[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by LunkHead

How is defending our nation against an act of war reducing our behavior to that of an angry lynch mob????

First, you cannot "defend" against an agressive act that has already been carried out, by carrying out another agressive act.

Second, punishing the wrongdoers -- the people who ordered and carried out the attack -- is something I am very much in favor of. But bombing the home nation of the wrongdoers, as opposed to napalming the individuals responsible, is morally irresponsible, bad politics, and (to someone like me): evil.

[LunkHead]

Originally Posted by kathrynhr

First, you cannot "defend" against an agressive act that has already been carried out, by carrying out another agressive act.

You can prevent the next by information / intelligence gained or by the deterrent that if you do it, your nation is a now a large parking lot for the nation that borders you...

Second, punishing the wrongdoers -- the people who ordered and carried out the attack -- is something I am very much in favor of. But bombing the home nation of the wrongdoers, as opposed to napalming the individuals responsible, is morally irresponsible, bad politics, and (to someone like me): evil.

If the nation sponsored it, supported it, ect..., then the nation is just as guilty as the perpetrator of it...

Kris

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by LunkHead

You can prevent the next.....

No, you cannot. You may delay it, but you cannot prevent it. If someone is sufficiently motivated to kill, they will find the means.

Originally Posted by LunkHead

If the nation sponsored it, supported it, ect..., then the nation is just as guilty as the perpetrator of it...

I draw a distinction between the government officials of a nation and its people.

Take Iraq for an example: the Iraqi people were no more responsible for Saddam Hussein's actions than you and I are for either Bush's or Obama's. Less so, in fact, since they did not vote.

Even an American who agreed with Bush's actions in theory, might behave differently if his own finger were pressing the button.

[test54]

Originally Posted by LunkHead

You can prevent the next by information / intelligence gained or by the deterrent that if you do it, your nation is a now a large parking lot for the nation that borders you...

If the nation sponsored it, supported it, ect..., then the nation is just as guilty as the perpetrator of it...

Kris

You cannot prevent all terrorism, its that saying "you have to be right all the time and they just have to be right just once". And as stated before these terrorist groups do not have entire countries supporting them, even Afghanistan had people who were anti-Taliban so should they be wiped out also?

The major difference I see here is that you think fighting terrorism is just like fighting a whole country. Its nothing like that, its small groups that freely move from country to country. They may have more support in some countries but does that mean we should level all of Afghanistan, Packistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Lebannon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank? And should we do it just to teach them a lesson? Sounds pretty arrogant and dumb.

Sorry if that might be putting words in your mouth, but when you talk of turning a country into a parking lot it does make it sound that way.

[Dawg]

If that country did nothing to stop the groups from training in their country then they are guilty as the ones doing the bombing. Seems pretty cut and dry. If one terrorist (since enemy combatant is now illegal to use) has to endure severe pain to stop one American from dieing its all worth it to me.

[test54]

So every Afghan is guilty simply because the Taliban supported Al Queda? The argument was that "your nation will be turned into a parking lot" so then all citizens are guilty because of the government's actions?

your views on torture are well known, no need in me commenting.

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by test54

So every Afghan is guilty simply because the Taliban supported Al Queda? The argument was that "your nation will be turned into a parking lot" so then all citizens are guilty because of the government's actions?

your views on torture are well known, no need in me commenting.

If you dont remove the government from power then yes.

[test54]

So those who opposed the Iraq war here in the US should have taken up arms and fought?

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by Dawg

If you dont remove the government from power then yes.

I can't agree. And your own views on personal responsibility seem at odds with this view:

Do I understand you to simultaneously believe that people should be responsible for themselves and not depend on the government... AND that people are so intertwined with their government that they can be punished collectively for its actions???

Either people are separate and distinct from their government and should behave as such - and be acknowledged as such - or people and their governments are one organism.

[test54]

well it goes along with domestic terrorists should be eventually released but suspected foreign terrorists should be executed without trials. that seems strange to me too.

[JSanders]

Face it, we're in a 20-30 year war on terrorism. It's happening, and we're just watching the tip of the iceberg the past seven years.

If you don't understand or believe this, go talk to any knowledgeable leader in international relations, politics, or diplomacy. Think the Cold War +, since most of the combatants in this are not going to come from an organized nation, and will hide beneath the covers of several nations.

All your yapping and apologetic comments about the US and our "atrocities" in Iraq will be pointless to what I expect we will see as far as war in next two decades. You and others don't really understand that this enemy wishes for religious reasons to end the U.S.'s existence and YOUR way of like as well. No amount of diplomacy will or can communicate with an 'unseen' enemy.

