Has Bush's war in Iraq made the world a safer place?

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Saturday Dec 16, 2006

Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here, and please correct me if I'm wrong in my definitions, but isn't terrorism an attack on civilians? The attack on the U.S.S. Cole was against military personel and would be considered an act of war, not terrorism. Am I wrong in my thinking here? Kent did specify when was the last time an act of terrorism was committed.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism

bfoust · Post by **bfoust** » Saturday Dec 16, 2006

sorry banditos, it was a stupid quick reply because i was bored. i don't intend to troll.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Saturday Dec 16, 2006

bassist_25 wrote:Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here, and please correct me if I'm wrong in my definitions, but isn't terrorism an attack on civilians? The attack on the U.S.S. Cole was against military personel and would be considered an act of war, not terrorism. Am I wrong in my thinking here? Kent did specify when was the last time an act of terrorism was committed.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism

Geez, Paul, talk about splitting hairs. Here's why I lump it in with "terror attacks:"

Al Quaida did it. Al Quaida is enemy #1 in this so called "war on terror". It was an attack on US property where hundreds of Americans live and work. It was an attack that killed 17 Americans. It also happened during "peacetime," without prior engagement. To discount that event in any context is nothing more than selective compassion. Those 17 lives count in my book.

If you want to split some more hairs...technically, the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 fits the description in this thread. Is it relevant? Probably not, but it fits the bill all the same.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Saturday Dec 16, 2006

I fail to see a useful purpose for this thread. I suppose it could devolve into mindless Bush bashing, but that would accomplish nothing.

I think the tone seems to be something about whether our national security is made better or worse by the Iraq war.

Regarding national security (a topic with which I worked for 8 years), I think that the various aspects of the Iraq war tend to cancel each other out. For instance: While its true that our actions have driven more middle-easterners to the terrorist ranks, most of these new lemmings are volunteering as targets in Iraq. The war is a great big NEUTRAL for homeland security.

The odds favor that a sudden removal of US troops from Iraq without a political resolution would be a net negative for national security because there aren't many favorable outcomes in that scenario.

Some may say that by tying up our troops in Iraq, we cannot deal with the threats from Iran and South Korea. This is the just about the most clueless position that I have ever heard regarding matters of national security. To the military and intelligence communities, both North Korea and Iran are taboo when it comes to deployment of regular ground troops. It will not happen. The "troops are tied up" arguments don't wash because they are not needed elsewhere at this time. They are constitutionally forbidden from acting stateside....except....it would be nice if they could come back for some well deserved R&R.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sunday Dec 17, 2006

I haven't commented in this thread yet. (Much to the happiness of some of you lol).

Colon Powell was ask (on TV today) if the war in Iraq has made us safer. He was quick to answer' "No." . His reasoning was, we have less resources available to make us safer in the USA because our resources are tied up in the Iraq war.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sunday Dec 17, 2006

Hawk wrote:I haven't commented in this thread yet. (Much to the happiness of some of you lol).

Colon Powell was ask (on TV today) if the war in Iraq has made us safer. He was quick to answer' "No." . His reasoning was, we have less resources available to make us safer in the USA because our resources are tied up in the Iraq war.

So what would he do with the troops here, put tanks and Bradlees on our interstates? Just because Colon Powell said it does not mean it makes sense.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sunday Dec 17, 2006

undercoverjoe wrote:
Hawk wrote:I haven't commented in this thread yet. (Much to the happiness of some of you lol).

Colon Powell was ask (on TV today) if the war in Iraq has made us safer. He was quick to answer' "No." . His reasoning was, we have less resources available to make us safer in the USA because our resources are tied up in the Iraq war.
So what would he do with the troops here, put tanks and Bradlees on our interstates? Just because Colon Powell said it does not mean it makes sense.

I never said I agree with him ! I haven't posted in this thread in part, because I don't know the answer. I just thought it was interesting he was ask the same question.

