Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

Poll

Do you think the west will ever be attacked again?

Yes72%72% - 140
No7%7% - 14
Go fuck yourself20%20% - 39
Total: 193
2006-08-28 11:02:26
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6854|132 and Bush

Hopefully the world will realize that this is not limited to the west. I do think the west will be attacked again as well as places like.

Indonesian island of Bali
Karachi, Pakistan
Kenya
Riyadh, the Saudi capital
Nairobi
Spain
Britain
Chechnya
Just to scratch the surface.
Of course many people believe there is no war on terror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te … _incidents

Wonder why we aren't as sympathetic to Hezbolah?
Kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988: U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgins was kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian-backed Hizballah group while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-28 11:05:09)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-28 11:09:44
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Newsflash: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Unrelated people bore the brunt of misguided 'retaliation'.
Newsflash: HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE.  Yes that is the assumption, but there is no way to say that this is the absolute truth, you even said it yourself that people shouldn't think in absolutes as much (or something like that) and what are you doing with this statement............naive? I'm not one to judge.
I can say, based on logical reasoning, that there is a far far higher likelikood than not that Saddam had little or nothing to do with 9/11. Satisfied? Semantically OK now?

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Unrelated people?? Ok.  So than what? Put Saddam back in power, and leave? Great plan.  Instead of ALWAYS criticizing, how about offering your solution Cam.  What is your answer to the problem, what should the policy be?
Why would you put Saddam back in power? He's a war criminal remember? I love the way neo-cons can see no alternative to the way they do things!! What should policy be? Well let's look at some points/facts:
1) The Iraq war has allowed terrorist organisations to grow and gain support. It has given terrorist organisations to rally people under an 'anti-imperialism' banner. Worse than that, it has prompted citizens born and bred in the west to bomb their own country (the London bombing for example).
2) The western presence in Iraq allows terrorists a free shot at the citizens of our various countires (albeit military personnel).
3) There appears to be no endgame in Iraq. At the moment it seems like a state of perpetual guerrilla attacks against 'coaltion' forces and sectarian violence will persist for the forseeable future. How the sectarian violence will be resolved is anybody's guess.
4) Withdrawing from Iraq does not mean Saddam getting back into power. He would probably be lynched depending on how disorganised the withdrawal is. The more likely outcome would be that Iraq splits into three countries Kurdistan, a sunni region and a proxy Iranian state in the south. A Berlin wall style Baghdad could quite possibly emerge.
5) Staying in Iraq seems to serve no purpose whatsoever at the moment. Answer me these question Lowing refused to answer: How does the war in Iraq minimise terrorism? Does the war in Iraq make attacks on the US homeland more or less likely? Do you believe terrorism can ever be fully eradicated from anywhere, let alone the entire middle east? Do you think terrorism can be eradicated using brute force alone? I don't see what is being achieved in Iraq in terms of what the president sold the US public - first WMD, then the laughable 'war on terror'.
6) Would focussing all ones efforts on domestic security not be far more beneficial given that terrorists attacks on the west will always be INEVITABLE and the fact that the war in Iraq does NOTHING to prevent or address the cause of terrorism?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-28 11:25:22)

2006-08-28 11:12:09
jonsimon
Member
+224|6749
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the US has made a lot of enemies.
2006-08-28 11:16:59
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

Kmarion wrote:

Hopefully the world will realize that this is not limited to the west. I do think the west will be attacked again as well as places like.

Indonesian island of Bali
Karachi, Pakistan
Kenya
Riyadh, the Saudi capital
Nairobi
Spain
Britain
Chechnya
Just to scratch the surface.
Of course many people believe there is no war on terror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te … _incidents

Wonder why we aren't as sympathetic to Hezbolah?
Kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988: U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgins was kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian-backed Hizballah group while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon.
I've dealt with this before. Radical islam is only connected to one or two of the events listed.

Bali - attack aimed at AUSTRALIAN tourists. Australia is a western country with troops in Iraq.

Kenya - attack aimed at Israeli plane, Israeli is only a 'western country' by US thinking. Israel is at war with its neighbours and should expect such attacks.

Spain - attack occurred due to stationing of Spanish troops in Iraq, since withdrawn. Spain happens also to be a WESTERN nation.

