Honesty About Iraq

blackredyellow wrote:

but we will never defeat terrorism militarily... it can't be done.

I would much rather focus our energy and money on our on citizens and as far as foreign policy goes, directing that energy and money to help combat the roots of terrorism, not invade countries and create more terrorist.

We will never be able to stop a dozen madmen from carrying out a terrorist attack... All we are doing now is creating countless more people who have the desire to carry out a terrorist attack against us.

The only good thing that is going on by creating more terrorists and terrorist groups so quickly, is that we have an opening to get some intelligence operatives to infiltrate these groups, but I have a suspicion that we aren't even accomplishing that.

I would argue then that the key objective would be to make ourselves independent of oil. Then the war will end. We'll have no reason to promote democracy there, (see Darfur).

I agree that nation building isn't going so well. I don't know if that's because it's not possible or it's because of who is running it, but we'll assume a little of both. But fighting terrorism is essential. Just because it cannot be completely irradicated does not mean resources are simply better used elsewhere. Staying on the offensive is key. Look at all the terror plots we've stopped since 9/11. None of them occurred via military means, but rather through intelligence, breaking down barriers of communication between law enforcement agencies, the Patriot Act, etc.

That's my kind of offense.

But until we find an oil solution, we're stuck putting boots on the ground in the MidEast. Either way, I'd rank anti-terrorism and alternative energy as #1 and #1a on this country's priority list, not a national healthcare plan or education. (JMHO)

Cosmo wrote:

...
Okay... US American people cannot stomach the deaths of our citizen soldiers for the war in Iraq... does this mean that YOU have the stomach to find their deaths as acceptable losses in the name of your 'freedom'?
So, please tell me... is there a point where the number becomes unacceptable to you? I mean, are you in it for the long haul... where the number of flag draped coffins and body bags reaches what... 10,000? 100,000? And it's still okay. At what number does it become unacceptable losses?

I seriously just don't understand the logic. On 9/11 we lost 1,000 lives...everything changed and now we have to aggressively fight terror to keep this from ever happening again. We do this by sending even more people to Iraq to die and while we're at...infuriate the arab world by our reckless behavior which has killed hundreds of thousand of them???? How has this war stopped any terrorism or solved anything at all. Even Saddam wouldn't have killed this many people in just 4 years.

jlew24asu wrote:

:rolleyes:

whatcha rollin' those eyes about, jlew? hmmm?

BUSH-lager wrote:

Fighting terrorism is essential in preserving the health and care of our citizens.

Fighting terrorism is also essentially fueling more terrorism, so now we are fucking ourselves over double. I bet there's 10x more potential terrorists now than before we invaded Iraq.

I'm not necessarily anti-war, I'm just using common sense how about people work given the case of terrorism.

jlew24asu wrote:

yes I know. and i'm saying there is a difference between 3000 innocent people dying and brave soldiers dying on the battlefield. which is in response to his silly "hunt bush" comment

They may be brave, but are they soldiers? Right me if im wrong but isnt the most "soldiers" just poor people who have no work and goes to Iraq for money?

How many of the 100 senators has sons in Iraq?

Byrnzie wrote:

Promote democracy there? Is that what our military is doing? Promoting democracy? I'd be surprised to find that many soldiers - i.e, trained killers - even know what the word 'democracy' means.

...
Something I hear from Iraq War veterans... The irony of Iraq is that the soldiers who are 'Spreading Democracy' in Iraq... do not get to experience Democracy. They can't vote and decide to stay in the Green Zone and play in the swimming pools. They are told what to do, when to do it and how long they have to do it.
...
And the the ones who prepare for and fight in Wars are the ones who pray the hardest for peace.

Byrnzie wrote:

Too many people on this thread speak as if 9/11 was year zero and occurred out of a vacuum of history.
You think the U.S was innocent prior to 9/11? You think that the 10 years of sanctions in Iraq which caused over 1 million child deaths, or the 100% unconditional support for Israel weren't seen by people in that region as provocative?

...
I believe that Americans who use September 11th, 2001 as justification for occupation of Iraq are doing a great dishonor to the dead. Don't use their names to justify more killing.

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Fighting terrorism is also essentially fueling more terrorism, so now we are fucking ourselves over double. I bet there's 10x more potential terrorists now than before we invaded Iraq.

I'm not necessarily anti-war, I'm just using common sense how about people work given the case of terrorism.

You gotta read my other post. I'm not promoting the military/nation building aspect of the war on terror. I think the real way we "Stay on the offensive" is to rid ourselves of the crutch that is oil, and keep up intelligence tactics that have stopped dozens of terror plots since 9/11.

Kann wrote:

While it may seem good that the authorities have the means to fight off terrorism you have to draw the line somewhere. Because you cannot know if in a few years your meeting up with pj fans to listen to their last album will not be considered "preparation for a terror plot".
There might actually be other ways to elude terrorism.

I understand the civil liberties arguement, but it's still the best road to take in my opinion. I don't know what the "other ways" are. I'm not for trying to "understand" fanatics, or sympathize with their complaints about our society, etc. And I'm not for radically adjusting the American way of life.

I'm also not for sacrificing American lives on an endless trail, which is what we're dealing with. The military front is not succeeding, because as the original article in this thread states;

"...in the gruesome equation cast the American engineers into the role of the incompetent or sinister by their failure to repair and rebuild faster than an illiterate can destroy."

These people are savages. They are animalistic in their crude disregard for life. They'll blow up anything and everything, which is why no matter how much we outnumber them, they will be able to cause a climate of chaos. But we're forced to stay there because we need what that region has to offer. Eliminate that, and you eliminate our presence.

Then, you keep up the intelligence tactics, renew the Pat. Act, keep law enforcement (from Homeland Security down to the town cop) talking, and you have a much better solution than boots & blood in the mud.

I think most liberal minded people would settle with the compromise of having to keep a close watch on the gov't reaching too far with its surveilance, in exchange for an end to our military presence in Iraq.

I do appreciate that threat as well, don't get me wrong. I'm not writing off that concern as liberal paranoia, I just think that's a bridge I'm willing to cross down the road. First thing's first. Right now I want to get everybody home, while maintaining security and America's way of life.