| Author | Post |
|---|
Hoopla
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:56 pm |
|
Bilgerat wrote: VoiceReason wrote: Bilgerat wrote: VoiceReason wrote: OkeeNarnie wrote: OkeeGator I love you as a neighbor, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
I will continue to trust the US Government and our wonderfully trained Superior Military to keep the battles off our soil as I don't want to have to stock up on ammo to fight off any enemy's , and hope for the best.
I prefer to be called an eternal optimist not naive. I do have my eyes open. I just feel differently about some things.
If you have your eyes open why do you choose not to acknowledge the facts before you today?
Why is your opinion and stance superior to hers?
Not superior, just based on the facts and not allegiances.
So then you'll agree that she has the right to her beliefs ? I think everyone is entitled to their opinions. Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:57 pm by Hoopla
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:50 pm |
|
VoiceReason wrote: Bilgerat wrote: VoiceReason wrote: OkeeNarnie wrote: OkeeGator I love you as a neighbor, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
I will continue to trust the US Government and our wonderfully trained Superior Military to keep the battles off our soil as I don't want to have to stock up on ammo to fight off any enemy's , and hope for the best.
I prefer to be called an eternal optimist not naive. I do have my eyes open. I just feel differently about some things.
If you have your eyes open why do you choose not to acknowledge the facts before you today?
Why is your opinion and stance superior to hers?
Not superior, just based on the facts and not allegiances.
So then you'll agree that she has the right to her beliefs ?
|
VoiceReason
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 90 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:44 pm |
|
Bilgerat wrote: VoiceReason wrote: OkeeNarnie wrote: OkeeGator I love you as a neighbor, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
I will continue to trust the US Government and our wonderfully trained Superior Military to keep the battles off our soil as I don't want to have to stock up on ammo to fight off any enemy's , and hope for the best.
I prefer to be called an eternal optimist not naive. I do have my eyes open. I just feel differently about some things.
If you have your eyes open why do you choose not to acknowledge the facts before you today?
Why is your opinion and stance superior to hers?
Not superior, just based on the facts and not allegiances.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: Yes, and it was a great debate, don 't ya think so?
No! You were left unconvinced by my argument! 
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:28 pm |
|
| Yes, and it was a great debate, don 't ya think so?
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:27 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: OkeeGator I love you as a neighbor, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
I will continue to trust the US Government and our wonderfully trained Superior Military to keep the battles off our soil as I don't want to have to stock up on ammo to fight off any enemy's , and hope for the best.
I prefer to be called an eternal optimist not naive. I do have my eyes open. I just feel differently about some things.
I understand. Good chatting with you. I think that was our first debate.
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:23 pm |
|
VoiceReason wrote: OkeeNarnie wrote: OkeeGator I love you as a neighbor, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
I will continue to trust the US Government and our wonderfully trained Superior Military to keep the battles off our soil as I don't want to have to stock up on ammo to fight off any enemy's , and hope for the best.
I prefer to be called an eternal optimist not naive. I do have my eyes open. I just feel differently about some things.
If you have your eyes open why do you choose not to acknowledge the facts before you today?
Why is your opinion and stance superior to hers?
|
VoiceReason
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 90 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:20 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: OkeeGator I love you as a neighbor, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
I will continue to trust the US Government and our wonderfully trained Superior Military to keep the battles off our soil as I don't want to have to stock up on ammo to fight off any enemy's , and hope for the best.
I prefer to be called an eternal optimist not naive. I do have my eyes open. I just feel differently about some things.
If you have your eyes open why do you choose not to acknowledge the facts before you today?
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 10:02 pm |
|
OkeeGator I love you as a neighbor, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
I will continue to trust the US Government and our wonderfully trained Superior Military to keep the battles off our soil as I don't want to have to stock up on ammo to fight off any enemy's , and hope for the best.
I prefer to be called an eternal optimist not naive. I do have my eyes open. I just feel differently about some things.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:02 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote:
Going to war is different than daily decisions about national security.
I believe entering into any conflict IS acting on National Security. If we began one, tossed the first stone or declared war on any county if we were not acting on protecting our own National Security we would certainly be risking it. Going to war is not the same OkeeNarnie. There are certain things that must be done Constitutionally.
You are kidding right? Or are you one of the last that still believe Bush and the Pentagon told us the whole truth about going to war in Iraq? Our government failed us numerous times - Congress and the President.
I believe we were told all there was to tell AT the time. If that wasn’t so the media would have had a field day. The government doesn’t fail us. Were still here, living life in a Country that still has the Constitution and Bill of Rights in place. Had they failed…we would be otherwise. There is no helping you is there? Blind faith in government is dangerous.
Over the following weeks we received a wealth of info. The information the government had in its hands at the time decisions were made that contradicted or weakened Bush's arguments were ignored by his administration. Didn’t change the way we felt. We all wanted to kick some terrorist butt.
As far as the conflict in Iraq, it is irrelevant to me personally how we got there. I know we are there. I know we have a Military Mission and I believe we should complete the Mission before leaving. Its sad that you find it irrelevant why we are there considering the cost it has meant in lives and resources. I was against the invasion but I knew that once we went in we were going to be there for a while. Completing the mission is something we can both agree on.
After 9-11 we could have done nothing. Just cleaned up the mess and let life continue. That would have been foolish. And fortunately we did do something - we went after the men who did it by invading Afghanistan and assaulting their global network with the help of allies. But then we had to go and invade Iraq - a country that was not involved. Of course looking back in history we probably could have done the same after Pearl harbor too. They say the government knew in advance of that attack as well. They probably knew about the same amount level of info based on information received from the CIA and FBI to mention 2 informant organizations. Speculation prior to both attacks.
If there was more to know it would have been published. (and the topic of the day at the local coffee and donut hot spot where the TV camera’s would be set up getting feedback) Because as soon as there WAS more to tell that is how it was done. I don't follow your point.
I was referring to the news following 9-11. I believe everything there was to know was shared with anyone who watched TV, listened to Radio or picked up any newspaper of magazine. I don’t think we could have been misled by keeping info from us. The media was playing every thing there was out there. Are you seriously saying that the truth was laid out before us already? If that's the case then the Bush administration should have asked the media first if there were any WMD's - I guess they already knew according to you.