[test54]

Originally Posted by JSanders

All your yapping and apologetic comments about the US and our "atrocities" in Iraq will be pointless to what I expect we will see as far as war in next two decades. You and others don't really understand that this enemy wishes for religious reasons to end the U.S.'s existence and YOUR way of like as well. No amount of diplomacy will or can communicate with an 'unseen' enemy.

who mentioned atrocities in Iraq?
Cold War +? I would like to know what you mean by that. Other than time there is a huge comparison to be made in that it will be won without a huge battle.

I do understand that the "enemy" does want to end our culture but they are not a huge group. Its not a country that you can invade and turn into a parking lot. As I have stated there is a time to invade to get swift justice as it was called. But that tactic does nothing towards eliminating terrorism, it merely eliminates a fraction of their support. To me the only way you can eliminate a terrorist group is to kill or capture every single member and even then you risk spawning other groups.

Terrorist groups eventually fade away because their members lose interest in the cause or some other cause takes priority. This usually is done through cultural influence, political change or economic gains. Thats my opinion on it.

For examples of failure look to Russia & Chechnya or Israel & Hamas. Overwhelming military power is not enough to stop the terrorism.
Then look at the IRA & England, a different approach & a positive result.

And actually Al Qaeda has been attacking US interests since 1992.
But the debate over Military vs. Diplomacy is a good one and is necessary.

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by test54

So those who opposed the Iraq war here in the US should have taken up arms and fought?

I didn't mention fighting in the US did I. We are talking foreign nations

Originally Posted by kathrynhr

I can't agree. And your own views on personal responsibility seem at odds with this view:

Do I understand you to simultaneously believe that people should be responsible for themselves and not depend on the government... AND that people are so intertwined with their government that they can be punished collectively for its actions???

Either people are separate and distinct from their government and should behave as such - and be acknowledged as such - or people and their governments are one organism.

Yes, people are responsible to themselves. If they choose to stand by and do nothing about their government that supports terrorism then they are in fact responsible for what happens to them.

Originally Posted by test54

well it goes along with domestic terrorists should be eventually released but suspected foreign terrorists should be executed without trials. that seems strange to me too.

NO what I am saying is there is a big difference in the chick being released here and the true terrorist that are being released at GITMO. Your brain may combine the two but mine does not. To me she is not a terrorist she is a criminal that has become a productive member of society. The terrorist at GITMO will never become productive members of society they will always be religious killers.

[JSanders]

Originally Posted by test54

Cold War +? I would like to know what you mean by that.

Continued large military buildup and positioning ourselves around the world to preserve our nations' interest. Even in Russian-bordering nations, yes.

Originally Posted by test54

To me the only way you can eliminate a terrorist group is to kill or capture every single member and even then you risk spawning other groups.

You whittle away at them as you can, just as the US did during the Cold War. A bit here, a bit there. Peace through showing our strength and our ability respond worldwide on our on behalf and for other nations when they are threatened.

And, I agree it takes diplomacy alongside our might. Of course, that means we have the diplomats working on our behalf and not their own stupid political interest (Hillary, of course).

[test54]

Well both are needed thats for sure. I think the difference is that in the cold war we won because both out spent them and showed the Soviet people that democracy could provide some great benefits.
In this situation there is no need for a military build up because it is better to fight them with special forces and smaller groups. I completely think in this the big stick isn't needed, that its the cultural battle could do a better job. I know that will result in a few names but I have yet to come up with a terrorist group that was defeated by an outright military battle.

[JSanders]

Wirelessly posted (9530; .135 MF231)

You think only special forces could have succeeded in Afghanistan?

I think several tens of thousands of soldiers would be disappointed to hear they were inconsequential to our success there.

[test54]

well it turns out the full scale invasion did not fully work either. Osama still out there and Taliban are back and taking control of the country. It will end up with moderate Taliban with some control of the country. We may have moderated the politics but we did not wipe out the terrorists, we as I said above drove them to other places.

We succeed in regime change and killing quite a few bad guys but overall what are the end results? Soldiers do a great and brave job but if the strategy s flawed then they can do everything perfectly and still not get the necessary results.

[Dawg]

If washington would stay out of the war and let the soldiers do what they are trained to do then there would be any terrorist to go to other places. but when we cant shoot on sight thats a problem.

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by Dawg

If washington would stay out of the war and let the soldiers do what they are trained to do then there would be any terrorist to go to other places. but when we cant shoot on sight thats a problem.

Do you mean "shoot on sight" or "shoot anything that moves?"

Washington cannot stay out of the war. Civilian control of the military is as essential to our liberty as the right to bear arms.

[LunkHead]

Either way.... Kill em all and let god sort em out!