Nairobi - was that not an attack on the US embassy? As such, it was aimed at the west.

Britain - WESTERN country attacked for supporting the US and having troops in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia - the Saudi government is seen as a US puppet (and rightly so). Attacks there aim to dislodge the ruling classes and return control to what they might desribe as 'proper muslims'. If the House of Saud didn't have its head lodged firmly between GWB's legs they might not be getting attacked!

Chechnya - nothing to do with anything we have been talking about on this forum. They are not radical islamists wanting to convert the world. They want a homeland - a State of Chechnya they can call their own - much like the George Washingtons of the British-ruled America.

Karachi - a military dictatorship supported by the US who are actively engaged in fighting Al Qaeda on behalf of the US can expect nothing less than to be attacked.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-28 11:18:23)

2006-08-28 11:20:48
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6796|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Newsflash: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Unrelated people bore the brunt of misguided 'retaliation'.
Newsflash: HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE.  Yes that is the assumption, but there is no way to say that this is the absolute truth, you even said it yourself that people shouldn't think in absolutes as much (or something like that) and what are you doing with this statement............naive? I'm not one to judge.
I can say, based on logical reasoning, that there is a far far higher likelikood than not that Saddam had little or nothing to do with 9/11. Satisfied? Semantically OK now?

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Unrelated people?? Ok.  So than what? Put Saddam back in power, and leave? Great plan.  Instead of ALWAYS criticizing, how about offering your solution Cam.  What is your answer to the problem, what should the policy be?
Why would you put Saddam back in power? He's a war criminal remember? I love the way neo-cons can see no alternative to the way they do things!! What should policy be? Well let's look at some points/facts:
1) The Iraq war has allowed terrorist organisations to grow and gain support. It has given terrorist organisations to rally people under an 'anti-imperialism' banner. Worse than that, it has prompted citizens born and bred in the west to bomb their own country (the London bombing for example).
2) The western presence in Iraq allows terrorists a free shot at the citizens of our various countires (albeit military personnel).
3) There appears to be no endgame in Iraq. At the moment it seems like a state of perpetual guerrilla attacks against 'coaltion' forces and sectarian violence will persist for the forseeable future. How the sectarian violence will be resolved is anybody's guess.
4) Withdrawing from Iraq does not mean Saddam getting back into power. He would probably be lynched depending on how disorganised the withdrawal is. The more likely outcome would be that Iraq splits into three countries Kurdistan, a sunni region and a proxy Iranian state in the south. A Berlin wall style Baghdad could quite possibly emerge.
5) Staying in Iraq seems to serve no purpose whatsoever at the moment. Answer me these question Lowing refused to answer: How does the war in Iraq minimise terrorism? Does the war in Iraq make attacks on the US homeland more or less likely? Do you believe terrorism can ever be fully eradicated from anywhere, let alone the entire middle east? Do you think terrorism can be eradicated using brute force alone? I don't see what is being achieved in Iraq in terms of what the president sold the US public - first WMD, then the laughable 'war on terror'.
6) Would focussing all ones efforts on domestic security not be far more beneficial given that terrorists attacks on the west will always be INEVITABLE and the fact that the war in Iraq does NOTHING to prevent or address the cause of terrorism?
6)
Damn you for derailing your own thread.
2006-08-28 11:27:02
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

Pug wrote:

Damn you for derailing your own thread.
D'oh! It is pertinent to the question at hand though. Will the west be attacked again? The response is 'Yes'. The questions which follow are 'What is going wrong?', 'Why hasn't the threat diminished?', 'What are we gonna do about it?', 'Where have we failed?', etc.
2006-08-28 11:27:57
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6854|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