We were constantly told what was happening in Washington and elsewhere. When talk was started about forming troops to go on the original mission no one was jumping up saying NO we don’t want to go headhunting. Hell we were willing to pass the hat for fuel to get them there if we had to. Again, your point is not clear.
I appreciate you OkeeNarnie. You are a good soul as I have seen on these posts and so it pains me to say this but on this point you are being naive. We were not attacked by Iraq on 9/11.
I am aware we were not attacked by Iraq.
The original mission is still the same. Capture of the Al Quada group who issued the orders to attack the USA on September 11, 2001.
We also have our Military on a secondary Mission its against an enemy we cannot see. Terrorism. I thought terrorism was the first mission? Iraq followed and now has overshadowed everything.
I think we learned that regardless of what gets discussed at the peace talks, after all is said and the session closes: No one has our backs. Every country is going to have to use what ever means needed to protect there own. Espionage is a two way street. (our “allies” have spies watching us too) Again, not catching your point here, but I will say that we had considerable cooperation in Afghanistan and in hunting down terrorists around the globe.
I think we had cooperation because the rest of the world knew it could have been on their soil. They figured they needed to join forces and insure our help if they needed us quickly…and knew the odds were they might. My thoughts are we need to maintain high vigilance around the globe by keeping our Military everywhere. Because we shouldn’t rely on our allies to tell us everything we should know.
Of course not. But these same leaders are obligated to present their case for going to war. They did but it was not an honest assessment. Read up on the intelligence source codenamed "Curveball". Read up on the division with the intelligence community over the intel that was used to go to war - how flimsy it was. Read up on Bush's case to go to war and how the reasons for going to Iraq were somewhat vague even within the administration. Read Scott McClellan's, Cobra II, Fiasco, or the great numbers of other books that demonstrate the poor leadership and judgement displayed by this administration.
The books you mention are, like this forum, a point of view and an interpretation of papers released for public knowledge are they not? And one your in agreement with. Unlike this forum the books are written with informed sources telling the author what they experienced or saw firsthand. The more firsthand sources, the more reliable the interpretation. Interestingly, nearly all of those interpretations are in agreement about Bush's failures.
Following WWII there have been many who have written books and screen plays on battles and many who did not agree with the judgment calls by the Officers in charge. This is the same following battles as far back as they were documented. Learning experiences for future battles.
The United States responded to this attack using what in formation was available at the time. We knew what flights the planes were. Where they originated from and who was on board. We know what was happening on the planes from cell phone conversations made from the air to friends and loved ones on the ground. What's your point?
My point is that I believe our government acted properly given what information they had at the time. To invade Iraq? Once we were in the original mission other missions were dropped and we just picked them up and went on in different directions with them. ???? No one asked if the people of the US wanted to be involved and that isn’t something that would have been on a ballot for us to vote on. That would be direct democracy. We are a republic - a representative democracy - and it is the obligation of the president to make his honest case to us and our elected representatives.
Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 06:06 pm by okeegator
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 05:55 pm |
|
Okeenarnie,
Your unwavering support of the events that have taken place is what this administration counted on and is what helped fuel this administration's movement for so long. In the beginning, many people feared to speak out because they were ostracized and labeled as not supporting the troops or as being unpatriotic. It was the "in" thing to support the war and the president without question.
Now that time has passed and everyone, including Bush, has said that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and he didn't have WMD and he didn't have the capability to harm US citizens or our country, I'm surprised that people are still trying to justify the countless loss of lives and the horror we've inflicted upon the Iraqi people. Admitting that we made a mistake is the first step to correcting it.
Justifying what has happened by saying, "He was a bad man who could have one day caused us harm" is not a reason to condone this war. It is causing our economy to fail, we've lost Americans, and we owe China trillions of dollars for funding this war. No good thing has come of it. Al Quida is now trying to take over Iraq and their presence wasn't there before we went in to "fix things". Our country is no safer than before we started. Our troops are abroad and our borders aren't protected. We're no longer a member of the Geneva Convention because we now allow torture. You've justified that by saying they do it, so we can too. Two wrongs don't make a right. We were once held in high regard by the rest of the world, but we've lost that standing due to the multitude of mistakes and decisions that have been made for us by an administration I'm sure will go down in history as criminals who couldn't be prosecuted because they passed a law saying so before they left office.
In response, do you realize that IF the US were to take action and say WE are so sorry. We never should have come in there and wiped Saddam Hussein off the face of your country. (regardless of the fact they wanted him out and cheered our troops arrival to save them from his treatment) But lets say we were to say were sorry we did it. We could possibly spend the rest of the time the world exists serving them in return for saving their butts from a tyrant, And if we pulled out of there and let Al-Queda have at them they will be in the same crap as when we got there...but thats alright too? Just exchange their tyrants? What if they way WAIT US COME BACK AND SAVE US AGAIN... what then?
The US is not a bully but I think we have always been looked at like the Big Brother who will come and rescue the little guy in need. We do it all the time, all around the world. Stepping up to the plate and taking a swing in Iraq at Saddam is not much different then going into any country in need as far as I am concerned.
THAT is my opinion.
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 05:42 pm |
|
Going to war is different than daily decisions about national security.
I believe entering into any conflict IS acting on National Security. If we began one, tossed the first stone or declared war on any county if we were not acting on protecting our own National Security we would certainly be risking it.
You are kidding right? Or are you one of the last that still believe Bush and the Pentagon told us the whole truth about going to war in Iraq? Our government failed us numerous times - Congress and the President.
I believe we were told all there was to tell AT the time. If that wasn’t so the media would have had a field day. The government doesn’t fail us. Were still here, living life in a Country that still has the Constitution and Bill of Rights in place. Had they failed…we would be otherwise. Over the following weeks we received a wealth of info. Didn’t change the way we felt. We all wanted to kick some terrorist butt.
As far as the conflict in Iraq, it is irrelevant to me personally how we got there. I know we are there. I know we have a Military Mission and I believe we should complete the Mission before leaving.
