Approach On The War In Iraq

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

But didn't you know? Morality has no place on the battlefield! </sarcasm>

I agree with you 100% (I can thank my liberal university education and minor in philosophy for that! ).

That is why you should not be in charge of fighting a war and protecting our citizens. Your naiveness certainly would equate to many dead Americans, although your intentions would be good which is all that matters.

Do you think morality ever is in our enemies intentions? Believe me our enemies are laughing their asses off when they see our liberal politicians are more interested in protecting their rights than protecting their own citizens.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

Conservatives act. Liberals ponder. Moderates sit on the sidelines and watch.

B.T.W. I love Star Wars. I just think it is sad using movies and fiction to formulate policy on a war where real people's lives are at stake. On a side note why do the bad guys have cooler uniforms?

Thank god - if you didn't like Star Wars I think all hope would be lost

I don't think the comments I made or the allegory drawn by George Lucas are about formulating policy on war. However, I do think it is OK to challenge the actions of our leaders when they are seeking to manipulate us as Bush did with the 'you are with us or against us' tactic.

I would slightly alter you phrase as follows:

Conservatives act without thinking, Liberals think without acting and moderates sit on the sidelines and watch.

I honestly think that some problems have no easy solution and that the best action is occasionally inaction.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

Do you think morality ever is in our enemies intentions? Believe me our enemies are laughing their asses off when they see our liberal politicians are more interested in protecting their rights than protecting their own citizens.

Are you suggesting that we lower our moral standards because they are higher than those of our enemy?

If we do that there is no point in fighting, because we have already lost.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Are you suggesting that we lower our moral standards because they are higher than those of our enemy?

If we do that there is no point in fighting, because we have already lost.

I am saying we must do whatever it takes to defeat our enemies. Everything else is moot if we are dead. It is very simple.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I honestly think that some problems have no easy solution and that the best action is occasionally inaction.

So you would support the efforts of Chamberlain rather than Churchill leading up to WWII? I see today's struggle with the Muslim extremists as a repeat of what happened then. There are so many people that want to appease the terrorists and countries like Iran, and some of us who realize the threat and realize the danger of inaction.

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

That is why you should not be in charge of fighting a war and protecting our citizens. Your naiveness certainly would equate to many dead Americans, although your intentions would be good which is all that matters.

Do you think morality ever is in our enemies intentions? Believe me our enemies are laughing their asses off when they see our liberal politicians are more interested in protecting their rights than protecting their own citizens.

I feel like I'm going to get that speech from Col. Jessep towards the end of "A Few Good Men."

Oddly enough, our enemies think that what they are doing *is* moral.

Needforspeed's comment about lowering our moral standards to that of our enemy is perfect. Are we any better than them if we violate our own principles? Or, as you say, is the only important objective that the U.S. win, regardless of the cost to other nations and people?

[SoCalS2k]

I think the problem here is the basic premise of the argument.

Lets start from scratch.

If you actually believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and had plans to not only use said weapons but to filter them to terroists and other meanies then what the USA did was perfectly legit and the logical move.

Now about 65% of the nation believed that to be true of iraq and 35% didnt believe it when those lies were being spread.

This was immediatly post 9/11 so most people were too unified and/or frightened to challenge the ascertion of the bush administration that Iraq had these weapons and had the plans to use them/spread them.

Now we know this is all false. I think myself and the other ppl in this thread fall into that 35% category that had some sense and knew bush was lieing and just drumming up american support for his war.

----------

Lets fast forward to today.

The new lie thats being spread is that islamic fascists are out there trying to convert the entire world to islam and will kill you and your family if you don't convert.

If you believe that premise to be true, then sure we should fight them vigorously and stop that way of thought/life from taking root.

However the thought is so crazy you have to be either very uneducated or just that much in love with bush to believe it. Islam is not a religion that just appeared on 9/11. do you really think these muslims just randomly decided to convert the whole world 2-3 weeks ago and will stop at nothing to do that? Does that make any sense at all?

Or rather does it make better sense that bush et al. have been having a hard time selling their policies so now they are using this as an excuse (they have a new excuse for their wars everytime the public opinion turns against them..

Heres the list of reasons/excuses:

9/11
then became saddam funded mohammed atta
then became saddam is making WMD
then became saddam is giving WMD to osama
then became free the iraqi people
then became fight terrorists there not here
then became islamic fascists want to rule the world.

wake up and smell the coffee my "neo-conservative" friends. You're sheep following the wolf to a T.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

I feel like I'm going to get that speech from Col. Jessep towards the end of "A Few Good Men."

Oddly enough, our enemies think that what they are doing *is* moral.

Needforspeed's comment about lowering our moral standards to that of our enemy is perfect. Are we any better than them if we violate our own principles? Or, as you say, is the only important objective that the U.S. win, regardless of the cost to other nations and people?

