Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Thu 03-28-2024 11:38PM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 11-08-2007 7:34PM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Wed 08-20-2003 9:47AM
Posts: 570

Source: VPN
karl wrote:
Non-intervention is just fine... as long as doing so doesn't increase the risk to national security. When it is in our interest to act, we must: and I hope we will continue to do so. 'Accommodation-ism' doesn't work with our enemies, negotiations don't work with our enemies, non-intervention doesn't work with our enemies, and Ron Paul's stance on those issues would absolutely destroy any prospects of peace anytime in the near future.


He voted for the military action in Afghanistan and against the military action in Iraq... I don't see anything wrong with that since Al-Qaeda is based in Afghanistan, and not Iraq... Actually, that makes perfect sense to me.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 11-08-2007 7:39PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: MST Wireless
Altaica wrote:
karl wrote:
Non-intervention is just fine... as long as doing so doesn't increase the risk to national security. When it is in our interest to act, we must: and I hope we will continue to do so. 'Accommodation-ism' doesn't work with our enemies, negotiations don't work with our enemies, non-intervention doesn't work with our enemies, and Ron Paul's stance on those issues would absolutely destroy any prospects of peace anytime in the near future.


He voted for the military action in Afghanistan and against the military action in Iraq... I don't see anything wrong with that since Al-Qaeda is based in Afghanistan, and not Iraq... Actually, that makes perfect sense to me.


Please read the foreign policy section on his website.

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 11-08-2007 8:09PM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Wed 08-20-2003 9:47AM
Posts: 570

Source: VPN
karl wrote:
Altaica wrote:
karl wrote:
Non-intervention is just fine... as long as doing so doesn't increase the risk to national security. When it is in our interest to act, we must: and I hope we will continue to do so. 'Accommodation-ism' doesn't work with our enemies, negotiations don't work with our enemies, non-intervention doesn't work with our enemies, and Ron Paul's stance on those issues would absolutely destroy any prospects of peace anytime in the near future.


He voted for the military action in Afghanistan and against the military action in Iraq... I don't see anything wrong with that since Al-Qaeda is based in Afghanistan, and not Iraq... Actually, that makes perfect sense to me.


Please read the foreign policy section on his website.


Looks pretty good to me.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 11-08-2007 8:38PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: MST Wireless
Goodness... ok, I didn't want to do this, but here goes. This is mostly based on history, facts, and common sense to those of you who don't pay attention to the former and have little of the latter.

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information."

There is no question that Hussein was a threat to America. If given the opportunity (whether he had weapons or not), he would acquire and use them against us and our allies. It is my opinion that we entered into war there much too late. (This is just A reason)

"The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it."

Combat zone danger > no combat zone danger... way to state the obvious. However, is it better to live under oppression than risk life to gain freedom? I don't think so.

"We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists..."

Not sure how I get this is a bad thing (never mind that it may not be true), and I don't know of any real evidence showing "Recruitment's up" for Jihadis.

"We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again."

It is WAR, and as long as there is civilization, there has been and will be war. People who believe otherwise are truly delusional.

"We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America."

Defending America? That's what we're doing over there: fighting for national security... and besides, I don't believe the continental United States is at risk of a conventional invasion.

"And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women."

News to me, and I don't see why we would need one anyway.

"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

This I agree with... I hate the UN.

"Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised."

This also should be more carefully monitored.

"Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Great finish! Except for the fact that his foreign policy would negate many of these perks. The stability of many nations and regions of the globe rely on a US military presence. Open trade with these regions would be impossible, as removing troops from several parts of the world would cause those areas to turn to turmoil. Diplomacy: fine, if it works. However, for the case at hand (war on terror), this WILL NOT WORK, and it is ridiculous to think otherwise. The ultranationalist communists we fought in Vietnam had nothing compared to the blind religiously-driven resolve that our enemy has now. Attempts at diplomacy only boost the confidence of enemy leaders who have consistently expressed that their only desire is to destroy the great Satan (that's their name for the United States, by the way).

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 11-08-2007 8:49PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri 09-03-2004 8:00PM
Posts: 438

Source: VPN
Lets let Ron Paul be the president of something just so he shuts up. Maybe president of internet trolls...


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 11-08-2007 9:10PM 
Offline
pwned by heretic
pwned by heretic

Joined: Sun 09-19-2004 4:41PM
Posts: 755
Location: The Buffalo Barn

Source: CivilE Building
karl wrote:

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information."