After 9-11 we could have done nothing. Just cleaned up the mess and let life continue. Of course looking back in history we probably could have done the same after Pearl harbor too. They say the government knew in advance of that attack as well. They probably knew about the same amount level of info based on information received from the CIA and FBI to mention 2 informant organizations. Speculation prior to both attacks.
If there was more to know it would have been published. (and the topic of the day at the local coffee and donut hot spot where the TV camera’s would be set up getting feedback) Because as soon as there WAS more to tell that is how it was done. I don't follow your point.
I was referring to the news following 9-11. I believe everything there was to know was shared with anyone who watched TV, listened to Radio or picked up any newspaper of magazine. I don’t think we could have been misled by keeping info from us. The media was playing every thing there was out there.
We were constantly told what was happening in Washington and elsewhere. When talk was started about forming troops to go on the original mission no one was jumping up saying NO we don’t want to go headhunting. Hell we were willing to pass the hat for fuel to get them there if we had to.
I appreciate you OkeeNarnie. You are a good soul as I have seen on these posts and so it pains me to say this but on this point you are being naive. We were not attacked by Iraq on 9/11.
I am aware we were not attacked by Iraq.
The original mission is still the same. Capture of the Al Quada group who issued the orders to attack the USA on September 11, 2001.
We also have our Military on a secondary Mission its against an enemy we cannot see. Terrorism.
I think we learned that regardless of what gets discussed at the peace talks, after all is said and the session closes: No one has our backs. Every country is going to have to use what ever means needed to protect there own. Espionage is a two way street. (our “allies” have spies watching us too) Again, not catching your point here, but I will say that we had considerable cooperation in Afghanistan and in hunting down terrorists around the globe.
I think we had cooperation because the rest of the world knew it could have been on their soil. They figured they needed to join forces and insure our help if they needed us quickly…and knew the odds were they might. My thoughts are we need to maintain high vigilance around the globe by keeping our Military everywhere. Because we shouldn’t rely on our allies to tell us everything we should know.
Of course not. But these same leaders are obligated to present their case for going to war. They did but it was not an honest assessment. Read up on the intelligence source codenamed "Curveball". Read up on the division with the intelligence community over the intel that was used to go to war - how flimsy it was. Read up on Bush's case to go to war and how the reasons for going to Iraq were somewhat vague even within the administration. Read Scott McClellan's, Cobra II, Fiasco, or the great numbers of other books that demonstrate the poor leadership and judgement displayed by this administration.
The books you mention are, like this forum, a point of view and an interpretation of papers released for public knowledge are they not? And one your in agreement with.
Following WWII there have been many who have written books and screen plays on battles and many who did not agree with the judgment calls by the Officers in charge. This is the same following battles as far back as they were documented. Learning experiences for future battles.
The United States responded to this attack using what in formation was available at the time. We knew what flights the planes were. Where they originated from and who was on board. We know what was happening on the planes from cell phone conversations made from the air to friends and loved ones on the ground. What's your point?
My point is that I believe our government acted properly given what information they had at the time. Once we were in the original mission other missions were dropped and we just picked them up and went on in different directions with them. No one asked if the people of the US wanted to be involved and that isn’t something that would have been on a ballot for us to vote on.
|
VoiceReason
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 90 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 05:13 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: VoiceReason wrote:
I am sorry your relative felt that way. He is of course entitled to his opinion, and to voice that opinion. That is one of the things we are allowed to do here in the United States Of America because we have rights as Americans.
Freedom is not free and if we did not have our Military all over the world today (most on the peace keeping mission) and instead we were to sit with our Military only here within our borders when the unrest of the world came to our borders we would be a world of crap. WE would be the people invaded hollering for help...and who do you think would come here to help us?
Chances are we would have a much smaller Military. Probably without as much technology. We would have had little use for it if all we had to be concerned with was inside our borders. Pretty much we would have our National Guard and Coast Guard, as we would, under those circumstance, have little use for a superior trained group of soldiers and sailors ready to do what ever was needed. Today even our National Guard has been called forward to take part in the mission.
And ONE MAN did not order us over to Afghanistan and Iraq. He may have been the voice you heard on the radio but he didn't make the decision alone.
When a Senator or Congressman speaks he is speaking for all who he represents. When he says something you might not agree with it must mean he is speaking for the majority of his constituents. You never see a rebuttal press conference from the citizens who disagree either.
When the President speaks he has had meetings with his advisor's and what he says comes from those meetings. If this wasn't so when the President finished talking the advisor's would also have a press conference stating what they had advised him to say.
Sitting back and complaining because you disagree with whats going on is just one of the rights you get to exercise. We could be invaded and find ourselves reading literature we might not like, praying in a fashion we don't believe and even restricted in travel and under curfew by armed guards who don't care to even think about learning English. I would rather keep our Freedom as intact as possible.
Okeenarnie,
Your unwavering support of the events that have taken place is what this administration counted on and is what helped fuel this administration's movement for so long. In the beginning, many people feared to speak out because they were ostracized and labeled as not supporting the troops or as being unpatriotic. It was the "in" thing to support the war and the president without question.
Now that time has passed and everyone, including Bush, has said that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and he didn't have WMD and he didn't have the capability to harm US citizens or our country, I'm surprised that people are still trying to justify the countless loss of lives and the horror we've inflicted upon the Iraqi people. Admitting that we made a mistake is the first step to correcting it.
Justifying what has happened by saying, "He was a bad man who could have one day caused us harm" is not a reason to condone this war. It is causing our economy to fail, we've lost Americans, and we owe China trillions of dollars for funding this war. No good thing has come of it. Al Quida is now trying to take over Iraq and their presence wasn't there before we went in to "fix things". Our country is no safer than before we started. Our troops are abroad and our borders aren't protected. We're no longer a member of the Geneva Convention because we now allow torture. You've justified that by saying they do it, so we can too. Two wrongs don't make a right. We were once held in high regard by the rest of the world, but we've lost that standing due to the multitude of mistakes and decisions that have been made for us by an administration I'm sure will go down in history as criminals who couldn't be prosecuted because they passed a law saying so before they left office.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:35 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote:
. The problem was that we weren't given the proper facts at the time - we were misled in multiple ways.
We (I think your speaking about you and I and the rest of the American public) are NOT supposed to be personally involved in decisions concerning issues of National Security. Going to war is different than daily decisions about national security.