1) The Iraq war has allowed terrorist organisations to grow and gain support. It has given terrorist organisations to rally people under an 'anti-imperialism' banner. Worse than that, it has prompted citizens born and bred in the west to bomb their own country (the London bombing for example).
2) The western presence in Iraq allows terrorists a free shot at the citizens of our various countires (albeit military personnel).
3) There appears to be no endgame in Iraq. At the moment it seems like a state of perpetual guerrilla attacks against 'coaltion' forces and sectarian violence will persist for the forseeable future. How the sectarian violence will be resolved is anybody's guess.
4) Withdrawing from Iraq does not mean Saddam getting back into power. He would probably be lynched depending on how disorganised the withdrawal is. The more likely outcome would be that Iraq splits into three countries Kurdistan, a sunni region and a proxy Iranian state in the south. A Berlin wall style Baghdad could quite possibly emerge.
5) Staying in Iraq seems to serve no purpose whatsoever at the moment. Answer me these question Lowing refused to answer: How does the war in Iraq minimise terrorism? Does the war in Iraq make attacks on the US homeland more or less likely? Do you believe terrorism can ever be fully eradicated from anywhere, let alone the entire middle east? Do you think terrorism can be eradicated using brute force alone? I don't see what is being achieved in Iraq in terms of what the president sold the US public - first WMD, then the laughable 'war on terror'.
6) Would focussing all ones efforts on domestic security not be far more beneficial given that terrorists attacks on the west will always be INEVITABLE and the fact that the war in Iraq does NOTHING to prevent or address the cause of terrorism?
6)
1. Agreed
2.Agreed
3.Agreed. Iraqi's are the only ones who can decide their fate.
4.Whether it's one nation or three I still see waring factions.
5.Purpose:to try to help stablizine the govt. (Whether it's a possiblilty is unknown).
   Minimize: We are fighting them in their region. Eradicated using brute force alone? No, we are trying to   
                 educate them with freedom which they obviously can not handle.
   WMD's: Wrong reasons but doesn't negate every other reason to remove Saddam.
6.Being in Iraq does not mean no one is watching the home front.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-28 11:30:01
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

I can say, based on logical reasoning, that there is a far far higher likelikood than not that Saddam had little or nothing to do with 9/11. Satisfied? Semantically OK now? YES THANK YOU FINALLY

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Unrelated people?? Ok.  So than what? Put Saddam back in power, and leave? Great plan.  Instead of ALWAYS criticizing, how about offering your solution Cam.  What is your answer to the problem, what should the policy be?
Why would you put Saddam back in power? He's a war criminal remember? I love the way neo-cons can see no alternative to the way they do things!! What should policy be? Well let's look at some points/facts:
1) Worse than that, it has prompted citizens
2) The western presence in Iraq allows terrorists a free shot at the citizens of our various countires (albeit military personnel).
3) There appears to be no endgame in Iraq. At the moment it seems like a state of perpetual guerrilla attacks against 'coaltion' forces and sectarian violence will persist for the forseeable future. How the sectarian violence will be resolved is anybody's guess.
4) Withdrawing from Iraq does not mean Saddam getting back into power.
5) A) How does the war in Iraq minimise terrorism?
    B) Does the war in Iraq make attacks on the US homeland more or less likely?
    C) Do you believe terrorism can ever be fully eradicated from anywhere, let alone the entire middle east?       
    D) Do you think terrorism can be eradicated using brute force alone?
6) the fact that the war in Iraq does NOTHING to prevent or address the cause of terrorism?
pre 1) LMFAO, I didn't say that I saw NO ALTERNATIVE, so by asking what you think, I display that I am unable to comprehend any alternatives OK, I like how libs like to just automatically label me without reason, and No putting Saddam back would be stupid, I WAS asking your opinion, I'll read on here....

1) Sure sure, I agree about the imperialism, capitalism issue, that has been like that forever, once again not a Bush problem.....regular citizens just get disgruntled and bomb their own country....OMFG you've got to be kidding me, you actually believe that REGULAR CITIZENS are angry at America and the "War On Terror" and bomb their own country.  Or did you mean to say that it has created a more suitable environment for terrorist cells to function??  I would agree with that....

2) Agreed.

3) I agree as well, it is very annoying, and it is perpetual, that is why we need to really just boost their security as much as possible in about a year, and get out.

4) I never said withdrawing meant putting Saddam back, never even implied that.  I said sarcastically "Whats your idea put him back in power and withdraw" Was a joke.

5) Ok Wow I have to split these up hold on let me answer 6 first.

6) I disagree that going to Iraq has done NOTHING to improve our security.  I would say it has improved one part and weakened another. Careful with that fact word, seems like your opinion.  Ok now to five.

5) A) It minimises(sp?) terrorism by engaging an enemy and hopefully either by defeating it or decreasing its morale it will go away.  This has not been the case and I agree with you has been a failure.  That intention certainly was well meant but the process was botched.  And that can be debated on whether or not it would have worked anyway with the guerrilla like tactics it seems impossible.  Like I said it has minimised a threat from one group and created different threates.  One step forward, two steps back.

