tk421;761636 wrote:How many terrorists do we create by just being in Afghanistan versus how many have we killed? I'd say our very presence in the region does more to create terrorists than we've ever killed.

But, does that outweigh the possibility of a failed Afghan state where terrorists have a haven? Or, a threat to the state of Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and is at the brink with India?

Footwedge;761569 wrote:Attacking Saddam Hussein was no assault at all in regards to an assault on radical Islam. Hussein was hated by the Muslim religious zealots for being so anti religious. Bin Ladin hated Hussein for this very reason.

Where did I say attacking Saddam did anything? That is not the point that was made.

Footwedge;761566 wrote:So the actual quotes from bin Ladin himself for the reasons he attacked us was to appease the moderate Muslims? Surely you jest. Do you want a few links quoting bin Ladin? Or do you want to google it yourself and learn the truth?

Bin Lasdin's attacks were not pre-emptive...and they were not done to appease Allah. They were done in retaliatory fashion.

The 72 virgin thing is an eyeball roller.

He needed no reason to retaliate, or rather regardless of the situation he would have come up with reasons to justify his action. It's pretty clear it was about gaining power through exploiting the poor and ignorant. Like any politician or egomaniac, the reasons or justifications are just a means to an end. And, yes, if you want to google and read some of his statements, you'll see he was basically a Hitler wannabe. It's all about power and control.

I mean, let's see. First attack on WTC was in '93, a few years after Desert Storm...So at that point we are already out of Kuwait and since it was Saddam and no one likes him....Yeah, I don't buy the bullshit reasons at all it's just saying what suits him.

tk421;761636 wrote:How many terrorists do we create by just being in Afghanistan versus how many have we killed? I'd say our very presence in the region does more to create terrorists than we've ever killed.

So shall we attempt to debate the potential threat/damage of 10 terrorists left to their own devices vs. 100 on the run and disorganized?

tk421;761636 wrote:How many terrorists do we create by just being in Afghanistan versus how many have we killed? I'd say our very presence in the region does more to create terrorists than we've ever killed.

I love this "argument". So emotional, so unprovable. But I guess that's the point.

Fortunately, I have a brain and can see through this crap.

Footwedge;761548 wrote:Yup. We are a war loving nation. European countries used to love war too. Not so much since 1950 though. They've come to realize that wars should be avoided.

N. Chamberlain and the other peace-niks in Europe did everything they could to avoid war (and reality) when Hitler occupied and reclaimed the Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia in the late 1930's. For their ignorance and stubborn refusal to confront the madman then and there (and with memories of the Great War still fresh in their minds), they were rewarded with a LONGER and BLOODIER war than the world had ever seen.

One word describes why Europeans haven't liked wars since the 1950's: Starts with an "N" and rhymes with "dukes".

Writerbuckeye;761614 wrote: I love pacifists. They think you can just leave psychotic people alone and they'll do the same. It doesn't work that way, as history has shown us over and over and over again.

Sincerely,
Neville Chamberlain

tk421;761636 wrote:How many terrorists do we create by just being in Afghanistan versus how many have we killed? I'd say our very presence in the region does more to create terrorists than we've ever killed.

gut;761654 wrote:So shall we attempt to debate the potential threat/damage of 10 terrorists left to their own devices vs. 100 on the run and disorganized?

Great point. The failed terror attempts the past few years are the direct result of the "on the run" and "disorganized" thingy. The successful attacks of the 90's (albeit not on US soil, but against Americans nonetheless) were the result of a lack of strong, swift response, which left terrorists "to their own devices" and "organized", with no fear of retaliation from the Great Paper Tiger of the West.

tk421;761636 wrote:How many terrorists do we create by just being in Afghanistan versus how many have we killed? I'd say our very presence in the region does more to create terrorists than we've ever killed.

9/11 occurred without one boot on the ground in Afghanistan. We don't create terrorists. They disagree with our foreign policy and our power over them to implement it. They willingly choose to use whatever violent force they can muster as their means to oppose it. The morality that justifies their use of force is different from ours.