The technology today is able to bring, live and in living color with a 10 second delay, everything that is going on from the white house to the front lines. They couldn’t do this in 1943, or in 1953, or even in 1963 or 1973. Had they been able to there would have been the same interaction like we have going on here. People critique what happened and say it should have been done differently. Those in on the discussion have different opinions on how “different” should have been. People critiqued then as now, going all the way back to the beginning. In fact, the Founding Fathers took the ability to declare war away from the executive branch (as it was in GB with the king) and gave it to the legislative branch. The President's job is to take it from there - to direct the actions during the war. However, the Constitution also gives the Congress the ability to cut off funds for wars. The American voters have a say in all of this as they should in a democracy.
As far as saying we were misled I really am not sure that’s correct. You are kidding right? Or are you one of the last that still believe Bush and the Pentagon told us the whole truth about going to war in Iraq? Our government failed us numerous times - Congress and the President. Think again about the technology and the fact that there was a time span before we knew more. If there was more to know it would have been published. (and the topic of the day at the local coffee and donut hot spot where the TV camera’s would be set up getting feedback) Because as soon as there WAS more to tell that is how it was done. I don't follow your point.
The United States was attacked. The United States reacted to the attack. We didn’t tuck our tail between our legs and run into hiding. We used what information was available and acted with it. I appreciate you OkeeNarnie. You are a good soul as I have seen on these posts and so it pains me to say this but on this point you are being naive. We were not attacked by Iraq on 9/11.
Like you stated terrorist warfare depends on the reaction of their victims, which was the USA. Maybe we played into their hands. That we did. Our focus was immediately placed on a land far away from here, and we have maintained that focus. MAYBE giving terrorism ample time to prepare here unnoticed.
.There is a definite distinction between asymetrical and conventional warfare. It requires a different mindset in preparing for it and in going after it. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are limited in their reach and capabilities. Even the scenarios you describe here would not equate to the devastation you described earlier. Only another country, like Russia or China, would have the capability to create the havoc and devastation as you described. That kind of war is much less likely (though not impossible considering our world's finite resources) in today's global economy. The whole point of terrorism is to foster fear in the hearts of others to either cause them to overreact or to back down. It is the type of warfare that is dependent on the reaction of those who are attacked. If you don't fall into their trap then their plans have failed.
If there were to be a terrorist attack within this country, do you not think that at this point 7 years out from the last devastation, they would be prepared to do the same or worse over a much greater area or in multiple areas at the same time? That they are probably not already preparing for this? That they have been preparing for this for several years?Al Qaeda has demonstrated great patience in planning attacks. My point was that the scenario you first described was overexaggerated.
That they might be here in the United States watching as the National Security levels go from yellow or orange to red to yellow as bits and pieces to a puzzle leak out? Maybe close enough to be reading our forum and laughing at what were discussing? If that's the case, "Hey guys! Hey Osama! Zawahiri! We are going get your asses one of these days! Just thought you should know!"
What lessons are you referring to? Because I can point out a number of lessons our military leadership chose to ignore or had forgotten.
I think we learned that regardless of what gets discussed at the peace talks, after all is said and the session closes: No one has our backs. Every country is going to have to use what ever means needed to protect there own. Espionage is a two way street. (our “allies” have spies watching us too) Again, not catching your point here, but I will say that we had considerable cooperation in Afghanistan and in hunting down terrorists around the globe.
.
So what you are saying is that our values are expendable?
No that is not what I am saying. Lets say your neighbor comes over on your property and destroys your garage. He placed a device that caused the garage to blow off the roof and started a fire that burned the building and your truck and all the contents. Lets say the neighbor on the back side of your property happened to have a web cam broadcasting images of a hummingbird nest and it just happened to pick up traffic in your yard, including images of your neighbor carrying items that directly implicated him. Are you going to just collect your homeowners insurance, rebuild the garage. Replace the truck and buy new holiday decorations or are you going to take action against the neighbor? Our moral values are not an issue when it comes to protecting what belongs to us. But your scenario does not follow the logic of our discussion on waterboarding now versus then. Did you red the two articles I posted earlier. Our army court-martialed our own soldiers and executed Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding. Why is it okay now? Sounds like we used to be more consistent in our principles.
If we were to say, everyone is our neighbor, that would mean the people in the next house as well as 2 streets, 2 towns, 2 states and 2 countries away are also our neighbors. So a neighbor came from several countries away and using a device (in this case planes) and caused the destruction of buildings, loss of many lives. Not to mention the illness caused to many who were in the area and have died or are suffering still with respiratory problems. The United States responded to this attack using what in formation was available at the time. We knew what flights the planes were. Where they originated from and who was on board. We know what was happening on the planes from cell phone conversations made from the air to friends and loved ones on the ground. What's your point?
I think as time went by more information came that let our government know more of the larger picture and they acted to protect this country as we would expect them to. AGAIN…. WE, the American Public At Large, are not supposed to be privy to everything they know. Of course not. But these same leaders are obligated to present their case for going to war. They did but it was not an honest assessment. Read up on the intelligence source codenamed "Curveball". Read up on the division with the intelligence community over the intel that was used to go to war - how flimsy it was. Read up on Bush's case to go to war and how the reasons for going to Iraq were somewhat vague even within the administration. Read Scott McClellan's, Cobra II, Fiasco, or the great numbers of other books that demonstrate the poor leadership and judgement displayed by this administration.
Maybe we have too much technology in the public arena.
Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 04:37 pm by okeegator
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:48 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: I am sorry your relative felt that way. He is of course entitled to his opinion, and to voice that opinion. That is one of the things we are allowed to do here in the United States Of America because we have rights as Americans.
Freedom is not free and if we did not have our Military all over the world today (most on the peace keeping mission) and instead we were to sit with our Military only here within our borders when the unrest of the world came to our borders we would be a world of crap. WE would be the people invaded hollering for help...and who do you think would come here to help us?
Chances are we would have a much smaller Military. Probably without as much technology. We would have had little use for it if all we had to be concerned with was inside our borders. Pretty much we would have our National Guard and Coast Guard, as we would, under those circumstance, have little use for a superior trained group of soldiers and sailors ready to do what ever was needed. Today even our National Guard has been called forward to take part in the mission.