    B) Depends, can't say for sure, the impression is that it will make it more likely because of it enraging people because of America's imperialistic cause blah blah blah, but that does not neccessarily MAKE it more likely, it only makes it seem more likely due to people's emotions.  (For the most part yes)

    C) Somewhat of a rhetorical question, OF COURSE NOT, but we can't just do nothing.  Thats not very smart.

     D) Nope, it takes the cooperation of many and the strength of few.  Force can not and will not defeat terrorism.  It is all about ideology, beliefs, and values.

So why were we attacked on 9/11 at all, what did the US do that was SOOOO terrible as to justify murder on many different int'l citizens, not just US.  Why do terrorists always have to be so extreme.  What happened to talks and agreements?  What happened to letting each other live peacefully.  Why can't we just reach an agreement, have Israel pull back some, move out of Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries IF AND ONLY IF those countries stop progressing towards either nuclear weapons (refusal of searches) and other forms of threats.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-28 11:31:02)

2006-08-28 11:32:20
[Project.D]-Demon
Member
+1|6746|Alberta
George W Bush is the Terrorest.
2006-08-28 11:37:26
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6796|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

Damn you for derailing your own thread.
D'oh! It is pertinent to the question at hand though. Will the west be attacked again? The response is 'Yes'. The questions which follow are 'What is going wrong?', 'Why hasn't the threat diminished?', 'What are we gonna do about it?', 'Where have we failed?', etc.
Uhh no...actually you planted the Iraq does not equal 9/11 seed.  A.W. took the bait...off we go...

Please tell me how arguing about WHY the US attacked Iraq supports the an argument that "The West will/will not be attacked again"?
2006-08-28 11:38:44
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

[Project.D]-Demon wrote:

George W Bush is the Terrorest.
A very well informed and intelligent post, lots of facts.  I'm glad thats your opinion, you are free to it.  But you honestly sound like a moron.  Care to explain your views go ahead, but don't just flame and go away.
2006-08-28 11:39:25
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

Kmarion wrote:

4.Whether it's one nation or three I still see waring factions.
5.Purpose:to try to help stablizine the govt. (Whether it's a possiblilty is unknown).
   Minimize: We are fighting them in their region. Eradicated using brute force alone? No, we are trying to   
                 educate them with freedom which they obviously can not handle.
   WMD's: Wrong reasons but doesn't negate every other reason to remove Saddam.
6.Being in Iraq does not mean no one is watching the home front.
4) Let them have their war. It isn't the wests war to fight. Iraq was glued together by a megalomaniacal bloodthirsty dictator. The violent underbelly of ethnic tension in Iraq has now been freely exposed, let them fight it out like most other nations have had to during their respective struggles for independence and freedom.

5) The 'Purpose:' you stated does seem to me to be pretty much the sum total of what the coalition are trying to achieve. The 'Minimize:' statement doesn't really make sense to me. Iraqis never perpetrated acts against the US homeland. Acts against the US homeland are no doubt being concocted all over the middle east and elsewhere as we speak, fighting Iraqis isn't addressing that. The fight in Iraq from a 'war on terror' viewpoint seems futile to me - to me it's a sad waste of useful military lives - soldiers are US men and women too you know. Sacrificing them for no good reason to me is a crime. 'Educate them with freedom': It doesn't quite look like your picture postcard version of freedom to me. Abu Ghraib was quite an 'education' I might add. WMDs- you're right it was poor reasoning but unlike you I don't believe in 'bringing democracy' to other countries. THey have to want it and win it for themselves. Just like Ireland did, just like USA did, just like many other democracies did.
6) Agreed.
2006-08-28 11:43:24
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

THey have to want it and win it for themselves. Just like Ireland did, just like USA did, just like many other democracies did.
Anyone help Ireland, Anyone Help the USA? They were helping to spread democracy.  How is that any different?
2006-08-28 11:45:42
jonsimon
Member
+224|6749

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

THey have to want it and win it for themselves. Just like Ireland did, just like USA did, just like many other democracies did.
Anyone help Ireland, Anyone Help the USA? They were helping to spread democracy.  How is that any different?
The US asked for help? Perhaps even to the point of desperation.
2006-08-28 11:45:45
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