Our world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Both economically and militarily. At this point in history we hold the greatest power in both. Because of our power history has shown us that those outside of it will oppose it. Some will resort to violence. Evil and unjust men throughout the world seek the seat of power. I have my issues with our federal government. I have my disagreements with their power, see it as potentially dangerous, at times outside the constitution, but at this point thankfully evil and unjust men have not grabbed a seat of power in it.

Many past empires in history have held such power (in both the aforementioned facets) over large swathes of the civilized world. Recently the Soviets (though they were rivaled at the time by our burgeoning empire), the British (the sun literally never set on the British empire), and the Ottoman empire (yes the Mooslims are imperialists as well). Before them you had the Roman empire, the Mongolian empire, the Persian empire, and the Egyptian empire. Just to name a few. All lost their power and prominence in the world. Our day will come unfortunately. We are already spending ourselves into oblivion. Maintaining an empire is quite costly. Defending yourself against one is more costly. Ask Iraq.

Of all the great powers the have existed in the world through out history, the United States has been the most benevolent with their great power. Yes we have had to be nasty at times. For the most part we have used the power we have been allowed in a just manner. Many world powers in history would not have acted as benevolent as the USA has possessing such great power over the rest of the world at times in our history.

Footwedge when and if the US falls from its prominence on the worlds stage the world will be a much uglier place. I am not sure of your age (I believe you are about my Dad's age) but we have enjoyed a relatively peaceful an prosperous time in this country in the context of world history. I hope I am wrong and history does not repeat itself and we remain at the top and have the power to do what is in our best interest on the worlds playground. I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy the same. If it takes economic or military force to preserve that. Would that make me a selfish warmonger?

majorspark;761747 wrote:Footwedge when and if the US falls from its prominence on the worlds stage the world will be a much uglier place. I am not sure of your age (I believe you are about my Dad's age) but we have enjoyed a relatively peaceful an prosperous time in this country in the context of world history. I hope I am wrong and history does not repeat itself and we remain at the top and have the power to do what is in our best interest on the worlds playground. I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy the same. If it takes economic or military force to preserve that. Would that make me a selfish warmonger?

This is the reality of it all isn't it? Yet the peace-niks believe all we need to do is play nice in the global sandbox and all of the bin Laden's of the world will drop their arms and sing "We Are the World" and finger paint pretty flowers with us.

I'll gladly be a "selfish warmonger" if it means allowing at least one more generation enjoy the benefits of the Great American Empire.

Footwedge;761548 wrote:Yup. We are a war loving nation. European countries used to love war too. Not so much since 1950 though. They've come to realize that wars should be avoided.

LMAO Yeah, the Europeans aren't stupid. Their gubmints are all too eager to allow the United States to spend American taxpayer dollars to secure the world political stage while they struggle to finance their socialist utopias.

Not since 1950? Really? How about the French Indochina war, the Brits and the Falkland Islands, various UN actions, etc.?

believer;761750 wrote:This is the reality of it all isn't it? Yet the peace-niks believe all we need to do is play nice in the global sandbox and all of the bin Laden's of the world will drop their arms and sing "We Are the World" and finger paint pretty flowers with us.

I'll gladly be a "selfish warmonger" if it means allowing at least one more generation enjoy the benefits of the Great American Empire.

Unfortunately it is our own government that will destroy the "Great American Empire" for the next generation, not outside forces. Lincoln predicted it and it will become true in my lifetime (28 years old).

gut;761652 wrote:He needed no reason to retaliate, or rather regardless of the situation he would have come up with reasons to justify his action. It's pretty clear it was about gaining power through exploiting the poor and ignorant. Like any politician or egomaniac, the reasons or justifications are just a means to an end. And, yes, if you want to google and read some of his statements, you'll see he was basically a Hitler wannabe. It's all about power and control.

I am not defending Osama bin Ladin in any stretch. He is mass murderer. What I am saying is that that he gave specific reasons for his actions. These actions were political....and not religious...as you erroneously suggested. As for your "power and control" statement....I don't think that had anything to do with anything.

I'm not gonna write a book here on OC regarding the history of US/Britain intervention in Muslim countries. I will say this though. If you were an Irani citizen in the 1950's, and saw your elected official shitcanned in favor of a brutal dictatorial puppet of the West, human emotions would naturally take over with a true "hatred" surfacing for those that were responsible for expanding the poor, starving population. I suppose you think that the hostage crisis in 1979 was some kind of unprovoked, pre-emptive action that came out of nowhere?

I mean, let's see. First attack on WTC was in '93, a few years after Desert Storm...So at that point we are already out of Kuwait and since it was Saddam and no one likes him....Yeah, I don't buy the bullshit reasons at all it's just saying what suits him.

SMH. Again, you have very little knowledge of US/Middle Eastern geopolitics since the end of WWII.

Writerbuckeye;761668 wrote:I love this "argument". So emotional, so unprovable. But I guess that's the point.

Fortunately, I have a brain and can see through this crap.

TK asked a pointed question, and this is your responce? Childish. Let me answer his question...because the answere is not simply conjecture...as you seem to think. Our own CIA...that pinko/commie, Neville Chamberlainesque "peaceniks" group, that they are..... publicly stated on record circa 2004 that for over every terrorist we capture or kill, we create another 3.

Google it.

O-Trap;761597 wrote:
Curious. How many of those attacks were successful?

None of them were successful. It's called improving our defense programs where defense programs need to be improved. And we have done so. Protecting our borders and our citizens is what the Constitution told us to do. But to suggest that our occupation in Mesopotamia had anything to do with thwarting these attacks is utter nonsense. Our occupation over there has increased the attempted attacks...and that point has been proven.....without any room for debate.

majorspark;761747 wrote:9/11 occurred without one boot on the ground in Afghanistan. We don't create terrorists. They disagree with our foreign policy and our power over them to implement it. They willingly choose to use whatever violent force they can muster as their means to oppose it. The morality that justifies their use of force is different from ours.

How exactly is there morality different? They are extremists that are at war with people they believe have stolen and robbed from them. They do not possess tanks, B-52's, or stealth equipment. They are war mongers....just as we are. They love war...just as we do. They use military tactics that suit their budget and their needs. The Irish Catholics used the same tactics. Or the Lehi Group, an Al Quada clone Israeli group of terrorists operated by none other than Menachin Begin in the 1930's.

Footwedge when and if the US falls from its prominence on the worlds stage the world will be a much uglier place.

So it's our job to police the whole goddam world because of some perceived notion that if we don't do it, rogues will? Bear in mind, we owe over 14 trillion dollars to countries, banks, and other entities...money that we don't have. Spark...you and I have had this discussion before. You believe that the human instict is to be barbaric. History has shown so far that you are correct. But here's an idea. How about no world hegemons running shit? Everybody takes care of themselves?

I am not sure of your age (I believe you are about my Dad's age) but we have enjoyed a relatively peaceful an prosperous time in this country in the context of world history. I hope I am wrong and history does not repeat itself and we remain at the top and have the power to do what is in our best interest on the worlds playground. I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy the same. If it takes economic or military force to preserve that. Would that make me a selfish warmonger?

I am not your dad's age...I am your age. If your goals are what you have listed above, then you must understand that the cost of world dominance is bankrupting the future of your kids and grand kids. Our standard of living is digressing....and there is no stopping this economic runaway train to complete and total economic destruction.

Footwedge;761809 wrote:TK asked a pointed question, and this is your responce? Childish. Let me answer his question...because the answere is not simply conjecture...as you seem to think. Our own CIA...that pinko/commie, Neville Chamberlainesque "peaceniks" group, that they are..... publicly stated on record circa 2004 that for over every terrorist we capture or kill, we create another 3.

Google it.

There is absolutely no way to prove what you wrote. None. Nada. Zip. I don't care how many "sources" you throw out there. Short of producing a list of names (and it would have to be one that's on-going) you can't prove your point -- which is why I say it's nonsense. And the CIA is faaaaaaar from perfect in its evaluations of foreign policy.