And ONE MAN did not order us over to Afghanistan and Iraq. He may have been the voice you heard on the radio but he didn't make the decision alone.
When a Senator or Congressman speaks he is speaking for all who he represents. When he says something you might not agree with it must mean he is speaking for the majority of his constituents. You never see a rebuttal press conference from the citizens who disagree either.
When the President speaks he has had meetings with his advisor's and what he says comes from those meetings. If this wasn't so when the President finished talking the advisor's would also have a press conference stating what they had advised him to say.
Sitting back and complaining because you disagree with whats going on is just one of the rights you get to exercise. We could be invaded and find ourselves reading literature we might not like, praying in a fashion we don't believe and even restricted in travel and under curfew by armed guards who don't care to even think about learning English. I would rather keep our Freedom as intact as possible.
Well said!
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:32 pm |
|
VoiceReason wrote: One of my family members was called up after 9/11 and went to Iraq for more than a year. He didn't believe in this war, and he hated every minute of it. He went because if he hadn't, he would have been prosecuted. He saw terrible things over there, and if you asked him, he'd tell you we were wrong to be there and we caused the Iraq people lots of damage for no reason.
, I've never questioned the values of those involved. They had no choice about having to go. I support the soldiers, I just don't support this war or the man who ordered it, but I do love my country. Being against the war or against this administation doesn't mean you're not partiotic. It simply means we're exercising our free speech and speaking out against something we think is wrong, wrong, wrong!!
I am sorry your relative felt that way. He is of course entitled to his opinion, and to voice that opinion. That is one of the things we are allowed to do here in the United States Of America because we have rights as Americans.
Freedom is not free and if we did not have our Military all over the world today (most on the peace keeping mission) and instead we were to sit with our Military only here within our borders when the unrest of the world came to our borders we would be a world of crap. WE would be the people invaded hollering for help...and who do you think would come here to help us?
Chances are we would have a much smaller Military. Probably without as much technology. We would have had little use for it if all we had to be concerned with was inside our borders. Pretty much we would have our National Guard and Coast Guard, as we would, under those circumstance, have little use for a superior trained group of soldiers and sailors ready to do what ever was needed. Today even our National Guard has been called forward to take part in the mission.
And ONE MAN did not order us over to Afghanistan and Iraq. He may have been the voice you heard on the radio but he didn't make the decision alone.
When a Senator or Congressman speaks he is speaking for all who he represents. When he says something you might not agree with it must mean he is speaking for the majority of his constituents. You never see a rebuttal press conference from the citizens who disagree either.
When the President speaks he has had meetings with his advisor's and what he says comes from those meetings. If this wasn't so when the President finished talking the advisor's would also have a press conference stating what they had advised him to say.
Sitting back and complaining because you disagree with whats going on is just one of the rights you get to exercise. We could be invaded and find ourselves reading literature we might not like, praying in a fashion we don't believe and even restricted in travel and under curfew by armed guards who don't care to even think about learning English. I would rather keep our Freedom as intact as possible.
Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:34 pm by OkeeNarnie
|
VoiceReason
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 90 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:00 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: Today we have an ALL Volunteer Military. No one has been drafted in a long time. Today we also have a great number of Americans who sit back and point out that in their opinion the country is not doing the right thing by having our Military where they are.
Everyday we have more volunteering for the Military so maybe everyone needs to take a careful look at their thoughts on the subject. So many men and women in uniform can't be wrong in joining. They all know the odds are greater that they will be joining forces with the men and women serving in areas where the action is. They are certainly not joining so they can buy a home under the GI Bill. They believe in the United States Of America.
If you have or have had a friend or family member serve in the last 12 years, odds are they have discussed what day to day life was like for them. They probably didn't say they the US messed up, they never should have been sent there. One of my family members was called up after 9/11 and went to Iraq for more than a year. He didn't believe in this war, and he hated every minute of it. He went because if he hadn't, he would have been prosecuted. He saw terrible things over there, and if you asked him, he'd tell you we were wrong to be there and we caused the Iraq people lots of damage for no reason.
When Americans discuss the issues of the ongoing conflict were involved in with Iraq, Iran and surrounding areas on a negative fashion were forgetting that we have our friends, family and neighbors over there. When we question the values of those involved, I've never questioned the values of those involved. They had no choice about having to go. I support the soldiers, I just don't support this war or the man who ordered it, but I do love my country. Being against the war or against this administation doesn't mean you're not partiotic. It simply means we're exercising our free speech and speaking out against something we think is wrong, wrong, wrong!!remember you might be questioning the values of one of the readers children, one of the parents of kids in our schools, a spouse of one of our neighbors or even one of their readers of this forum. Or maybe the values of your own child or grandchild who hasn't joined yet but might be thinking about it. I personally have a 17 year old grandson who has talked about joining the Marine Corp. I will miss him but will be a very proud gram. Just like you would be as I don't think any of you would look in the eyes of your own child or grandchild and tell them they are crazy or stupid to want to serve.
Here is a great You-Tube from the Military wives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZEb5Ohry1Q
|
designdiva
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1195 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:20 pm |
|
Okeenarnie.....My son ( deceased ) was a Sgt in the USMC and he LOVED his job........I am so proud of him and his service to our country........ He was groomed from birth for the Marines... When he passed away in California we were allowed to come stay on base in Miramar.....They treated me like I was the Queen Mother and they have established a Memorial in his honor and each year the line nominates who is to recieve the Sgt Bill J Jenkins USMC award for excellence..... Your grandson will enjoy being part of the corp....Semper Fi........ Diva 
Marine Mother....The hardest job in the Corp...............
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 02:12 pm |
|
Today we have an ALL Volunteer Military. No one has been drafted in a long time. Today we also have a great number of Americans who sit back and point out that in their opinion the country is not doing the right thing by having our Military where they are.
Everyday we have more volunteering for the Military so maybe everyone needs to take a careful look at their thoughts on the subject. So many men and women in uniform can't be wrong in joining. They all know the odds are greater that they will be joining forces with the men and women serving in areas where the action is. They are certainly not joining so they can buy a home under the GI Bill. They believe in the United States Of America.
