in and taking out key facilities/people.

5) Again, Al Queda, terrorists (though the attack was on a military vessel). In this case, what do you mean by "pre-emptive strike"? Bombing Yemen?

6) Thats a difficult one - Germany was a much more powerful country than Iraq can possibly become.

7) No, because in essence that would be an act of aggression, ie, the same as what the Japanese did. Then history would look upon the US as the aggressor.

The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is a very dangerous one because where do you stop? The US will become a neo-imperialistic country if it decides to attack anyone and everyone it sees as a "possible" threat. In the above examples (Pearl harbor, Germany, etc), how many pre-emptive "mistakes" would have to be committed in order to actually hit the right countries? Intelligence is not fool-proof. Also, whats to prevent a country like North Korea from launching missiles at us because it thinks the US is going to launch a pre-emptive strike at it?

The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, IMO, just leads to a vicious cycle of aggression.

Let me ask you a question - what do you think would have happened if the US had in place this pre-emptive strike doctrine, when the Cuban Missile crisis occurred?

OK, agreed Saddan is a problem, but I say the US should go about things differently. First it should not say that its willing to side-step the UN and go at it with whatever allies it has, because, in essence, thats breaking international law. Secondly, the operation to topple Saddam should be a lot more clandestine, that is, bring over or take-out key military leaders, find Saddam and take him out using special forces. After all thats what they're there for right?

My rambling reply...

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Thanks man, and I definitely respect your views as well. Hell, its always good to see things from a different perspective, and we can always learn things from each other; as long as views are respectfully given (hell, I used to get super emotional, but have realized that does not solve anything). But anyway, moving on to your points:

1) Agreed. I'm not saying that Al Queda will stop its attack on us if we don't attack Iraq...but I am saying that there could be a huge rise in anti-Americanism if there's a war. This could lead to more people wanting to join terrorist groups such as Al Queda. However, this is mere speculation and seems to hold less and less water the more I think about it (and also from reading that article I posted that seems to imply that the ME/muslim world is starting to lean toward feeling more and more anti-Bush rather than anti-American).

Regarding current terrorists - they're not going to care how much destruction the US lays down on Iraq - they're completely insane and absolute fanatics!

2) NOt well versed about the details of the cease-fire agreement.

3) Ex-president. But is that reason to declare war on a whole country?

4) Against who? Al QUeda - yes of course, because they've declared themselves sworn enemies of the United State, and are terrorists. BUt I would not support a whole-scale bombing campaign...I would support special forces going in and taking out key facilities/people.

5) Again, Al Queda, terrorists (though the attack was on a military vessel). In this case, what do you mean by "pre-emptive strike"? Bombing Yemen?

6) Thats a difficult one - Germany was a much more powerful country than Iraq can possibly become.

7) No, because in essence that would be an act of aggression, ie, the same as what the Japanese did. Then history would look upon the US as the aggressor.

The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is a very dangerous one because where do you stop? The US will become a neo-imperialistic country if it decides to attack anyone and everyone it sees as a "possible" threat. In the above examples (Pearl harbor, Germany, etc), how many pre-emptive "mistakes" would have to be committed in order to actually hit the right countries? Intelligence is not fool-proof. Also, whats to prevent a country like North Korea from launching missiles at us because it thinks the US is going to launch a pre-emptive strike at it?

The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, IMO, just leads to a vicious cycle of aggression.

Let me ask you a question - what do you think would have happened if the US had in place this pre-emptive strike doctrine, when the Cuban Missile crisis occurred?

OK, agreed Saddan is a problem, but I say the US should go about things differently. First it should not say that its willing to side-step the UN and go at it with whatever allies it has, because, in essence, thats breaking international law. Secondly, the operation to topple Saddam should be a lot more clandestine, that is, bring over or take-out key military leaders, find Saddam and take him out using special forces. After all thats what they're there for right?

My rambling reply...

...good post

[kramadas]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

...good post

Thank you!

[igloo]

raver

Good debate!...

I will respond to your questions when I have time for a good post, but good debate!

I agree--we can all learn from each other