There is no question that Hussein was a threat to America. If given the opportunity (whether he had weapons or not), he would acquire and use them against us and our allies. It is my opinion that we entered into war there much too late. (This is just A reason)


Hell, if i had the super powers, i would erase George Bush's memory. Does that mean that I should be killed? I am not actively trying to get super powers, but am interested in them.

You dont go after somebody for what they want to do, you go after them for what they are doing. He wasnt even planning, we didnt go after him for trying to purchase weapons, just for wanting them.

_________________
TST


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 11-09-2007 12:29AM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: VPN
dannyboyfx wrote:
You dont go after somebody for what they want to do, you go after them for what they are doing. He wasnt even planning, we didnt go after him for trying to purchase weapons, just for wanting them.


Just out of curiousity, how do you know this? For that matter, can you really know that he never had them? How do we know what he did or didn't have?

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 11-09-2007 12:34AM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Wed 08-20-2003 9:47AM
Posts: 570

Source: VPN
jthxv wrote:
dannyboyfx wrote:
You dont go after somebody for what they want to do, you go after them for what they are doing. He wasnt even planning, we didnt go after him for trying to purchase weapons, just for wanting them.


Just out of curiousity, how do you know this? For that matter, can you really know that he never had them? How do we know what he did or didn't have?


Well, the fact that their entire presentation to the UN was a complete fabrication isn't very encouraging.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 11-09-2007 11:01AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: MST Wireless
tommytomtomtom wrote:
Lets let Ron Paul be the president of something just so he shuts up. Maybe president of internet trolls...


I think he's got that one! But really, I think Ron Paul is just as surprised as everyone else that he is so popular among that strange group.

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 11-09-2007 11:11AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: MST Wireless
dannyboyfx wrote:
You dont go after somebody for what they want to do, you go after them for what they are doing. He wasnt even planning, we didnt go after him for trying to purchase weapons, just for wanting them.


That idea is absolutely ridiculous. It is in our very best interest to act BEFORE something happens. Maybe we should just wait until ICBMs are actually on their way before we do anything... er, no: that's a bad idea.

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 11-09-2007 11:28AM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Wed 08-20-2003 9:47AM
Posts: 570

Source: VPN
karl wrote:
dannyboyfx wrote:
You dont go after somebody for what they want to do, you go after them for what they are doing. He wasnt even planning, we didnt go after him for trying to purchase weapons, just for wanting them.


That idea is absolutely ridiculous. It is in our very best interest to act BEFORE something happens. Maybe we should just wait until ICBMs are actually on their way before we do anything... er, no: that's a bad idea.


I'm all for defending our country, but you have to draw the line somewhere between what is a justified use of force, money, LIVES,... and what is not. We can't be Team America World Police...


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 11-09-2007 11:37AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: MST Wireless
Altaica wrote:
karl wrote:
dannyboyfx wrote:
You dont go after somebody for what they want to do, you go after them for what they are doing. He wasnt even planning, we didnt go after him for trying to purchase weapons, just for wanting them.


That idea is absolutely ridiculous. It is in our very best interest to act BEFORE something happens. Maybe we should just wait until ICBMs are actually on their way before we do anything... er, no: that's a bad idea.


I'm all for defending our country, but you have to draw the line somewhere between what is a justified use of force, money, LIVES,... and what is not. We can't be Team America World Police...


No matter where we draw the line, there will be people complaining that it was drawn at the wrong time. In this case, we waited about over a decade too long to remove Saddam, with the 'hope' that he would come around and see our way in things. A pretty stupid assumption that has now cost us much more than it likely would have then. So yes, the line was drawn far too late in this case.

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 11-09-2007 2:32PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 09-05-2005 9:23PM
Posts: 2128

Source: Fidelity
karl wrote:
That idea is absolutely ridiculous. It is in our very best interest to act BEFORE something happens. Maybe we should just wait until ICBMs are actually on their way before we do anything... er, no: that's a bad idea.


Bullshit. Preemptive war? Who in god's name gives us the right to engage in preemptive war? And this Iraq CONFLICT was not a war. Congress never declared such a resolution. This war is illegal and we need to be out of there.

Quote:
Goodness... ok, I didn't want to do this, but here goes. This is mostly based on history, facts, and common sense to those of you who don't pay attention to the former and have little of the latter.

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information."

There is no question that Hussein was a threat to America. If given the opportunity (whether he had weapons or not), he would acquire and use them against us and our allies. It is my opinion that we entered into war there much too late. (This is just A reason)


If if if if if... Did Saddam Hussein attack America? No. Then how do you know that he absolutely would have attacked us. That's right, there's no possible way to know.