So you would accept your friends and family being killed as long as the terrorists were not denied any of their rights?

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by SoCalS2k

I think the problem here is the basic premise of the argument.

Lets start from scratch.

If you actually believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and had plans to not only use said weapons but to filter them to terroists and other meanies then what the USA did was perfectly legit and the logical move.

Now about 65% of the nation believed that to be true of iraq and 35% didnt believe it when those lies were being spread.

This was immediatly post 9/11 so most people were too unified and/or frightened to challenge the ascertion of the bush administration that Iraq had these weapons and had the plans to use them/spread them.

Now we know this is all false. I think myself and the other ppl in this thread fall into that 35% category that had some sense and knew bush was lieing and just drumming up american support for his war.

----------

Lets fast forward to today.

The new lie thats being spread is that islamic fascists are out there trying to convert the entire world to islam and will kill you and your family if you don't convert.

If you believe that premise to be true, then sure we should fight them vigorously and stop that way of thought/life from taking root.

However the thought is so crazy you have to be either very uneducated or just that much in love with bush to believe it. Islam is not a religion that just appeared on 9/11. do you really think these muslims just randomly decided to convert the whole world 2-3 weeks ago and will stop at nothing to do that? Does that make any sense at all?

Or rather does it make better sense that bush et al. have been having a hard time selling their policies so now they are using this as an excuse (they have a new excuse for their wars everytime the public opinion turns against them..

Heres the list of reasons/excuses:

9/11
then became saddam funded mohammed atta
then became saddam is making WMD
then became saddam is giving WMD to osama
then became free the iraqi people
then became fight terrorists there not here
then became islamic fascists want to rule the world.

wake up and smell the coffee my "neo-conservative" friends. You're sheep following the wolf to a T.

Can you support any of these false claims? The whole world knows their were WMD's in Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam is currently being tried for using them on his own people. Keep listening to the news!

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

So you would accept your friends and family being killed as long as the terrorists were not denied any of their rights?

Would you be proud to be an American regardless of how low you had to go to get to your desired end?

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

Would you be proud to be an American regardless of how low you had to go to get to your desired end?

I'm always proud to be an American. If you are ashamed you should reside elsewhere. No matter how bad you liberals think we are, we are never close to being as bad as our enemies. You have some irrational belief that we live in some sort of utopia and if we are nice to our enemies they will be nice to us.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

Oddly enough, our enemies think that what they are doing *is* moral.

Why do you keep equating us with our enemies? Do you have that low of an opinion of your own country? Very sad. Only someone who does not get what our enemy is about would equate us with them.

Originally Posted by nostrum09

Needforspeed's comment about lowering our moral standards to that of our enemy is perfect. Are we any better than them if we violate our own principles? Or, as you say, is the only important objective that the U.S. win, regardless of the cost to other nations and people?

What would be an acceptable cost to you to win the war on terror? If we surpass that point would you be OK with loosing?

[SoCalS2k]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

Can you support any of these false claims? The whole world knows their were WMD's in Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam is currently being tried for using them on his own people. Keep listening to the news!

I cannot prove a negative, noone can. I cannot prove to you that he didn't have them, but thats not important, whats important is CAN YOU PROVE THAT HE DID HAVE THEM. "neo-conservatives" dont understand this basic premise of logic, that you cannot prove a negative.

There has been absolutly no evidence of WMD in Iraq, president bush himself conceded this point (it didnt matter at that time because he had already shifted the converstaion too the topic of "lets save the iraqi people" so it was a moot point). Now that its clear we aren't saving any iraqi people, the conversation is moving to the next thing on the bush agenda.

I dont keep up with the news because I dont use news bites as my primary source of knowledge of the world. This is a sad state of affairs when someone quotes the news as a source of reliable knowledge.

So in summary/response, Can you prove to me that there are not an army of invisible aliens amasing as we speak on the moon ???? Lets invade the moon. YOU CANT PROVE A NEGATIVE. THATS WHY A PERSON IS CONSIDERED INNOCENT BEFORE GUILTY. THATS WHY YOU NEED PROOF BEFORE YOU TAKE ACTION. You would figure this would be common sense.

BTW: Saddam is being tried for crimes against his people, you believe we invaded Iraq because he used biological weapons against Iranians in the 80s and against kurdish uprisings?!?! By that token we should have invaded half the African nations by now.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

I am saying we must do whatever it takes to defeat our enemies. Everything else is moot if we are dead. It is very simple.

Then you are wrong.

The end does not justify the means and there is absolutely no point in fighting for freedom if you do not respect it.

Incidentally can you explain the concept of losing or winning the war on terror?

If the allies 'win' do you believe we will achieve a situation where there is no terrorism?

If we lose do we all die?

Fortunately our country's leaders both military and political do not think as you do. We are not prepared to win 'at any cost'.

[PorscheBMW]

Like all debates on politics, religion and war, no one has a monopoly on the truth. All I can offer to this discussion is an article I wrote last memorial day. http://www.******.com/Memorial%20Day.htm

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by SoCalS2k

I cannot prove to you that he didn't have them, but thats not important, whats important is CAN YOU PROVE THAT HE DID HAVE THEM.

Here is some information that you didn't know, or care to overlook. I guess you have no experience with this kind of stuff like I do, and can not understand that there is a lot of information that will never be released to the public that the President has that backs his positions.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48827

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf

B.T.W. know what terms mean when you label people...
from Wikipedia
"Some of those identified as neoconservatives refuse to embrace the term. Critics argue that it lacks coherent definition, that it is coherent only in a Cold War context, or is used as a pejorative by anti-Semites. See e.g. Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, in a letter from Washington for Sunday, April 6, 2003:

First, "neo-conservative" is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.
The fact that the use of the term "neoconservative" has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker, offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying:

[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not. "

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Fortunately our country's leaders both military and political do not think as you do. We are not prepared to win 'at any cost'.

I agree with our military and political leaders, so I would say they think like I do. Like I've said before, no matter how bad you think the US is we never stoop to the levels of our enemies. We don't need to in order to win! On the other hand we do need some basic tools that we have had since the founding of our country that liberals are trying to take away from us to fight this war. That is what I'm talking about. None of us want to do these evil things you must think I am asking for. Americans are not monsters like you apparently think!

[SoCalS2k]

Antisemitism? lol I think you are really pushing your luck my friend. I think 99% of americans with a brain don't put the term "neo-conservative" as meaning Jewish.

Neo conservative to most people means, Neo, conservative. People who consider themselves conservatives but are of a newer (neo) ideology. The new ideology of the Neo-conservatives is a very hawkish policy on war and foreign policy. I consider myself a conservative of the reagan era and I use that term neo-conservative to describe a complete changing of the conservative ideals that has come about with the most recent bush administration.

How that has anything to do with Jews except for your really ambiguous references that noone else seems to identify with is really beyond me.


Now going back to your "references" which are obscure quotes from people who have a significant interest in the outcome of the events. These reports and accounts are completly meaningless.. In a court of law they would be considered heresay. Completly pointless. I can probably find you a general that says Australia had WMD from iraq and publish that in some obscure newspaper as well. Doesn't make it true does it ? As for your inference that you have some inside knowledge of classifed military secrets, get off your delusion, you know absolutly nothing more then every other american does, your not special and are not privy to any special information.

In short, I seriously am worried about you. All these various sources you claim as references, the new york sun and wikipedia!! are not any kind of source of information. This is the sad state of education in this country where people think media accounts of history are fact. And americans wonder why our country is falling off the map in terms of education.. or they don't care. I think we'll only care when we get old and our doctor is some idiot who got his medical training from wikipedia.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

I agree with our military and political leaders, so I would say they think like I do. Like I've said before, no matter how bad you think the US is we never stoop to the levels of our enemies. We don't need to in order to win! On the other hand we do need some basic tools that we have had since the founding of our country that liberals are trying to take away from us to fight this war. That is what I'm talking about. None of us want to do these evil things you must think I am asking for. Americans are not monsters like you apparently think!

I don't think badly of the USA or americans at all.

But when you say stuff like this:

Originally Posted by pawarrant

I am saying we must do whatever it takes to defeat our enemies. Everything else is moot if we are dead. It is very simple.

It means that quite literally you believe that ANYTHING is acceptable if it helps 'win the war on terror'.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean this. I'm certain that you don't believe for instance that nuking the middle east is acceptable, but that isn't what you are saying.

The end does not justify the means and we have to take responsibility for all of our actions, however noble our intentions.

As I said - our leaders agree with this.

BTW - what about the question I posed about 'winning the war on terror?'.

How can this war (if you accept it is a war), be won or lost?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by PorscheBMW

Like all debates on politics, religion and war, no one has a monopoly on the truth. All I can offer to this discussion is an article I wrote last memorial day. http://www.******.com/Memorial%20Day.htm

That's a very good and well written article and a point well made.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

That's a very good and well written article and a point well made.

agreed

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

BTW - what about the question I posed about 'winning the war on terror?'.

How can this war (if you accept it is a war), be won or lost?

This is a difficult war to win. I don't think people realize that it will probably last longer than our life time. This war is unique since 1 terrorist can cause so much death and destruction. Unfortunately because of the terrorist's mind set they have dictated that every last one of them must be killed or captured to end the threat. I acknowledge that this is impossible. Although, the American people will not stand for another major event in the US especially a nuke or bio attack. If this were to occur I don't think our leaders will sit back and try to go after a handful of people. As in any war, I believe we will win when peace is achieved. Like I said, the terrorists are not rational and will not surrender until they are ball dead or captured.