If you have or have had a friend or family member serve in the last 12 years, odds are they have discussed what day to day life was like for them. They probably didn't say they the US messed up, they never should have been sent there.
When Americans discuss the issues of the ongoing conflict were involved in with Iraq, Iran and surrounding areas on a negative fashion were forgetting that we have our friends, family and neighbors over there. When we question the values of those involved, remember you might be questioning the values of one of the readers children, one of the parents of kids in our schools, a spouse of one of our neighbors or even one of their readers of this forum. Or maybe the values of your own child or grandchild who hasn't joined yet but might be thinking about it. I personally have a 17 year old grandson who has talked about joining the Marine Corp. I will miss him but will be a very proud gram. Just like you would be as I don't think any of you would look in the eyes of your own child or grandchild and tell them they are crazy or stupid to want to serve.
Here is a great You-Tube from the Military wives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZEb5Ohry1Q
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 12:31 pm |
|
. The problem was that we weren't given the proper facts at the time - we were misled in multiple ways.
We (I think your speaking about you and I and the rest of the American public) are NOT supposed to be personally involved in decisions concerning issues of National Security. The technology today is able to bring, live and in living color with a 10 second delay, everything that is going on from the white house to the front lines. They couldn’t do this in 1943, or in 1953, or even in 1963 or 1973. Had they been able to there would have been the same interaction like we have going on here. People critique what happened and say it should have been done differently. Those in on the discussion have different opinions on how “different” should have been.
As far as saying we were misled I really am not sure that’s correct. Think again about the technology and the fact that there was a time span before we knew more. If there was more to know it would have been published. (and the topic of the day at the local coffee and donut hot spot where the TV camera’s would be set up getting feedback) Because as soon as there WAS more to tell that is how it was done.
The United States was attacked. The United States reacted to the attack. We didn’t tuck our tail between our legs and run into hiding. We used what information was available and acted with it.
Like you stated terrorist warfare depends on the reaction of their victims, which was the USA. Maybe we played into their hands. Our focus was immediately placed on a land far away from here, and we have maintained that focus. MAYBE giving terrorism ample time to prepare here unnoticed.
.There is a definite distinction between asymetrical and conventional warfare. It requires a different mindset in preparing for it and in going after it. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are limited in their reach and capabilities. Even the scenarios you describe here would not equate to the devastation you described earlier. Only another country, like Russia or China, would have the capability to create the havoc and devastation as you described. That kind of war is much less likely (though not impossible considering our world's finite resources) in today's global economy. The whole point of terrorism is to foster fear in the hearts of others to either cause them to overreact or to back down. It is the type of warfare that is dependent on the reaction of those who are attacked. If you don't fall into their trap then their plans have failed.
If there were to be a terrorist attack within this country, do you not think that at this point 7 years out from the last devastation, they would be prepared to do the same or worse over a much greater area or in multiple areas at the same time? That they are probably not already preparing for this? That they have been preparing for this for several years?
That they might be here in the United States watching as the National Security levels go from yellow or orange to red to yellow as bits and pieces to a puzzle leak out? Maybe close enough to be reading our forum and laughing at what were discussing?
What lessons are you referring to? Because I can point out a number of lessons our military leadership chose to ignore or had forgotten.
I think we learned that regardless of what gets discussed at the peace talks, after all is said and the session closes: No one has our backs. Every country is going to have to use what ever means needed to protect there own. Espionage is a two way street. (our “allies” have spies watching us too)
.
So what you are saying is that our values are expendable?
No that is not what I am saying. Lets say your neighbor comes over on your property and destroys your garage. He placed a device that caused the garage to blow off the roof and started a fire that burned the building and your truck and all the contents. Lets say the neighbor on the back side of your property happened to have a web cam broadcasting images of a hummingbird nest and it just happened to pick up traffic in your yard, including images of your neighbor carrying items that directly implicated him. Are you going to just collect your homeowners insurance, rebuild the garage. Replace the truck and buy new holiday decorations or are you going to take action against the neighbor? Our moral values are not an issue when it comes to protecting what belongs to us.
If we were to say, everyone is our neighbor, that would mean the people in the next house as well as 2 streets, 2 towns, 2 states and 2 countries away are also our neighbors. So a neighbor came from several countries away and using a device (in this case planes) and caused the destruction of buildings, loss of many lives. Not to mention the illness caused to many who were in the area and have died or are suffering still with respiratory problems. The United States responded to this attack using what in formation was available at the time. We knew what flights the planes were. Where they originated from and who was on board. We know what was happening on the planes from cell phone conversations made from the air to friends and loved ones on the ground.
I think as time went by more information came that let our government know more of the larger picture and they acted to protect this country as we would expect them to. AGAIN…. WE, the American Public At Large, are not supposed to be privy to everything they know.
Maybe we have too much technology in the public arena.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 02:24 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote:
You asked who would I blame for our military being present in places where there is unrest. I don't blame any one person.
President Bush does not sit alone in his office at the white house and make all the decisions on his own. He has advisor's who get their words of wisdom from spoke persons from Congress, the House and Senate. To a point, I think, they consider public opinion but long range I don't think they believe the general public can weigh all the info and come out with a rational decision based on the facts they have at the time. The problem was that we weren't given the proper facts at the time - we were misled in multiple ways.
Terrorist warfare and Conventional warfare (if such clarification exists) are different, I agree. But what I describe could very well be what we could face. The suicide bombings. Poison in water systems. Airborne Illnesses. Once their network is completely in place whats to stop them? Maybe they ARE in place just standing by waiting for their orders. So much for distance from them...they are already here. Remember we trained them to fly those planes that crashed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
There is a definite distinction between asymetrical and conventional warfare. It requires a different mindset in preparing for it and in going after it. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are limited in their reach and capabilities. Even the scenarios you describe here would not equate to the devastation you described earlier. Only another country, like Russia or China, would have the capability to create the havoc and devastation as you described. That kind of war is much less likely (though not impossible considering our world's finite resources) in today's global economy. The whole point of terrorism is to foster fear in the hearts of others to either cause them to overreact or to back down. It is the type of warfare that is dependent on the reaction of those who are attacked. If you don't fall into their trap then their plans have failed.