Quote:
"The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it."

Combat zone danger > no combat zone danger... way to state the obvious. However, is it better to live under oppression than risk life to gain freedom? I don't think so.


Freedom. A good word tossed around by the Bush administration. Right now there is more turmoil 4 and a half years after Bush declared "mission accomplished" than when Saddam was in power. That being the case, we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place. Bush claimed when he was originally elected that he would uphold a policy of non-interventionism, that he would not engage in nation building. So, we went into Afghanistan. Alright, I'm cool with that. That's where al-Qaeda was. Then we defined an "axis of evil." We attacked Iraq with no reason and now have our eyes set on another preemptive CONFLICT (emphasis again on conflict, not war). However, you know what doesn't get press? The situation in North Korea, in which Kim Jong-Il is disarming his nuclear programs and the situation is not escalating like in Iran because we're using words instead of bombs.

Quote:
"We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists..."

Not sure how I get this is a bad thing (never mind that it may not be true), and I don't know of any real evidence showing "Recruitment's up" for Jihadis.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/articl ... aq/?page=2

Quote from article:

Quote:
The 2006 Rand study, prepared under a contract with the Air Force, counted 28 different groups that had formed since the US-led invasion and acknowledged that there were probably many others. A Defense Department official yesterday confirmed that the government is tracking at least 28 groups, many of them Shi'ite.


28 since we've invaded Iraq, at least!

Quote:
"We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again."

It is WAR, and as long as there is civilization, there has been and will be war. People who believe otherwise are truly delusional.


No, it is not war. Capitalizing it doesn't make it so. I'll reiterate: Congress never passed a declaration of war. Ever. So no, this is not war.

Quote:
"We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America."

Defending America? That's what we're doing over there: fighting for national security... and besides, I don't believe the continental United States is at risk of a conventional invasion.


Is a military attack the only way America can be attacked? I for one think our troops should be stationed on the border to keep illegal immigrants out of this country. If they're all overseas, that can't really happen.

Quote:
"And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women."

News to me, and I don't see why we would need one anyway.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1122/p01s01-uspo.html

I don't think we need one either.

Quote:
"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

This I agree with... I hate the UN.


Agreed. Stop involvement in the damn NAU, NAFTA, etc. as well.

Quote:
"Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised."

This also should be more carefully monitored.


Agreed, yay for traditional non-interventionism!

Quote:
"Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Great finish! Except for the fact that his foreign policy would negate many of these perks. The stability of many nations and regions of the globe rely on a US military presence. Open trade with these regions would be impossible, as removing troops from several parts of the world would cause those areas to turn to turmoil. Diplomacy: fine, if it works. However, for the case at hand (war on terror), this WILL NOT WORK, and it is ridiculous to think otherwise. The ultranationalist communists we fought in Vietnam had nothing compared to the blind religiously-driven resolve that our enemy has now. Attempts at diplomacy only boost the confidence of enemy leaders who have consistently expressed that their only desire is to destroy the great Satan (that's their name for the United States, by the way).


So attack until every man, woman, and child of Middle Eastern descent is dead? Obviously the problem is rooted in everyone there, right? Or do we just "Christianize" the region like we used to back in the good ol' days? If the problem is their religion and not their government, then we're fucked, right? No solution would ever work.

Clearly, this is absurd. The problem is not their religion, no matter how hard some want to make this into another Crusade (a la, George Bush). Do you see what I'm getting at? If we're killing people because of religion, that's illegal. If the problem is their government, then try diplomacy. And if you say we can't because of their religion (as you stated above), then you're advocating war because they're Muslim.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 11-09-2007 10:27PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10-18-2003 10:26PM
Posts: 2954
Location: Stone's throw from Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs

Source: Fidelity
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

_________________
It's still UMR to me, dammit.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 11-11-2007 8:45PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: MST Wireless
kjk437 wrote:
karl wrote:
That idea is absolutely ridiculous. It is in our very best interest to act BEFORE something happens. Maybe we should just wait until ICBMs are actually on their way before we do anything... er, no: that's a bad idea.


Bullshit. Preemptive war? Who in god's name gives us the right to engage in preemptive war? And this Iraq CONFLICT was not a war. Congress never declared such a resolution. This war is illegal and we need to be out of there.