THey have to want it and win it for themselves. Just like Ireland did, just like USA did, just like many other democracies did.
Anyone help Ireland, Anyone Help the USA? They were helping to spread democracy.  How is that any different?
Nobody helped Ireland. Unless you count repatriated money from relatives being sent back to the old sod from the US. To have not won it on our own merits would have devalued it. TO feel as though it was owed to another entity would definitely devalue it in my opinion. Especially if the structure of said democracy was guided in a particular direction by said 'benevolent' interventionist.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-28 11:47:37)

2006-08-28 11:46:48
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

THey have to want it and win it for themselves. Just like Ireland did, just like USA did, just like many other democracies did.
Anyone help Ireland, Anyone Help the USA? They were helping to spread democracy.  How is that any different?
Nobody helped Ireland. Unless you count repatriated money from relatives being sent back to the old sod from the US.
Ok well I didn't know, thats why I asked.  And don't forget Cam, I answered ALL your questions time to answer mine!!!

Edit: In case you missed them, please tell me you didn't miss my HUMUNGO post. 

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) So why were we attacked on 9/11 at all, what did the US do that was SOOOO terrible as to justify murder on many different int'l citizens, not just US.

2) Why do terrorists always have to be so extreme.  What happened to talks and agreements?  What happened to letting each other live peacefully. 

3) Why can't we just reach an agreement, have Israel pull back some, move out of Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries IF AND ONLY IF those countries stop progressing towards either nuclear weapons (refusal of searches) and other forms of threats?

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-28 11:49:39)

2006-08-28 12:02:18
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

pre 1) LMFAO, I didn't say that I saw NO ALTERNATIVE, so by asking what you think, I display that I am unable to comprehend any alternatives OK, I like how libs like to just automatically label me without reason, and No putting Saddam back would be stupid, I WAS asking your opinion, I'll read on here....
I was aware of the fact you were joking, as was I, sarcasm often gets lost in the ether over the internet....


AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) Sure sure, I agree about the imperialism, capitalism issue, that has been like that forever, once again not a Bush problem.....regular citizens just get disgruntled and bomb their own country....OMFG you've got to be kidding me, you actually believe that REGULAR CITIZENS are angry at America and the "War On Terror" and bomb their own country.  Or did you mean to say that it has created a more suitable environment for terrorist cells to function??  I would agree with that....
They aren't 'bombing their own country'. They're bombing things in their own country. People to be exact. Perceived invaders are one set of people. The other set are those that practice a slightly different religion from them or are slightly ethnically different from them. I think mostly the people who are invovlefd in the fighting are extremists but I would say that the moderate contingeny is growing daily as they see that they need to fight to protect their communities and their interests. The fact that the US presence has made scant difference to their living conditions under Saddam (some have even deteriorated) will give them a pretext to lash out at their supposed 'saviours'. As to your question: I do believe it has created a more suitable environment for terrorist cells to train and function but I also believe people who were not terrorists are now becoming what some might describe as 'terrorists'.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

4) I never said withdrawing meant putting Saddam back, never even implied that.  I said sarcastically "Whats your idea put him back in power and withdraw" Was a joke.
Addressed above.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

6) I disagree that going to Iraq has done NOTHING to improve our security.  I would say it has improved one part and weakened another. Careful with that fact word, seems like your opinion.  Ok now to five.
I would like to know how it has improved 'one part' of your security. Please explain.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

5) A) It minimises(sp?) terrorism by engaging an enemy and hopefully either by defeating it or decreasing its morale it will go away.  This has not been the case and I agree with you has been a failure.  That intention certainly was well meant but the process was botched.  And that can be debated on whether or not it would have worked anyway with the guerrilla like tactics it seems impossible.  Like I said it has minimised a threat from one group and created different threates.  One step forward, two steps back.

    B) Depends, can't say for sure, the impression is that it will make it more likely because of it enraging people because of America's imperialistic cause blah blah blah, but that does not neccessarily MAKE it more likely, it only makes it seem more likely due to people's emotions.  (For the most part yes)

    C) Somewhat of a rhetorical question, OF COURSE NOT, but we can't just do nothing.  Thats not very smart.