I believe we learned valuable lessons from WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, and that our Military puts to use those lessons as they go about their missions. What lessons are you referring to? Because I can point out a number of lessons our military leadership chose to ignore or had forgotten.
You said: "So if it is war, why is it okay now but not then?" My response is that perhaps we are putting into practice what we learned from WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam.
So what you are saying is that our values are expendable?
Last edited on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 02:25 pm by okeegator
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 01:04 pm |
|
Icare wrote:
President Bush does not sit alone in his office at the white house and make all the decisions on his own. He has advisor's who get their words of wisdom from spoke persons from Congress, the House and Senate. To a point, I think, they consider public opinion but long range I don't think they believe the general public can weigh all the info and come out with a rational decision based on the facts they have at the time. President Bush went against Congress and waged war without their approval. So, in this case, he pretty much screwed up all on his own.
You said: "So if it is war, why is it okay now but not then?" My response is that perhaps we are putting into practice what we learned from WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. We're going backwards by allowing torture because we're becoming more brutal and less diplomatic. Torture is NEVER right. Just because our president signed it into law doesn't make it right. We owe it to mankind to stand up and say, "This is not right, Mr. President".
The decision to go forward was made after weighing all the information recieved from his advisors. He may have gone "against" Congress but he was not alone in the choice he made. I think he said (and I could be remembering this wrong) that he looked at all the informatiuon and it was a majority ruling. I took that to be that the majority of his advisors were in favor.
I have not really seen much noteworthy information on any torture our military has done ro POW's we hold. Maybe I have missed a segment. Did we chain them up and beat them senseless? Did we starve them for several weeks? Place them in a crate for months at a time? Did we deny them medical care? Did we amputate fingers, hands, arms as punishment? Did we put them in a dark hole in the ground and leave them there for long periods of time allowing our guards to urinate on them through a grate over the hole? Did we feed them tainted food? Deny them water to drink or to be allowed to bathe? Did we make them reside in vermin infested cells?
Any POW's we are holding are probably treated better then any the other side holds.
and as far as we should say Were going backwards by allowing torture. If they treat our guys they hold with brutality. They behead them. They dump the bodies in rivers or leave them in the sand to rot? I will be happy to donate the battery from my jeep with the positive wire painted red so they won't get it wrong!
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 12:41 pm |
|
Icare wrote:
We can all remember the images we saw during and after September 11, 2001. I don't ever want to experience anything even close to that again but were we to back off of the consistent vigilant watch our Government and Military maintain we could draw that conflict here to our shores and it would sweep across this country like a pandemic. Every city and town affected by bombs, battle and bloodshed. We would be the ones in the streets holding what is left of our spouses and children. We would be the refugees walking through war torn areas looking for a safe haven. You're assuming, or have fallen for the propaganda, that we are unsafe here. I guess the hype about us being on RED so many times has got you believing we're actually in danger. The Iraqi people never had the capability to be any danger to us. If we used the money we've spent on this war beefing up our borders noone would be able to do us any harm. Rice told us before 9/11 that terrorist wanted to use planes to cause us harm, so why did we let it happen? There is even talk that Bush knew about this plan in advance and let it happen so he could go to war. I bet that boggles your mind to consider that he would let it happen. Maybe the truth will come out someday.
We have US Military presence all around the world. We have been out there since WWI. By being OUT THERE they have been able to keep home safe, and yes were the conflict to follow our military back to our shores our men and women of the armed forces would be here to do the same thing they are doing around the world. The mission is working towards a peaceful existence for the area they are in. They don't want our idea of a peaceful existance. We're shoving OUR values down their throats.
As far as the torture of prisoners. It's war. A war we started without provacation against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Our country and our people are supposed to be more noble than that. What ever happened to the Geneva convention? Oh yeah, that's right, Bush doesn't honor that anymore. It's not kids playing on the playground. What our military may or may not do to get the information they need to complete their mission is no where near what the other side is doing. I have never seen (or heard) of our military be-heading a prisoner. Having seen some of the living conditions where the battles are taking place the compounds where we house the POW's may not be the Ritz Carlton but it sure looks to be a step up from where they came from. As far as I am concerned if they have a prisoner who can tell them where even one of our soldiers is being held, and they might be able to save his/her life...take a battery and remember red is HOT and attach it where it will provide the best response!
As far as not agreeing with the administration. I guess thats why we vote again in 4 years. Our administration isn't like some countries...Till death, or worse yet till they have no living family member to step in.
Socialized health care is not an answer to all problems. The waiting list for surgery or long term care is not anything we want to have here. People die before they can get medical care in allot of cases. At least here in the states it is possible to get emergency care, even if you have to pay the bill for a long time. (and if your low enough income you can get help from the state and federal government through Medicaid or other medical grants. Teaching hospitals offer less expensive care as well.) Remember to that even the medical insurance people carry is sometimes about useless for what its costs. Some only have IN-Patient coverage. For the most part all kids can get covered under Florida Kids Care. It's cheap and provides good care. Its the adults with the need for coverage. But if your resourceful you can get help when you need it. Till a better system comes along. 100 years ago there wasn't so many problems with medical care. Some think were better off today, I am not so sure. Sounds like you're pretty OK with the way things are. Why don't you go ahead and vote for McCain so we can have 4 to 8 more years of nothing but the same. Maybe our whole way of life will crash around us and we'll have something worse than a Great Depression. Maybe our whole society will crash. Yeah, vote for McCain and be happy.
Just My Two Cents
OkeeNarnie
I do believe the Government had some knowledge prior to the attack in September 11th. Just as out Government had some knowledge prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. They didn't have ENOUGH concrete evidence either time until it was too late. There have been times that we have been told that the Homeland Security level is raised because of things they have detected. Thankfully nothing has happened. False Alarm? I don't think so. I personally think that what they are detecting is the Terrorist Network communicating their readiness here and it's possible having practice runs.
As far as voting Democrat or Republican.... Neither of them wants to be at war. Mr. McCain acknowledges the time frame that would be needed to withdraw our troops from around the world and bring them home. Mr. Obama has stated he will bring them home right away. 2 divisions a month, I think was one statement I heard. That wouldn't be possible to accomplish.