It doesn't matter what you call it. Saddam Hussein is the reason we went it, and many things surrounding him. He needed to be removed, and Iraq will be better because of it. Violence is at its lowest level for US soldiers and Iraqi civilians in years. Al Qaida is crippled. The country isn't split. The Iraqi army is back near full strength in numbers. Millions of Iraqis are turning out for democratic elections. Territorial battles are over: US and Iraqis are now in control. Now the question isn't whether we can 'win' Iraq, but: will it survive as a democracy? and: should we be there to help? If you think 'no' to the latter, then the former is impossible.

People complain that violence is so high in Iraq now: civilians dying by the thousands due to our presence there. Consider this: there are about 25 Iraqi civilians dying per day there now (during the war). During Saddam's rule:
The big ones:
1980: Invasion of Iran: causing the deaths of about half a million.
1987: He crushed the Kurds: killing at least 100,000
1990: Kuwait: over 20,000 dead, followed by a smashing of a Shiite rebellion where 100,000 were killed

Add up mass execution, killing of those who opposed him, and other murders caused as a direct result of his actions, the number is far worse than 25 per day: around 100 per day over 24 years.

Quote:
If if if if if... Did Saddam Hussein attack America? No. Then how do you know that he absolutely would have attacked us. That's right, there's no possible way to know.


There was significant risk. It certainly would not have been better to wait until he did attack, when his own threats and his past actions definitely add incentive. Think about it awhile.

Quote:
Freedom. A good word...


See above.

Quote:
The situation in North Korea, in which Kim Jong-Il is disarming his nuclear programs and the situation is not escalating like in Iran because we're using words instead of bombs.


I doubt it. The nuclear weapons program isn't being held back by diplomacy, but that North Korea can't get it together. The following assumption is based on the history of Korea (and even communism in general, as communist nations have done nothing else to cause me to make a different assumption): I'm pretty damn sure that, no matter how many 'words' we use against them, they will develop nuclear weapons if they are able. They may be 'heeding' diplomacy as just a way to divert attention away from themselves while they scramble to be a nuclear power. This isn't an outrageous assumption.

Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articl ... aq/?page=2

Quote from article:

Quote:
The 2006 Rand study, prepared under a contract with the Air Force, counted 28 different groups that had formed since the US-led invasion and acknowledged that there were probably many others. A Defense Department official yesterday confirmed that the government is tracking at least 28 groups, many of them Shi'ite.


28 since we've invaded Iraq, at least!


A moot point, considering the situation in Iraq now, see above (and the article is 10 months old: a lot has changed in the past 10 months).

Quote:
No, it is not war. Capitalizing it doesn't make it so. I'll reiterate: Congress never passed a declaration of war. Ever. So no, this is not war.


Battling over choice of words. It doesn't matter what you call it: war, conflict, hostilities, etc. If I implied that Congress made a declaration of war, I apologize: it was not my intention.

Quote:
Is a military attack the only way America can be attacked? I for one think our troops should be stationed on the border to keep illegal immigrants out of this country. If they're all overseas, that can't really happen.


"Defending our borders" isn't all literal. Even if all of our troops were brought back, I highly doubt they would be sent to patrol the border. It is true that our border should be more tightly patrolled, but the fact that we have troops all over the world does not mean we have been picking soldiers up off border patrol to do so. (Although, as a side note, putting a soldier every few hundred yards along the border would probably help out a ton... its just not something the US is going to do)

Quote:
So attack until every man, woman, and child of Middle Eastern descent is dead? Obviously the problem is rooted in everyone there, right? Or do we just "Christianize" the region like we used to back in the good ol' days? If the problem is their religion and not their government, then we're fucked, right? No solution would ever work.

Clearly, this is absurd. The problem is not their religion, no matter how hard some want to make this into another Crusade (a la, George Bush). Do you see what I'm getting at? If we're killing people because of religion, that's illegal. If the problem is their government, then try diplomacy. And if you say we can't because of their religion (as you stated above), then you're advocating war because they're Muslim.


First of all... where in the world did I say, explicitly or implicitly, that all Middle Easterners must die?

The overall threat is from Muslim extremists: to think that religion isn't a part of this is delusional. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful... but the ratio of 'good Muslims' to 'bad Muslims' doesn't matter! All that matters is: are there enough of the bad ones to cause trouble? Yes, there are. Does this cause us to be weary of all Muslims? Yes, unfortunately, it does. In any case: they have made it abundantly clear that they want to kill us. That is their only goal, and religion is their reason (have you heard of Jihad?).

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group