Footwedge;761820 wrote:None of them were successful. It's called improving our defense programs where defense programs need to be improved. And we have done so. Protecting our borders and our citizens is what the Constitution told us to do. But to suggest that our occupation in Mesopotamia had anything to do with thwarting these attacks is utter nonsense. Our occupation over there has increased the attempted attacks...and that point has been proven.....without any room for debate.

Actually, correlation doesn't prove causation, so there is. I'm not suggesting that we should have gone over, but once we're over there, it would be foolish to leave something that is ready to collapse.

I would honestly defer to the troops over there. If they are there because they're following orders, and they don't think they should be, then we should come home. If they believe that we're there to accomplish something, and that the reasons are good ones, I say we stay.

I'm not naive enough to think that I know all the reasons we're there, or that I know all the factors involved, which is why I haven't gotten that vigorously into this discussion. However, I would suggest that using the increased attempted attacks on our soil is a counterproductive argument thus far, because our defense has pitched a shutout to date against them since we've been over there.

Writerbuckeye;761539 wrote:How cleverly (not really) disingenuous of you.

How many attacks occurred on US SOIL after 9-11 again? Oh that's right -- NONE. I don't know about you, but I think that's an accomplishment to be proud of.

Well I mean, how many terrorist attacks (ones you'd consider terrorist attacks IE: Muslims as that seems the de-facto standard for what defines terrorism for a lot of people) on US soil were there in the decade before 9/11 or before that?

majorspark;761747 wrote:9/11 occurred without one boot on the ground in Afghanistan. We don't create terrorists. They disagree with our foreign policy and our power over them to implement it. They willingly choose to use whatever violent force they can muster as their means to oppose it. The morality that justifies their use of force is different from ours.

Our world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Both economically and militarily. At this point in history we hold the greatest power in both. Because of our power history has shown us that those outside of it will oppose it. Some will resort to violence. Evil and unjust men throughout the world seek the seat of power. I have my issues with our federal government. I have my disagreements with their power, see it as potentially dangerous, at times outside the constitution, but at this point thankfully evil and unjust men have not grabbed a seat of power in it.

Many past empires in history have held such power (in both the aforementioned facets) over large swathes of the civilized world. Recently the Soviets (though they were rivaled at the time by our burgeoning empire), the British (the sun literally never set on the British empire), and the Ottoman empire (yes the Mooslims are imperialists as well). Before them you had the Roman empire, the Mongolian empire, the Persian empire, and the Egyptian empire. Just to name a few. All lost their power and prominence in the world. Our day will come unfortunately. We are already spending ourselves into oblivion. Maintaining an empire is quite costly. Defending yourself against one is more costly. Ask Iraq.

Of all the great powers the have existed in the world through out history, the United States has been the most benevolent with their great power. Yes we have had to be nasty at times. For the most part we have used the power we have been allowed in a just manner. Many world powers in history would not have acted as benevolent as the USA has possessing such great power over the rest of the world at times in our history.

Footwedge when and if the US falls from its prominence on the worlds stage the world will be a much uglier place. I am not sure of your age (I believe you are about my Dad's age) but we have enjoyed a relatively peaceful an prosperous time in this country in the context of world history. I hope I am wrong and history does not repeat itself and we remain at the top and have the power to do what is in our best interest on the worlds playground. I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy the same. If it takes economic or military force to preserve that. Would that make me a selfish warmonger?

They all lost their power because they abused the shit out of it and people got tired of it. Yet many on here, including you seem to be content with us doing whatever we want just because we can. Eventually we're going to piss enough people off that they will wreck our shit. Just like we did the British, etc. People can only take so much pushing around before they flip out. So when people suggest being more diplomatic at times it's not because they're pussies or weak or anything, it's just they don't think being the world's biggest dick is good policy for a country even if you're powerful enough to get away with it at the time.

tk421;761636 wrote:How many terrorists do we create by just being? I'd say our very presence creates terrorists

Fixed your question as it was too long.

^^^^LOL, yeah, they hate us just because....? They hate us because we are free? I love when people use that argument as it makes no sense and has no logic behind it.

Stevie Wonder > us.

Tina Turner... not so much.

Michael = the Man

Michael's outfit... not so much!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne7fPpxAnuM

dwccrew;762046 wrote:^^^^LOL, yeah, they hate us just because....? They hate us because we are free? I love when people use that argument as it makes no sense and has no logic behind it.

Why do they subjugate women in such a horrific way, then? Why do they believe in barbaric things like clitoris mutilation? Why do they want a world governed by strict Sharia Law, as opposed to a Democratic form of government with more freedoms?

It's all about CONTROL and you can't have that when the world is full of freedom-loving individuals. If you're going to rid the world if the infidel, then that means you've got to exterminate them, because they probably won't convert to Islam willingly.

So yes...they hate us because of WHO we are.

Footwedge;761803 wrote:SMH. Again, you have very little knowledge of US/Middle Eastern geopolitics since the end of WWII.

No, I undertand it quite well - and I mean, shit, lets just go back to the middle ages and blame the Crusades while we're at it. I disagree with you that it is motivated by politics, especially when they use radical Islam as their basis where, at it's twisted heart is the belief Muslims should rule the world and non-muslims are a second-tier lifeform. Terrorism is not officially sanctioned - it can't be political in the sense it's not a political/sovereign tool. In that regard they are not that different from Timothy McVeigh's group. The leaders of such groups are almost always in it for the power and are not true believers - they ask people to be martyrs but when it comes to themself they hid and run. Speaking and acting like a politician while not using political means to your goals pretty much says it all.

I think it's naive not to acknowledge the problem runs much deeper than politics. Most every country has its own homegrown dissidents. It's not hard to find a group somewhere that disagrees with some political or economic policy. I reject the idea that if we were/are hands-off the middle east that terrorism magically disappears. It will just become US economic policy keeping them down - there will always be a "reason" because you have people looking for a reason. In a global world it's impossible not to give ammunition to these dissident groups. And what you really have are people gaining power by exploiting the poor and ignorant, and the Koran.

Writerbuckeye;762102 wrote:Why do they subjugate women in such a horrific way, then? Why do they believe in barbaric things like clitoris mutilation? Why do they want a world governed by strict Sharia Law, as opposed to a Democratic form of government with more freedoms?

They may choose to live their lives like this, but this is not why they hate us. They hate us because we try to impose our "democracy" on them and they don't want to live their lives that way. They want us to quit meddling in their affairs.

Writerbuckeye;762102 wrote:It's all about CONTROL and you can't have that when the world is full of freedom-loving individuals. If you're going to rid the world if the infidel, then that means you've got to exterminate them, because they probably won't convert to Islam willingly.

So yes...they hate us because of WHO we are.

This is simply not true. Osama Bin Laden even stated that if the US removed its armies from the land of Mohammed that only then would there be peace. It was never about religion. Now I am not justifying OBL's actions at all, just stating what he was quoted as listing as the reason for his hatred towards the west. It was never because we are "free", it's because we have had a military and political influence in the ME for decades and it has backfired on us.

I still can't believe that some people believe that their hatred is based upon the notion that we are free. They hate us because of our support of Israel and our foreign policy in that region.

Yep. I'd believe anything OBL said. He never lied, I'm just sure of it.

Writer has it dead on. The Islamofascists would love nothing better than to decree Sharia law across the planet. This would include women in veils walking behind men, women having their genitals mutilated, stoning till death for assumed adultery, 4 daily prayer sessions, and mandatory conversion to Islam. Is it any wonder these nutcakes hate us? Yes, dwc, they hate freedom and all it entails. You are right about the Israeli connection, but it's just an "..and then" argument, not the sole source. Terrorism did NOT start with Osama. We can hope it is lessened because he got whacked, but it likely won't end.