It will take so much more time time as it's not just the people we have to move. It will be everything we have over there with the people.
The conflict has to be resolved or stopped to get just the equipment to a point where is CAN be loaded and homeward bound. Much of it will have to cross through where the fighting is to get loaded. Do you think they will just give them a pass to cross? Oh, stop fighting the US guys need to drive through so they can leave. Oh and here is the map where the mines are, wouldn't want any of you to get hurt. Have a nice day, send us a Christmas card?
Before the heavy equipment can be sent off all the supplies, everything that is used by our military to provide day to day life has to be packed up and shipped out.
And we should take into consideration the knowledge the soldiers that are there share. They believe they are doing the right thing by being there. They want to complete their mission. I realize we only know what the TV and printed word tells us. But I have spoken personally with some soldiers who have returned from over there and they said they believed they were doing the right things there. The majority of the citizens cheer when the American Soldiers arrive at their towns. They want a better life, and they believe that with the help of the soldiers there, it will happen for them.
As far as bringing our guys home, do we bring them home from everyplace or just from Afghanistan and Iraq?
|
Icare
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 12:12 pm |
|
OkeeNarnie wrote: okeegator wrote: OkeeNarnie wrote:
Do you know what I think about every time I hear people say Bring the troops home? Or when I hear President Bush (and the US government. You can't just poke a finger at the President and say it's all his fault) is wrong for keeping the soldiers over there? Then who would you blame?
We can all remember the images we saw during and after September 11, 2001. I don't ever want to experience anything even close to that again but were we to back off of the consistent vigilant watch our Government and Military maintain we could draw that conflict here to our shores and it would sweep across this country like a pandemic. Every city and town affected by bombs, battle and bloodshed. We would be the ones in the streets holding what is left of our spouses and children. We would be the refugees walking through war torn areas looking for a safe haven. I hope you realize that groups like Al-Qaeda don't operate on such a grand scale as the one you envision. They conduct asymetrical warfare rather than traditional warfare. They strike and then hide. Its not the kind of war that would bring about the scenario you describe. That is not the kind of enemy we face.
We have US Military presence all around the world. We have been out there since WWI. By being OUT THERE they have been able to keep home safe, and yes were the conflict to follow our military back to our shores our men and women of the armed forces would be here to do the same thing they are doing around the world. The mission is working towards a peaceful existence for the area they are in. What has kept us safe is the distance we have had between us and the countries we have fought. Have you noticed that we have yet to engage a first rate military power since WWII? That has been a credit to our system of alliances and our nuclear arsenal.
As far as the torture of prisoners. It's war. Interesting you say that because the U.S. convicted Japanese soldiers for war crimes for using the waterboarding techniques we use today. According to the one article, American soldiers were court-martialed for using waterboarding. Apparently we used to have a principled stand on the issue. So if it is just war, why is it okay now but not then?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
You asked who would I blame for our military being present in places where there is unrest. I don't blame any one person.
President Bush does not sit alone in his office at the white house and make all the decisions on his own. He has advisor's who get their words of wisdom from spoke persons from Congress, the House and Senate. To a point, I think, they consider public opinion but long range I don't think they believe the general public can weigh all the info and come out with a rational decision based on the facts they have at the time. President Bush went against Congress and waged war without their approval. So, in this case, he pretty much screwed up all on his own.
Terrorist warfare and Conventional warfare (if such clarification exists) are different, I agree. But what I describe could very well be what we could face. The suicide bombings. Poison in water systems. Airborne Illnesses. Once their network is completely in place whats to stop them? Maybe they ARE in place just standing by waiting for their orders. So much for distance from them...they are already here. Remember we trained them to fly those planes that crashed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
I believe we learned valuable lessons from WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam, and that our Military puts to use those lessons as they go about their missions.
You said: "So if it is war, why is it okay now but not then?" My response is that perhaps we are putting into practice what we learned from WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. We're going backwards by allowing torture because we're becoming more brutal and less diplomatic. Torture is NEVER right. Just because our president signed it into law doesn't make it right. We owe it to mankind to stand up and say, "This is not right, Mr. President".
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 12:05 pm |
|
okeegator wrote: OkeeNarnie wrote:
Do you know what I think about every time I hear people say Bring the troops home? Or when I hear President Bush (and the US government. You can't just poke a finger at the President and say it's all his fault) is wrong for keeping the soldiers over there? Then who would you blame?
We can all remember the images we saw during and after September 11, 2001. I don't ever want to experience anything even close to that again but were we to back off of the consistent vigilant watch our Government and Military maintain we could draw that conflict here to our shores and it would sweep across this country like a pandemic. Every city and town affected by bombs, battle and bloodshed. We would be the ones in the streets holding what is left of our spouses and children. We would be the refugees walking through war torn areas looking for a safe haven. I hope you realize that groups like Al-Qaeda don't operate on such a grand scale as the one you envision. They conduct asymetrical warfare rather than traditional warfare. They strike and then hide. Its not the kind of war that would bring about the scenario you describe. That is not the kind of enemy we face.
We have US Military presence all around the world. We have been out there since WWI. By being OUT THERE they have been able to keep home safe, and yes were the conflict to follow our military back to our shores our men and women of the armed forces would be here to do the same thing they are doing around the world. The mission is working towards a peaceful existence for the area they are in. What has kept us safe is the distance we have had between us and the countries we have fought. Have you noticed that we have yet to engage a first rate military power since WWII? That has been a credit to our system of alliances and our nuclear arsenal.
As far as the torture of prisoners. It's war. Interesting you say that because the U.S. convicted Japanese soldiers for war crimes for using the waterboarding techniques we use today. According to the one article, American soldiers were court-martialed for using waterboarding. Apparently we used to have a principled stand on the issue. So if it is just war, why is it okay now but not then?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
You asked who would I blame for our military being present in places where there is unrest. I don't blame any one person.
President Bush does not sit alone in his office at the white house and make all the decisions on his own. He has advisor's who get their words of wisdom from spoke persons from Congress, the House and Senate. To a point, I think, they consider public opinion but long range I don't think they believe the general public can weigh all the info and come out with a rational decision based on the facts they have at the time.
Terrorist warfare and Conventional warfar | | |