     D) Nope, it takes the cooperation of many and the strength of few.  Force can not and will not defeat terrorism.  It is all about ideology, beliefs, and values.
Largely agreed.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

So why were we attacked on 9/11 at all, what did the US do that was SOOOO terrible as to justify murder on many different int'l citizens, not just US.  Why do terrorists always have to be so extreme.  What happened to talks and agreements?  What happened to letting each other live peacefully.  Why can't we just reach an agreement, have Israel pull back some, move out of Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries IF AND ONLY IF those countries stop progressing towards either nuclear weapons (refusal of searches) and other forms of threats.
I cannot tell you why the US was attacked on 9/11 specifically. That small group of maniacs who organised and perpetrated the act can only tell us that. It could be as simple as Osama getting his own back on having been exiled from his homeland and his family. It could be to do with the controlling interests the US has in the natural resources of the region (a sort of invisible imperialism if you like). They could genuinely be very deluded individuals who think that such acts will make the west run in fear and Islam will grow to dominate the world (preposterous). The people who perpetrated 9/11 are incapable of talks and agreements and we shouldn't even pretend that they can be talked to. They are a tiny minority - let's not make them a majority. Let's address the issues that funnel people into becoming an extremist. Let's play fair on the international stage. Let's allow people to run their own affairs. Let's respond militarily to clear and present threats - not perceived possible threats. Let's respond diplomatically to perceived possible threats.

My bottom line on this is that if the Israel-Palestine issue is resolved Islamic extremists have lost their biggest billboard for recruiting people and extremism will die as affluence returns to the region and softens peoples attitudes.
2006-08-28 12:09:26
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

1) I would like to know how it has improved 'one part' of your security. Please explain.

2) Let's respond militarily to clear and present threats - not perceived possible threats. Let's respond diplomatically to perceived possible threats.

3) My bottom line on this is that if the Israel-Palestine issue is resolved Islamic extremists have lost their biggest billboard for recruiting people and extremism will die as affluence returns to the region and softens peoples attitudes.
1) We (the US) have stopped a small part of Al Qaeda and other extremists in the Iraq/Afghan area from attacking us, it has enabled or created an environment for others (either Al Qaeda) in other regions to attack us.  Like I said, one step forward, two steps back.

2) Don't you think it is neccessary sometimes to be a little more proactive when it comes to things like dictators and leaders refusing UN inspection....(Iraq, Iran, N.Korea at times).  Why should we play fair when they don't.  When they time and time again violate UN sanctions?

3) Agreed.  Sure would be nice.
2006-08-28 12:26:19
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) We (the US) have stopped a small part of Al Qaeda and other extremists in the Iraq/Afghan area from attacking us, it has enabled or created an environment for others (either Al Qaeda) in other regions to attack us.  Like I said, one step forward, two steps back.

2) Don't you think it is neccessary sometimes to be a little more proactive when it comes to things like dictators and leaders refusing UN inspection....(Iraq, Iran, N.Korea at times).  Why should we play fair when they don't.  When they time and time again violate UN sanctions?
1) Agreed-ish.
2) The proactive stance with Iraq has damaged US credibility considerably. As a result, allies will be far more reluctant now to back US actions when the need to act may really be pressing. Alienating worlwide public opinion means overtly pro-US canditates will fair less well in elections in allied (western) nations also. The fact of the matter is the west will always be light years ahead of the despots in terms of military superiority. If they do pose a real threat it will be obvious and they will know that by making that real threat their complete annihilation will ensue. No actual direct warfare took place between USA and the USSR all throughout the Cold War. I don't believe there would be any difference if one of the despot regimes developed WMD - the beauty of deterrency. The fact of the matter is we would be able to nip their plans in the bud as soon as it became obvious that they had developed them. No 'USSR' would ever be allowed to develop into maturity. Diplomacy has yet to be exhausted with Iran - sanctions may yet be served upon them. This saga has a long way to go yet.

Personally I don't feel threatened by Iran at all. Americans might because they often seem indivisible from Israel! The fact of the matter is Europe has little or no affection for Israel and USA practically is Israel. As such, you see Iran very much as YOUR problem. The fact of the matter is though that all Iran is interested in is settling scores with Israel. The fact that US unconditionally backs Israel has drawn them into the fray. Iran would NEVER attack USA. It has more sense than that.
2006-08-28 12:55:41
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

1) If they do pose a real threat it will be obvious and they will know that by making that real threat their complete annihilation will ensue.