And to lonewolf, the thread title / question only asks if we are safer. Not if the war was / is justified, so no Bush bashing here.

Now that we're in the war, we need a logical conclusion. Which means NOT a time scheduled departure. But a situation scheduled departure.

Rather than staying the course, we need to cause / make things happen. The Iraq military is infiltrated with terrorists. So we can't count on them. And there are war lords with the Kurds sunni and shiites. We need to bring them together and give them some power . General Patton gave positions to Nazi's in Germany after WW II because they new what works more than anyone else. And don't expect a Iraq democracy who favors us, the USA.

grimmbass · Post by **grimmbass** » Sunday Dec 17, 2006

The Oklahoma City bombing was caused by domestic terrorists (Tim McVeigh and his cronies were U.S. Citizens).

How do we win the war on terror?

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

We win the war by killing all the people that wanna kill us. The radical muslims look at it as a win-win situation. They kill us, they win. They die killing us, they win. So with thinking like that, lets help them win by killing them all.

But seriously, all this liberal "technicality" crap has to go. We are fighting a war for Pete's sake, not a courtroom battle.

grimmbass · Post by **grimmbass** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

There is nothing "liberal" about addressing specific points.

Rob: Please explain how we go about "killing all the people that wanna kill us," and making the world a safer place.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

grimmbass wrote:There is nothing "liberal" about addressing specific points.

Rob: Please explain how we go about "killing all the people that wanna kill us," and making the world a safer place.

There is something liberal about applying court rules to war.

And, I don't know how to do it, but we gotta do it, or we will be in a lot of trouble.

grimmbass · Post by **grimmbass** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

Rob: Explain how asking for specific questions to be answered in context is liberal.

BDR · Post by **BDR** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

Bush bashing? Sure, why not ...

r:>)

BDR · Post by **BDR** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

RobTheDrummer wrote:There is something liberal about applying court rules to war.

Ever hear of the Geneva Conventions?

r:>)

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

BadDazeRob wrote:
RobTheDrummer wrote:There is something liberal about applying court rules to war.
Ever hear of the Geneva Conventions?

r:>)

Ever hear of the Golden Rule ??? They aren't following the Geneva Convention, so the golden rule falls into place ..

AtoMikEnRtiA · Post by **AtoMikEnRtiA** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

oh yes, because they aren't following the rules of war - we shouldn't either then right.. is that how it goes?

i guess that means it's time to turn the middle east into glass with nepalm.. because hey - they would do the same..

tell you what.. this goes for everybody.. take a minute - pull your heads out of your asses and use your heads to think for a minute about this..

RobtheDummer - there is nothing liberal about making sure that during war - our government doesn't break the fucking law. some of the methods of torture that we have used in this fucking glorious war -- are not only moronic and in-effective BUT ILLEGAL.. making sure how we fight this so-called "great american conflict" in the context of our CONSTITUTION is not only paramount.. but it's our responsibility as citizens..

undercoverjoe - sometimes it amazes me at just how you're capable of intellegent walking and wiping of your ass - im sorry, so 9/11 is clinton's fault.. because he didn't blow the middle east out of the water after the USS Cole was attacked? I'm sorry.. he was too busy getting government clerks to suck his dick in the oval office while that was going on -- honestly i'd rather have my president cheating on his wife, than have my president cheating on the entire country.. what about prince bandhar being in the white house on september 12, 2001 discussing an exit of 103 saudis related to "bin laden" in fear of personal persecution.. im sorry.. if they knew something SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED?!?!! you seem to turn this into "it's the liberals" fault every time this comes up - im sorry buddy ... you're wrong again.. but hey what do i know - im just a liberal who should move to venezuela with chavez and practice socialism, where the people actually have a fucking say..

paul - good point

baddazerob - technically he does have a brain - problem is he's never used it..

BDR · Post by **BDR** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

f.sciarrillo wrote:Ever hear of the Golden Rule ??? They aren't following the Geneva Convention, so the golden rule falls into place ..

Yes I have and it is as follows: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ..." not "Do unto others as they do unto you."

r:>)

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

We didn't do any torturing in WW II. And we got big time respect from the Japanese and Germans after the war because of the way we treated POWs.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

AtoMike, glad you brought up the prince and friends getting White House help to leave the USA. Even though they had some knowledge that could have been helpful in finding Bin Laden. The Conservative news just doesn't get stuff like that out I guess.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

Hurray, Auto asshole is moving to Venesuela to be with Chavez and his liberl socialists. This topic is worth it if Autoenertia will move out of this great country.

AtoMikEnRtiA · Post by **AtoMikEnRtiA** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

undercoverjoe wrote:Hurray, Auto asshole is moving to Venesuela to be with Chavez and his liberl socialists. This topic is worth it if Autoenertia will move out of this great country.

great spelling.. let me guess -- you cut spelling classes to go hunting with a young dick cheney..

J Michaels · Post by **J Michaels** » Monday Dec 18, 2006

lonewolf wrote:The war is a great big NEUTRAL for homeland security.

Well, in that case, I personally can't think of a better use for a TRILLION dollars....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

But it's the Democrats that spend too much money.... whatever....

To quote Tango and Cash, "FUBAR, big time........."

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Dec 19, 2006

BadDazeRob wrote:
f.sciarrillo wrote:Ever hear of the Golden Rule ??? They aren't following the Geneva Convention, so the golden rule falls into place ..
Yes I have and it is as follows: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ..." not "Do unto others as they do unto you."

r:>)

My point exactly. They are killing us, so we kill them. That is what they would have us do unto them. Forget the Geneva Convention, just like the UN, it is useless ...

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Tuesday Dec 19, 2006

Allow me to follow the usual conservative path of comparing the Iraq War to World War II (instead of the Vietnam War, which I feel it's much closer to):
In WWII Europe, while Allied soldiers were treated poorly, by and large, prisoners were treated according to the accepted rules of war, receiving medical care, Red Cross benefits, etc., while the Nazi's were exterminating millions. Obviously, it wasn't Club Med, but it beat the gas chambers.
If we flaunt the Geneva Convention, what seperates us from war crime status? Because we're us? Being us is cool, but it's kinda thin as an excuse to run amok on the world stage. I love my country, but simply being an American really doesn't allow me any extra privilege outside my country. Or does it? Doesn't God Himself (who is apparently a Republican) give me the ability and, therefore, the right to "liberate" people in other countries, and install democracy?

I think it's time to stop selecting what we're calling this stupidity based on whichever moniker benefits the Bush admin on a given issue. Either we're at war, which is subject to Geneva Convention rules WE agreed to, or it's not a war, it's an unfortunate coup that plunged a country into uncontrollable chaos. Either way, the administration screwed up. After 9/11, the entire world was ready to assist in us in Afghanistan. We had carte blanche in our endeavors to destroy al Qaeda. We went to Iraq instead. Bush took the most "political capital" ever afforded an American president, and squandered it in another part of the world, and now the Taliban is again gaining strength in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda owns Somalia. Sad that the Bush Administration's legacy will be one of tilting at windmills, and using security as an excuse for making us less secure.---->JMS

grimmbass · Post by **grimmbass** » Tuesday Dec 19, 2006

From Wikipedia:

"The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental moral principle found in virtually all major religions and cultures, which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated." It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways:

* "Love your neighbor as yourself." — Moses (ca. 1525-1405 BCE) in the Torah, Leviticus 19:18
* "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE)
* "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly." - Epicurus (ca. 300 BCE)
* "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE)
* "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus (ca. 5 BCE—33 CE) in the Gospels, Luke 6:31; Luke 10:27 (affirming of Moses)— Matthew 7:12
* "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." — Muhammad (c. 571 – 632 CE) in The Farewell Sermon."