2) No actual direct warfare took place between USA and the USSR all throughout the Cold War.

3) the beauty of deterrency.

4) The fact of the matter is we would be able to nip their plans in the bud as soon as it became obvious that they had developed them.

5) No 'USSR' would ever be allowed to develop into maturity. Diplomacy has yet to be exhausted with Iran - sanctions may yet be served upon them. This saga has a long way to go yet.
1) Not always true, but I get your point since you are referring to the Iranian type regime with regards to nuclear energy/weapons.

2) Yep, and it was a far different time with more simple boundaries.  It was a uniformed state against a uniformed state...read on to 3.

3) Doesn't work in the long run with rogue states or crazy people (Iran, N.Korea).  The problem is not a direct threat from either of them, it is their allies and those they do trade with that would more easily be able to sneak a dirty bomb in say to Seattle where we have the 2nd biggest port in the nation, and less than 5% containers are fully examined or checked at all.

4) I agree, but only with the larger states and not those they trade with, refer to 3 again.

5) Agreed.  Let's hope Iran doens't do anything drastic to Israel. 

Do you think that Iran has a RIGHT to be angry at Israel?
Do you think that Iran has a RIGHT to destroy Israel?
2006-08-28 13:02:54
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) Do you think that Iran has a RIGHT to be angry at Israel?
2) Do you think that Iran has a RIGHT to destroy Israel?
1) Yes.
2) No.
2006-08-28 13:31:29
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6944|Tampa Bay Florida

Lisik wrote:

u all saw what hapens to lebanon who was shooting katushas on israel... now think what israel were doing to iraq, who was shooting SCUDS on tel aviv!

if usa wasnt taking sadam off, israel were nucking iraq to hell!

add: and if israel were nucking iraq to hell... bin laden were attacking west with all his power!
You should write bedtime stories for kids...... you're stories are fast paced, intense, and have impossbile endings.  I was literally cheering when I read that story, you are so damn good.
2006-08-28 14:41:16
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6898|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) Do you think that Iran has a RIGHT to be angry at Israel?
2) Do you think that Iran has a RIGHT to destroy Israel?
1) Yes.
2) No.
Excellent you have passed the Albert Wesker sanity test.  Congratulations, you've won an all paid trip to Tehran.
2006-08-28 14:49:12
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

1) Do you think that Iran has a RIGHT to be angry at Israel?
2) Do you think that Iran has a RIGHT to destroy Israel?
1) Yes.
2) No.
Excellent you have passed the Albert Wesker sanity test.  Congratulations, you've won an all paid trip to Tehran.
I actually really want to go to Iran on holiday - a buddy of mine went and said it was amazing!! Problem is: Israeli stamped passport!!!!! Unless I 'accidentally' lose my passport I won't be going there any time soon. Same thing happened with Iraq - I wanted to go there but I chose Palestine to go to first and then !!kablamo!! Iraq war: trip to Iraq out of the question. Hold off on Iran until I've got my tourist pics will ye? Please?

Incidentally I'm trying to organise a long weekend in Istanbul with my parents for after I come back from Cuba: nice going Kurdish militants - you just made my mum and dad shit their pants. I'll go on my own if I have to.

Derail:

Among other pics you'll find my Israel/Palestine/Jordan photos here>>

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=32819

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-28 14:54:16)

2006-08-28 15:12:04
USAFDude_1988
Will fly for food.
+120|6763|Daytona Beach, FL

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

[Project.D]-Demon wrote:

George W Bush is the Terrorest.
A very well informed and intelligent post, lots of facts.  I'm glad thats your opinion, you are free to it.  But you honestly sound like a moron.  Care to explain your views go ahead, but don't just flame and go away.
LoL.

I believe our greatest threat right now is a nuclear warhead from North Korea detonated a few hundred miles over the US. In my opinion, the devastation would be much greater than any direct nuclear attack on any US city. The EMP would knock out our whole command and control structure for weeks if not months. God knows how many bad guys would take advantage of this situation.

Last edited by USAFDude_1988 (2006-08-28 15:17:19)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard